How photos "turn out"

[Lacey Anne]

Grrrr! I just put up a photo essay on another site and got a comment about how she always likes the way my photos "turn out." Um, there's no "turning out" about it! I put a lot of work into my photos! No, they aren't just snapshots! Even when it's just me and kids at the park, I work hard to get a good photo and then I put a lot of time in pp to get the photo I really wanted. I'm not sure I've ever just clicked the shutter and wow, there's a really nice photo. :er:

 

[Socrates]

Grrrr! I just put up a photo essay on another site and got a comment about how she always likes the way my photos "turn out." Um, there's no "turning out" about it! I put a lot of work into my photos! No, they aren't just snapshots! Even when it's just me and kids at the park, I work hard to get a good photo and then I put a lot of time in pp to get the photo I really wanted. I'm not sure I've ever just clicked the shutter and wow, there's a really nice photo. :er:

I wouldn't get too concerned about semantics. The bottom line is that this individual likes your work, specifically the end result. I hope that you don't object to that!

Now, consider your own words. Many of us put a ton of effort into the camera's functions and do little if any PP. You've suggested that absence of PP is comparable to "just clicking the shutter." Should I be offended?

:hugs:

 

[Battou]

And if you didn't put all that effort into it nothing would turn out right......I'm sorry, but there the one fact that remains. the phrase "Turn out" does not imply luck or effortless achievement. As it turns out the effort you put into it shows....that is all she was saying.

 

[Lacey Anne]

I wouldn't get too concerned about semantics. The bottom line is that this individual likes your work, specifically the end result. I hope that you don't object to that!

Now, consider your own words. Many of us put a ton of effort into the camera's functions and do little if any PP. You've suggested that absence of PP is comparable to "just clicking the shutter." Should I be offended?

:hugs:

Nope, you should not be offended. I meant for my work and my work alone. And you're probably right with your first paragraph. The context she used it in though... Eh, I've not slept well. I could very well be too irritable and picky right now. Lack of sleep does that to me.:blushing:

 

[Lacey Anne]

And if you didn't put all that effort into it nothing would turn out right......I'm sorry, but there the one fact that remains. the phrase "Turn out" does not imply luck or effortless achievement. As it turns out the effort you put into it shows....that is all she was saying.

You're right. I'm being too grumpy. I've slept less than ten hours in the last four days. I need to sleep before I type.

 

[abraxas]

Grrrr! I just put up a photo essay on another site and got a comment about how she always likes the way my photos "turn out." Um, there's no "turning out" about it! I put a lot of work into my photos! No, they aren't just snapshots! Even when it's just me and kids at the park, I work hard to get a good photo and then I put a lot of time in pp to get the photo I really wanted. I'm not sure I've ever just clicked the shutter and wow, there's a really nice photo. :er:

Yep, that's a complement. Just smile, say, "Thank you. I put a lot of work into it", and continue on doing good work.

 

[NJMAN]

I agree. I don't think she meant anything derogatory by her comment. I can tell by looking at the end result of your photos all the effort you put into your work. Keep up the good work!

NJ

 

[Lacey Anne]

Aw, thanks, NJ. I really appreciate that. Really. I'm glad I posted here first because I was set out to write a comment back to her. I tell you, lack of sleep makes me GROUCHY. lol! I said thank you instead.

 

[bhop]

I'd rather someone say they like the way my pics 'turn out' than to say 'your camera takes good pics'. At least the first implies that I had something to do with it.

 

[Los Angeles]

go to bed

 

[Lacey Anne]

go to bed

lol! I did! I'm better now! I promise. I work with high school students and I did a girls' night for them Friday night. I didn't get to ever go to bed that night so Saturday and Sunday were LONG days for me. I'm feeling better now, really.

 

[skieur]

Now, consider your own words. Many of us put a ton of effort into the camera's functions and do little if any PP. You've suggested that absence of PP is comparable to "just clicking the shutter." Should I be offended?:hugs:

Why be offended she is correct, the absense of PP is comparable to "just clicking the shutter". It demonstrates a poor photographic eye and a lack of understanding of the limitations of digital technology.

skieur

 

[taracor]

Umm Skieur..I disagree entirely.

First of all, your photographic eye comment is entirely off. If anything, not needing to post process an image means you have better photographic eye than someone who NEEDS to post process, since the image is deemed to have been composed well enough to not require it in the first place. Now I'm NOT saying that people who don't PP have a better eye or even insinuating it. What I AM saying is that your comment is entirely off in its meaning.

Now for lack of understanding, I also disagree. I understand the way the digital technology works. I know the ups and downs of how things work, and I am positive Socrates knows them more than me. However, I chose not to post process my images. Sure, on occasion I do it, and sure, I appreciate the results, however, I chose not to post process the vast majority of my work, and I am quite sure that this does not compromise my images.

Now, I am NOT downing post processing in any way. I just do not think that it is something that is required to get the most out of your shots.

Also, I don't wish to start a huge argument and take over Lacey's post, or anything like that, I just want to get my point across.

To the topic:
I agree with everyone saying that she did not mean anything derogatory, and liked your photos. That being said, the way people say things like that CAN get quite irritating. I agree with bhop though, "you're camera takes good pictures" is even worse.

 

[skieur]

Well, let me throw in some references in case you don't take my opinion seriously. One of the current books out there in the photography section is "Color Correction for Digital Photographers only" by Ted Padova and Don Mason. At 390 pages it is quite thick and the basic premise is that ALL digital photos require colour correction in postprocessing and it uses examples to show you how to do it.

Then there is Rob Sheppard, editor of Outdoor Photographer who wrote "Adobe Camera Raw" A 340 page book that basically indicates that all serious photograpers shoot in RAW format and need to, in order to make decisions in processing that will improve the image quality of their photos.
Note this is not about correcting mistakes. This is about improving image quality.

Then of course there is Scott Kelby editor of the Photoshop User magazine who wrote the Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers to answer the questions of pros who feel that they need to know how to be an expert in postprocessing in PhotoShop.

So these top professionals all consider that postprocessing is an integral part of all photography and so do all serious pros and many enthusiasts.
There will always be those who do not adapt to change and are unwilling to learn new technologies. There will always be those who rationalize their unwillingness to learn how to use Photoshop with attitudes that display a limited understanding of photography.

I find it funny that with more photo experience than almost everyone here, I adapt to change, faster than most,....but then perhaps that has been the key to a successful career in photography.

skieur

 

[taracor]

Well, I can assure you, that "all professional photographers" do not use raw and postprocess. There is a fairly even split. Now, about your sources. This seems to be something you rely everything on. So, first of all, if you are just trying to be like the pro's, you've got the wrong idea, and second, again, all pro's do NOT use postprocessing.

"Adobe Camera Raw" First word, Adobe. They make PP software. Of course they are gonna tell you that you need to post process. They don't sell cameras, they profit and making as many people as possible use their product.

Now Scott Shelby, the editor of Photoshop magazine. Of course he is going to endorse post processing.

Now please, don't make assumptions. I don't need to "learn" how to use photoshop, nor do I need to rationalize my unwillingness to. I know how to do the adjustments that most people who post process do. I just chose not to.

I think that a "limited understanding of photography" is the reason that MANY people post process in the first place. To fix mistakes. At a certain point, you stumble into the realm of digital imaging, and not photography, which is a different art form all together. One might argue that they go hand in hand, but that can be said about most art forms.