Frustrations with post and in general

[smoke665]

@weepete It's true there are some things better accomplished in Ps, but the more you can do in Lr, the faster your editing process, especially on batch processing. This might be interesting for you. ON1 was offering a plugin that brings some of the layer functionality to Lr. ON1 Effects 2019 – ON1 it was free, but even the purchase price isn't bad.

It was a difficult lesson for me to remember, but editing actually starts "before" you snap the shutter. There was a time when I had to make notes to remind me, of steps along the way, but after awhile it started becoming more instinctive. The most important point to remember is there is a difference between editing to "correct" a problem image and "creative" editing....ones a PITA and the other's fun.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

A big part of that seems to be frustration with my post processing skills. The ones I do want to edit I just can't seem to get quite right in post. I feel like I'm starting to get a bit more comfortable in photoshop, but that smooth professional of photo editing that looks so easy in the tutorials just doesn't seem to work right now in my own shots and while I can get half way there, the finished product is a long way off.

A couple of points that helped me...

We get so invested in the "how?" that we seem to miss the more important question of "why?". Tutorials will only teach you how somebody else applied *digital effect 'X'* to their digital photo. The tutorials themselves, (to pull viewers in and gain traffic), have to be generic and have to *sell* a look or effect, or how to make your digital photos look like this digital photo. There can be little empathy on the part of the tutorial as to your understanding of the subject, there can only be an understanding of the digital look or effect. It is key and the point of the process.

This is quite an important shift in thinking and one I don't think many realise that they are doing, that when you edit you now see only in terms of a digital photo and view it with the understanding of digital process, not your own human response to the original and real landscape/subject.

So why are you adding the process? Is it because you understand the subject and are trying to mould the process into that human understanding or do you understand the process and are trying to mould the subject into a generic digital *wow*?

What we also seem to do without question is keep following this path of *digital precision* as though it alone answers the question of how to achieve what we require. So ingrained is the maxim that technology provides the solution. But this is not true, technology provides only the mechanical/machine understanding. It does not capture the emotions you associate by memory and experience when you view a subject, and we always view with bias. We never see things correctly, we never see then as absolute reality. View an image of a tropical beach and feel the warm sunshine, hear the gently lapping waves. They are you memories becuse there is no temperature in the image, it was not captured. Take an image of a Scottish beach and many will still feel the warmth of the sunshine even though the actual temperature may be near freezing. What you see and feel is an association with your memory and not always absolute in the image.

When we chase this *absolute reality* that we think exists entirely within what we point the camera at and how we capture it a curious thing happens. When we follow this route of precision, follow the logic of how the camera works and how to optimise what it captures, the human understanding disappears and is replaced with a clinical recording. It's as if by rendering every detail in absolute clarity we remove our human bias and the room for our imagination. Although I use PS exclusively @Derrel is right, you will start by trying to understand PS and the processes but soon will realise that you stop understanding the subject, it becomes subservient to the process. When you start to understand the subject and try to make the process subservient to that visual understanding you will find that a lot of those processes get lobbed out the window. A lot of the stuff I do now is via adding or altering with a feathered brush, it is the movement of my hand (with a graphics tab) and not the selection of logic or algorithms. YOu will find it actually makes a big difference, especially when you let go of the idea that understanding how to use PS will help, because then you seek to understand PS rather than seeking to understand the image...

Bit of an essay... Again...

Some books that are well worth reading and continue to help me:

Robert Adams essays "Beauty in Photography".

"Photography, A concise History" Ian Jeffery. A guide to style that avoids the history of the camera, an interesting and essential viewpoint.

"The Gist of Art" John Sloan. Will shift your thinking from *the unobtainable absolute* to a representational form.

BTW, I've always thought of Lightroom as a batch editor and PS as a pixel level editor, but again the way the programs work shouldn't define how you use them, it's the way the image works.

 

[zombiesniper]

I think you do a great job with the images that I've seen.

When I run into an image that just doesn't quite feel right in the edit (I mostly edit in LR unless there is something specific only PS can do) I always take a few minutes to try and figure out what isn't quite right. I break down the basics. Lighting, colour, separation of subject, composition, etc. If I just can't seem to figure out what the "IT" is that's missing I'll continue to edit the rest and come back to the image a day or two later. Sometimes just a look with a new mind set can find the answer.
Usually for me it falls into the 'It was my best shot of "X" that day." and I really wanted it to be good enough, however that day it wasn't and just needed to be put into the learning basket as to what was missing or just not quite up to par.

 

[weepete]

they do make it look so easy in those tutorials don’t they? I think it’s likely a combination of your eye becoming more trained and thus more critical and you’re probably looking at more pro level photos from others so you have expanded your expectations as well. There’s nothing wrong with a little discontent if it fuels you to improve. But don’t let it paralyze you.

maybe set a goal to take each of those backlog photos as far as you can as a way of honing your post processes skills?

Thanks Squarepeg, I think you may well be right. I certainly have found it easier in the past if I work through my shots one by one, I seem to get more done that way. Maybe I'll feel better about them in a few months, I tend to be happier with shots I've taken after a good amount of time has past.

 

[weepete]

Weepete maybe you are discovering that your true passion lies in " as shot", rather in post processing.

More the once I have enhanced a good photo, only to come back in a few days, to discover I had simply wasted my time. I was trying to create what was not, rather than display what was.

More the once, someone has sent me "The 20 greatest pictures ever", yet my experience was shown me that icebergs really are not that pristine and so uniformly bluish white. Eagle's nest are not devoid of interfering limbs or branches and landscapes are generally not so deep and rich in color. These are great photos no doubt but to my eye the look too perfect.

Over time I have settled for cropping, exposure and simple color saturation or black and white contrast adjustments and let the subject do the talking.

There are very talented post possessing individuals, that is for certain but it is just not my thing.

Thanks Grandpa Ron, perhaps that is the case. I am struggling to form coherant thoughts on what I think about post, how much is too far and where I think the line is between photography and manipulation. I thunk that it's important to me that there is some level of honesty in my shots and what you see in them is not too far off what you could see if you were in the same place.

 

[weepete]

Have to agree with post 9. Here photography went through the HDR fad. Just about every image seemed to have had the hdr treatment some were really overlooked others were ok but had that unreal look to them. Just like the fad for milky waterfalls it has at last started to fade as peeps start to realise that you can go too far with it
As Smoke was saying. SOOC image often does not need tweeting. If I am having a planned photo session I try and plan my images in camera depending what the finished image is for.

Hahaha, I still like a bit of smoothness in water shots. HDR can be useful too, though I don't mean crushing the blacks and nuking the colours

 

[Original katomi]

Weepete, hi some HDR has brill effect but here there was a fad for over cooking the HDR, the pics took on the unreal disconnected from reality feel photographing a cave from the outside the entrance is meant to get darker until it’s black, as humans and how our sight works we don’t expect to see right to the back of the cave from outside.
Lr,PSE are all tools, as is the camera like a screw driver people use them in different ways alas I am just as bad, there are things that I know I can do in one program and not another.
I have heard too many debates on pro, cons even one speaker took over a club evening on his thought on the evil of PS like I will sometimes use a screwdriver to open a tin I sometimes use the camera with macro lens to capture a detail that is to small to read and the expand the image on the I pad. Eg silver hall mark
As for water, I cheat, I take multiple shots at different shutter speeds from frozen moment to milky and pick the one that suits me the best, normally some movement enough to show the flow.
I suppose that I am a fossil and that I am outspoken but I look at all the peeps following the latest fad and think why don’t you do your own thing.

 

[jcdeboever]

I strive to get it the image I want in the camera. I use gimp to resize images for social media. Recently I have finally purchased a license for Exposure X5 after months of trial. It is very simple and easy to understand, it doesn't get in the way of me making an image. In other words, I can do simple edits that work for me. About the only thing I edit are portraits because the GFX50R shows every skin flaw. I recently did a portrait session with my XT2 and it was way easier, didn't hardly touch it in exposure x other than a little cloning and an iris enhance.

So, I think what I'm trying to say wepete is it is important for me that the software is so simple it doesn't get in the way of me making my image. My late mentor always harped on this, he was adamant about getting it right in camera and software should be used to touch it up. A lot of people disagree with this but at this point, it works for me.

Maybe you have strayed away from your camera process and it is not matching your improved vision?

 

[smoke665]

A lot of people disagree with this but at this point, it works for me.

Judging by the responses I think there's probably way more that agree then disagree. Digital has a tendency to make people lazy.....I'll just get close and correct it in post. Eventually they come to the realization that all that "correction editing" isn't much fun. I see digital editing on two different fronts, first the editing we do to enhance an image to better match a vision, and the editing we do to create an image (as a graphic artist) from something that wasn't there. Regardless of the direction you are taking having a good data file on your image is paramount to the success of the final image.

One of the resources I've found helpful is https://www.amazon.com/Studio-Anywhere-Photographers-Unconventional-Locations/dp/0134084179 have both of his books. What's helpful on his books, are the fact that he walks you through the complete process of how he takes the shot, how he exposes, and finally how he processes in Lr (complete with the settings).

 

[weepete]

@weepete It's true there are some things better accomplished in Ps, but the more you can do in Lr, the faster your editing process, especially on batch processing. This might be interesting for you. ON1 was offering a plugin that brings some of the layer functionality to Lr. ON1 Effects 2019 – ON1 it was free, but even the purchase price isn't bad.

It was a difficult lesson for me to remember, but editing actually starts "before" you snap the shutter. There was a time when I had to make notes to remind me, of steps along the way, but after awhile it started becoming more instinctive. The most important point to remember is there is a difference between editing to "correct" a problem image and "creative" editing....ones a PITA and the other's fun.

Thanks mate, I'll check them out. I must admit I don't use presets but I'll have a look into it. One of the frustrating things is I know what I want to do in my head, but don't have the skills in PS to get there.

 

[weepete]

A couple of points that helped me...

We get so invested in the "how?" that we seem to miss the more important question of "why?". Tutorials will only teach you how somebody else applied *digital effect 'X'* to their digital photo. The tutorials themselves, (to pull viewers in and gain traffic), have to be generic and have to *sell* a look or effect, or how to make your digital photos look like this digital photo. There can be little empathy on the part of the tutorial as to your understanding of the subject, there can only be an understanding of the digital look or effect. It is key and the point of the process.

This is quite an important shift in thinking and one I don't think many realise that they are doing, that when you edit you now see only in terms of a digital photo and view it with the understanding of digital process, not your own human response to the original and real landscape/subject.

So why are you adding the process? Is it because you understand the subject and are trying to mould the process into that human understanding or do you understand the process and are trying to mould the subject into a generic digital *wow*?

What we also seem to do without question is keep following this path of *digital precision* as though it alone answers the question of how to achieve what we require. So ingrained is the maxim that technology provides the solution. But this is not true, technology provides only the mechanical/machine understanding. It does not capture the emotions you associate by memory and experience when you view a subject, and we always view with bias. We never see things correctly, we never see then as absolute reality. View an image of a tropical beach and feel the warm sunshine, hear the gently lapping waves. They are you memories becuse there is no temperature in the image, it was not captured. Take an image of a Scottish beach and many will still feel the warmth of the sunshine even though the actual temperature may be near freezing. What you see and feel is an association with your memory and not always absolute in the image.

When we chase this *absolute reality* that we think exists entirely within what we point the camera at and how we capture it a curious thing happens. When we follow this route of precision, follow the logic of how the camera works and how to optimise what it captures, the human understanding disappears and is replaced with a clinical recording. It's as if by rendering every detail in absolute clarity we remove our human bias and the room for our imagination. Although I use PS exclusively @Derrel is right, you will start by trying to understand PS and the processes but soon will realise that you stop understanding the subject, it becomes subservient to the process. When you start to understand the subject and try to make the process subservient to that visual understanding you will find that a lot of those processes get lobbed out the window. A lot of the stuff I do now is via adding or altering with a feathered brush, it is the movement of my hand (with a graphics tab) and not the selection of logic or algorithms. YOu will find it actually makes a big difference, especially when you let go of the idea that understanding how to use PS will help, because then you seek to understand PS rather than seeking to understand the image...

Bit of an essay... Again...

Some books that are well worth reading and continue to help me:

Robert Adams essays "Beauty in Photography".

"Photography, A concise History" Ian Jeffery. A guide to style that avoids the history of the camera, an interesting and essential viewpoint.

"The Gist of Art" John Sloan. Will shift your thinking from *the unobtainable absolute* to a representational form.

BTW, I've always thought of Lightroom as a batch editor and PS as a pixel level editor, but again the way the programs work shouldn't define how you use them, it's the way the image works.

Thanks Tim, there's a lot of info in there!

It's fair to say that when I'm talking about this I'm spesifically refering to my landscape shots and in them there is a why that is not lost, at least to me. I can't verbalise it as it's a wee bit esoteric and intangeble.

It fair to say that while I realise photography isn't an absolute truth (what is, eh?) that what I do is try and give some insight in to what I see. So it's as close as I can get to a little slice of my vision. To an extent it was easier when I had the time to draw and paint, though that's another story.

What I get frustrated about is when I have a vision in my head, but don't have the skill to get where I want it to be.

 

[smoke665]

I know what I want to do in my head, but don't have the skills in PS to get there.

One thing really confusing for many is there are "multiple ways" to accomplish the same task. Some might work better one time and others might work better on the next image. The easiest way I think short of taking a class on Ps, is to pick an operation, be it layers, blending, Luts......and watch every video you can find on it. Then run a video while following along doing the same thing. Eventually it will start to click as you expand your skills.

 

[weepete]

Weepete, hi some HDR has brill effect but here there was a fad for over cooking the HDR, the pics took on the unreal disconnected from reality feel photographing a cave from the outside the entrance is meant to get darker until it’s black, as humans and how our sight works we don’t expect to see right to the back of the cave from outside.
Lr,PSE are all tools, as is the camera like a screw driver people use them in different ways alas I am just as bad, there are things that I know I can do in one program and not another.
I have heard too many debates on pro, cons even one speaker took over a club evening on his thought on the evil of PS like I will sometimes use a screwdriver to open a tin I sometimes use the camera with macro lens to capture a detail that is to small to read and the expand the image on the I pad. Eg silver hall mark
As for water, I cheat, I take multiple shots at different shutter speeds from frozen moment to milky and pick the one that suits me the best, normally some movement enough to show the flow.
I suppose that I am a fossil and that I am outspoken but I look at all the peeps following the latest fad and think why don’t you do your own thing.

I do know what you mean mate, I don't follow trends so I'm ok from that perspective, though I'm not a ground breaking artist by any manner of means!

 

[weepete]

I strive to get it the image I want in the camera. I use gimp to resize images for social media. Recently I have finally purchased a license for Exposure X5 after months of trial. It is very simple and easy to understand, it doesn't get in the way of me making an image. In other words, I can do simple edits that work for me. About the only thing I edit are portraits because the GFX50R shows every skin flaw. I recently did a portrait session with my XT2 and it was way easier, didn't hardly touch it in exposure x other than a little cloning and an iris enhance.

So, I think what I'm trying to say wepete is it is important for me that the software is so simple it doesn't get in the way of me making my image. My late mentor always harped on this, he was adamant about getting it right in camera and software should be used to touch it up. A lot of people disagree with this but at this point, it works for me.

Maybe you have strayed away from your camera process and it is not matching your improved vision?

Possibly right JC, I may have been concentrating on getting the entire range in that I'm loosing a bit of precision. I'll have a wee think about my shooting technique and see if there's a way I can shoot some "anchor" shots. A lot of the time when I do landscapes I spot meter and am deliberately placing tonal values in places along the histogram. I do try and shoot one "safe" shot so I'll have a single image that I can edit if the combining doesn't work. I've got a rating button on my new camera, so I cold potentially use that to indicate what my anchor shots are then shoot through the exposure range to keep best quality detail. That should give me some defined points to hit in post. Interesting....thanks!

 

[weepete]

I think you do a great job with the images that I've seen.

When I run into an image that just doesn't quite feel right in the edit (I mostly edit in LR unless there is something specific only PS can do) I always take a few minutes to try and figure out what isn't quite right. I break down the basics. Lighting, colour, separation of subject, composition, etc. If I just can't seem to figure out what the "IT" is that's missing I'll continue to edit the rest and come back to the image a day or two later. Sometimes just a look with a new mind set can find the answer.
Usually for me it falls into the 'It was my best shot of "X" that day." and I really wanted it to be good enough, however that day it wasn't and just needed to be put into the learning basket as to what was missing or just not quite up to par.

Thanks Zombiesniper, maybe it is the case that I'm trying to do too much with these images, but I'm pretty sure that there are decent shots in there if only I could get them to where I want them to be!Currently it just seems like I pull in one direction and another point breaks!