I post process therefore I can't take a good photo.

[ksmattfish]

For me "getting it right in camera" doesn't mean the photo will come out of the camera looking like it's supposed to as the finished print. Whether I'm shooting film or digital, getting it right in camera means creating a neg or file that has the most processing potential.

For instance I don't want nice, contrasty negs that would look good contact printed. Those can be a pain in the ass to enlarge; I always seemed to get better results increasing contrast during printing than trying to decrease it. I want a nice, low contrast neg, and then I can control contrast with filters.

The same with digital. I "expose to the right" so my raw files come out of the camera looking overexposed, but after processing they look great and have a lot less noise.

A photo is a progression of steps: idea, subject, lighting, exposure, processing, and printing. Choke anywhere along the line and the results will be lessened.

 

[Garbz]

I knew this would be preaching to the converted. All the sensible people who know what they are doing and also display some very nice works here on this forum are posting. What an agreeathon

Soon we will have this.

Actually it occurred to me we do have this. Nikon already allows custom RAW curves to be uploaded to the camera. Don't see the point though, if the curve needs to be custom its highly unreasonable to predict the scene beforehand.

Im never just 'fixing mistakes', im creating the image i want.

I understand processing in Photoshop as "making my photo more mine". Which says the very same Arch said: "it is the whole process of creating an image", I emphasise it and say "my image".

Truer words have never been spoken.

Back to the initial subject, To be honest with you I'm one of those people who will tell beginners to get it right in the camera.

Yeah Battou but I have never seen you tell someone to get it right in camera with the context of "so you do not need to process it afterwards". The two are distinctly different parts of photography, and there's only so much you can fix in processing anyway if you foul up the shot.

 

[skieur]

It is necessary to have a good shot in the first place before considering postprocessing. I think we have all seen on this site: "How do I fix this photo in postprocessing?" where the answer really is throw it out and spend more time learning how to take a good shot. So it is indeed impossible to get it "right" in camera, but it is necessary to have something of reasonable quality to work with.

The one thing that most forget is that it is necessary to have a good eye in order to postprocess with any skill. That "good eye" is dependant on some inbred artistic talent for some and on experience for others. A combination of a little of both is probably the case for many successful enthusiasts or pros. Without a "good eye" for technical details and composition, it becomes impossible to spot what needs to be done in postprocessing and how much is too much, in that the result becomes very artificial looking.

I think also that there is rationalization going on from some enthusiasts and pros to cover up their lack of skill and know-how in postprocessing.
The attitude that after postprocessing, it is no longer a "real" photo.
The notion that because the colours are vibrant, that they must have been enhanced in Photoshop. The cliché comment: "Well, that is a great shot, but I would like to see the original".

Rationalizations\excuses for no postprocessing go really "off-the-wall", when it comes to portraiture. I have probably seen a considerable number of models made to appear ugly through a combination of poor shooting and absolutely no postprocessing.

skieur

 

[fwellers]

My goal is to get better with the Camera so I have less or even no post processing to do for most pics.
If I take a lot of pics at a family event or something, it's too much of a pain to pp them on my slow computer.
So, I'm getting slowly better at learning my camera and being able to go to the proper wb, exposure settings etc...
Of course if I were ever to do something really nice and worthy ( someday ), I would probably post process it very carefully.

The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality. There is just too much that can be done with pp to believe or rely on anything anymore. In that one respect I don't like it. I wish there were a way you can tell if a pic is 'real' or not.

 

[Garbz]

The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality.

If I were home I'd source an image from 1957 of a swimmer about 10cm tall sunbathing on a frozen pond from one of my Time Life photography books. Pictures haven't necessarily reflected reality since the invention of the darkroom.

 

[skieur]

My goal is to get better with the Camera so I have less or even no post processing to do for most pics.
If I take a lot of pics at a family event or something, it's too much of a pain to pp them on my slow computer.
So, I'm getting slowly better at learning my camera and being able to go to the proper wb, exposure settings etc...
Of course if I were ever to do something really nice and worthy ( someday ), I would probably post process it very carefully.

The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality. There is just too much that can be done with pp to believe or rely on anything anymore. In that one respect I don't like it. I wish there were a way you can tell if a pic is 'real' or not.

As has been indicated above your goal is impossible, since postprocessing is necessary on all photos if your intention is to try and make them "real".

All photos are a "representation" of reality. The intention of photography has never been to accurately duplicate reality since it is not possible. The photographer is distorting reality by framing one small part of it in the viewfinder and excluding everything else. Then there is the distortion of perspective by lenses, colour inaccuracies, detail and contrast that don't match the scene, selective focus and depth of field, etc.

No picture is "real" and anyone who thinks otherwise does not really understand the technology and capability of photography.

skieur

 

[LaFoto]

More so, the way in which one particular photographer decided to frame "the world" represents also that self same photographer's INTERPRETATION of the world. It is HIS/HER photo, it is not reality.

 

[table1349]

Garbz may correct me or at least disagree with me on this, but I think that we have taken a bit of "a left turn at Albuquerque" to quote a wascally wabbit friend of mine. Getting it right in the camera and post processing are two totally separate issues.

Getting it right in the camera, means just that. Getting the exposure exactly right in terms of what you are wanting artistically. The combination of ISO shutter speed, aperture, focus, and composition for your vision. When you have achieved that, you "Got it right" in the camera.

Post processing is the assembly of that vision. I live in the "Air Capital of the World." Well that's what it says on the city limits signs at least. The machinist strives to "get it right" when they machine a part for the 747. That doesn't make the 747 though when he is done at his machine. The post processing there is the assembly of that part with a host of others to create that final 747.

Post processing a photograph is the final assembly of that photo with the tools at hand. For the wedding photographer, does the bride really want that zit on the right side of their nose showing, or do you post process it out and help that bride have their dream day? Same for the fashion/portrait photographer. Do you give them or the client the stark reality of the photo or do you give them the vision that they see? I know what you do if you want to stay in business.

The first color photograph was taken in 1861. Color film didn't come along for the 35mm until 1936. Have you ever seen a photograph taken between that time or even after that was hand tinted. It was a popular and expensive process in it's day. A post process that, at least to me, does not devalue the artistic nor historic value of the photograph. Back then it was done with a brush, now it's done in photoshop.

For some post processing may mean trying to rescue a photo from the error or errors made when taking the photo. That is part of the package as well. But any attempt to correct a serious error can be spotted easily. If it makes a better photograph for the taker then again they have at least come closer to their vision.

There are only two groups that I find to be "photographic purists." The uninformed that don't possess the knowledge to understand the part processing plays in photography and the one group that should be in part purists, being the photojournalists. Even then a bit of post processing is acceptable for publication in terms of contrasts, color correction etc. As long as the photo still represents what was captured.

As for Garbz and his rant. Hope you fell better. :thumbup: Sometimes a good rant can lower blood preasure and just make the day go a little better.

 

[table1349]

My goal is to get better with the Camera so I have less or even no post processing to do for most pics.
If I take a lot of pics at a family event or something, it's too much of a pain to pp them on my slow computer.
So, I'm getting slowly better at learning my camera and being able to go to the proper wb, exposure settings etc...
Of course if I were ever to do something really nice and worthy ( someday ), I would probably post process it very carefully.

The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality. There is just too much that can be done with pp to believe or rely on anything anymore. In that one respect I don't like it. I wish there were a way you can tell if a pic is 'real' or not.

Reality is a state of mind. There has never been a time in photography when the photograph depicted true reality. Little story I don't often tell. In 1972 while in high school I had a little "darkroom fun." I worked for a fashion/portrait photographer in the large city I was living in.

I thought one day that it would be funny to take the face shot I had taken of a friend of mine and combine it with the body of a playboy pinup. I took the centerfold, flattened it and carefully copied it. I then took that negative and the negative of my friend and after a bit of work (ok a lot of work in modern terms) I dodged and burnt her face into the final print. We were both 17 at the time and I have to brag, I did a d@%$ fine job in the dark room on that one. So good it almost got the two of us expelled.

Stupidly I took the thing to school and showed it to her. She was a good friend and she loved it and laughed her @$$ off. The two things I didn't know were, 1. the photo depicted the centerfold model in a locker room setting and apparently it closely resembled the girls locker room at our school and 2. that she was going to get caught by a teacher with the thing while showing it off to some frineds.

Needless to say all hell broke loose in the principals office. They thought that I had actually taken nude photographs of her in the school no less. That matter wasn't resolved until I retrieved the negatives and showed them to the principal and he compared the background in the photo that I created with the actual girls locker room to see the differences. We got detention for the photo itself but at least we didn't get expelled.

To this day we still laugh about the whole incident when we get together, but we sure were not laughing then.

 

[fwellers]

Ha. Good story Gryph. I stand corrected. Photography has ALWAYS been capable of deception.
I wonder why then, people have so much trust in what they see.
I don't know squat, but the little I know about photo-shop already, proves to me that I won't trust anything 100 percent. ( probably shouldn't anyway ).
I do think though, as good as you apparently were at 17 with film, today, the capability to decieve with photography seems magnified by an order or two at least.
I'm not talking about removing zits, and fixing light issues, although that is essentially the same thing, but to a lesser degree, and without any harm or intent to defraud.

But I am probably taking this thread where it wasn't designed to go, so I apologize for that.
I will still continue to try and accomplish my 'vision' as much as possible in the camera if for no other reason than to save some time on the computer. ( I don't think it will be possible though for me to ever do a professional type shot without PP. )

Peace,
Floyd

 

[JerryPH]

lol... funny story indeed.

I'm very much of the opinion that if someone told me this to my face, I could just laugh it off, but inside I know I would be wanting to share a few choices words.

To me, post processing and developing *are* of equivalent meaning when it comes to digital and film photography. You needed it then, you need it now, if you want to try to draw out the most from any given picture.

 

[Garbz]

Garbz may correct me or at least disagree with me on this, but I think that we have taken a bit of "a left turn at Albuquerque" to quote a wascally wabbit friend of mine. Getting it right in the camera and post processing are two totally separate issues.

Quite on the contrary. You said exactly what I was trying to only clearer. Definitely nothing here that I disagree with.

 

[JohnMF]

Needless to say all hell broke loose in the principals office. They thought that I had actually taken nude photographs of her in the school no less. That matter wasn't resolved until I retrieved the negatives and showed them to the principal and he compared the background in the photo that I created with the actual girls locker room to see the differences.

did the principal keep hold of that photo 'as evidence'?

 

[Chiller]

I was not going to reply to this, cause my opinion is useless, but I was bored.
One of the reasons I got into photography was to capture what I see. I was shooting film for a while, but when digital came out, I realized I could create images I wanted, by using the photograph as a bass image for what I wanted. With the horror images I need for our halloween advertising, and displays, many are manipulated in photoshop, and there for are not a photograph anymore...I guess. The way I see it...the tools are there, I can use them to my advantage. I guess that is where that argument of when does a photograph not be a photograph starts again....oh joy....blah blah blah.
As for taking other photos, I would rather get it right the first time, cause I hate wasting time on all the post processing.
o.k...Im off to another forum, it is too complicated here...:mrgreen: ..

 

[stsinner]

The thing about pp for me is that we just can't trust that any pics we see anymore, necessarily reflect reality.

I hear ya! I love seeing pictures that amaze or thrill me, but you're right-you can't tell real from fake anymore, and that's why I don't like Photoshop.. I wish they'd make a law that photoshop has to put a visible PS or something somewhere on the picture or in the exif once a picture has been doctored.