How far is too far?

JIP · Jan 24, 2007

I am a total noob at photoshop but I know enough to know it can be pretty much the same as working in a darkroom I really think alot of the people who take the "post-processing is a cop-out" are either trying to be elitists or have no experience with darkroom work. I have done alot of B+W printing and really enjoyed the whole process, from adding contrast with filters to different exposures and crops to dodging and burning and everything else that goes into making a great print in a darkroom I have personally just come to the realization that using post-processing with digital is pretty much the same thing and as I said in my last post it can be done badly and when it is it looks really bad but it can be done well and when it is all it does is bring out the greatness in an already great photograph.

fmw · Jan 24, 2007

I think you cross the line when the photograph no longer looks natural. Ansel Adams did amazing amounts of dodging and burning on his prints but the result was always credible. No, that sky didn't exist when he made the exposure but a sky like that might have existed at another time. Manipulated to be sure but still credible. I like it to be credible too.

mysteryscribe · Jan 24, 2007

If I could step back twenty years I wouldn't do any post processing. I didn't back then. very little anyway. The photo lab did it all for me and I never had a problem with it. Too dark... Too light... Too red or too blue wasn't an issue.. somebody else fixed it.

Now you do things simply because you can. Sometimes we lose sight of the image in all the tweaks. I believe if you shoot a strong image a lot of this so called tweaking is just bs. I hear the sky is blown out a lot around here. That just doesn't bother me as much as it does some people here. My mindset is still in the time when you exposed for what was important and the devil take the rest.

I try to edit that same way now. Edit what is important and let the devil take the rest. I am in the process of scanning some old negs in. Of course back in the day, I personally (probably not everyone) felt it was more important to light the face of my clients at a wedding shoot. Given the choice between a well lit bride and a shadow on the wall you can guess what I chose. To do that safely on film, it was strong strobe and to heck with the room light. So now I am dealing with shadows that I never even thought about before. Why am I fixing them, because I can. But the big distraction is those that go above the head. Caused by the subject being higher than the light. That part of the shadow I clone out now. I don't bother to clone out a normal shadow that isn't distracting.

In my case and mine alone, The less editing the better. If I did it as if there was no editing possible as I have always done, then the amount of editing is minor.

Mine is likely a dying philosophy, but I still think a portrait is about the person not the photographer... A wedding is about what happens that day not what the photographer can make up.... If you have a factory in the background, and can remove it, sure that is a distraction. I have airbrushed them out of shots with an actual airbrush so that isn't anything new. What is new is looking for things to change for the sake of change. The old, "look what I can do ma," attitude.

I know this isn't a popular opinion but it's mine.

abraxas · Jan 25, 2007

I like doing the landscape thing, but even now that I'm getting a bit of a handle on the ps thing, I still walk away from landscapes that have undesirable hunks of humanity in them rather than clone them out. I read something about the standards for Rueter's in another thread earlier today, and think they bear consideration. Although I'm looking for maximum effect and willing to try techniques that I wouldn't have tried a year ago even, I'm looking for minimum editing, or at least not pushing against my own -ethical line- too much. I hope this doesn't conflict with what I said earlier in the thread. Will edit after I get some sleep

mysteryscribe · Jan 25, 2007

ps. Even when I didn't do it the lab always did some post production so the shots I do now aren't that much different than those done with film and taken to a lab. I just have to do the work myself now.

dgs · Jan 25, 2007

from Fred:

I think you cross the line when the photograph no longer looks natural.

There's photoshop, and then there's photoshop. It seems pretty well agreed that post processing to achieve the best "natural" presentation is the predominate practice . . . and not a new one.

There are any number of techniques/media choices that produce effects different than a faithful, evidentiary rendering of reality. Many, when done well, are held in high esteem. No one derides a paper negative print or even a simple monochrome image because it's different than the image the human eye would see. But digital manipulation is held to a different standard.

In my mind "the line" is whether the post processing, whether a b/w conversion, optimizing exposure or some heavy filter application, is done with the intent to communicate or the intent to deceive.

<grin> This may not help much . . . it still begs the question of which camp that photograph of the Bride's mother she liked so much falls into <g>

abraxas · Jan 25, 2007

dgs said:
There are any number of techniques/media choices that produce effects different than a faithful, evidentiary rendering of reality. Many, when done well, are held in high esteem. No one derides a paper negative print or even a simple monochrome image because it's different than the image the human eye would see. But digital manipulation is held to a different standard.

I've done a few shots where the sun has set and gone below the horizon. Working that kind of shot the other way, pre-sunrise is considerably harder. Galen Rowell said something to the effect of, "If you can see the light, you've missed the shot." There's another quote floating around the forum I like that goes something like, "A long exposure is an event that never happened." Maybe I got that all balled up, but I think these type of shots would be bound by the same 'natural looking' line in some respects and with color exceptions. Maybe just keep them from looking overworked?

Lars Leber · Jan 26, 2007

I just love post-processing images. I usually spend about 5 to 15 minutes on each photo. Some photos will look very artsy and others more realistic .. it really depends on my mood and what I am looking for (or of course what the customer wants).

THORHAMMER · Jan 29, 2007

Photoshop just replaces the darkroom, and the lab is why its so important.

I've considered sending out wedding shots to a place that can act as a "lab" in a sense but Im not so busy that Its worth the time yet. Eventually
I might do something like this for the majority of the shots, and personally
retouch the best few myself.

with fine art projects you cant really replace your own eye... just takes time.

Commercial stuff is different too, you want to keep more control on that stuff, its more vital.. maybye a trustworthy asistant is a good idea if I get that busy all at once !

JTHphoto · Jan 31, 2007

abraxas said:
Postprocessing- Do you have a line, and do you/how do you feel about crossing it?

I definitely have a line, and I cross it all the time. Usually when i cross it, i hit the "undo" or "revert to saved" button. In general, I feel that if an image looks processed, then it is distracting and takes away from the image. As others have said in here, it should be done to enhance the image, unless you are trying to achieve something specific or just playing around, practicing your PS skills.

Do you think a shot should just go from your camera to a print, or do you load it up in PS and maybe while it's there fiddle with brightness and contrast? Do you stop at auto-adjust, or go whole-hog and do whatever it takes? Surreal? Replace skies? Insert clouds? Clone large areas or reshoot? HDR, overlay multiple exposures? Crop?

I would never print an image without checking it in PS first. I might hit auto-adjust just to see what it comes up with, but 99.9% of the time I immediately hit "undo". I only have Elements, but at a minimum each image gets a levels adjustment, colors adjustment if necessary, typically some doging/burning, USM, and a run through neatimage depending on the image. I will clone small imperfections that are distracting, but i lack the patience for cloning large areas. i don't like the idea of inserting clouds/skies because if the sky was that boring to begin with, i wouldn't have included it or even taken the shot. I probably crop too much, but it is so easy and on some print sizes you have to do it anyway, unless you want your lab to crop it indiscriminately. I would love to learn more about HDR, i just haven't had the time...

What do you prefer in your shots? What do you like about others?

Unless going for something specifically [thread=39906]goofy[/thread] or artsy I want my images to look and feel like what I saw when I pressed the button. I guess B&Ws, desaturated, or duotone shots would have to be an exception, although maybe that falls into the "artsy" category. As for others, i really enjoy seeing everyones work, but again, if it looks overprocessed (without a point) ... then i just don't get it.

Do you judge your quality by reaction to posting?

I'm not so much judging the quality by TPF's response... I like to learn, so I post for constructive criticism or tips/hints. I like to hear what works well and where/how i can make improvements. TPF is where I learned about things like unsharp mask and neatimage. because images i posted were blurry and grainy.