Post Production ~ Debate it Here

[RjL]

Okay so I am new to the forum but not to photography and PP tools.

Honestly I did not take the time to search through the thousands of threads/posts on the forum, but I did notice a vast difference in opinions regarding Post Production within the threads I have been reading.

On one hand there are guys/gals that love it and swear by it. And then there are the people who say that the photo should be perfect coming straight off the camera to print. I can understand that in a utopian world even the amatuer photographer would be able to snap perfect shots everytime. If that were the case there wouldn't be a market for programs like PS, LR, etc.

I am a proponent of PP. Although I try to make every picture perfect through the lens I still like to get creative and try to perfect the best photos of a given set/gallery.

In this digital age PP tools open a new realm of possiblities to an artist/photographer.

I am interested in reading other opinions and points of view.

RjL

Edit: If this has been debated before and is a redundant thread feel free to flog me.

 

[nonamexx]

Let me put it this way.

A reasonably good picture can receive a dramatic improvement with post-production. Adjusting white balance, contrast, colours or brightness can give a massive improvement to a good composition which is probably a little flat Straight out of the camera.

A bad composition on the other hand can be made decent with PP but never can be made "good".

Since a camera's sensor can never accurately cover the entire visual sensory range of a human eye, I don't see PP as "cheating". If PP is cheating, so is the use of (physical) filters and so is the use of HDR techniques.

 

[rateeg]

there are photos that doesnt need editing and there are photos needs PP to make it more dynamic.

basically that's it.

 

[RjL]

Let me put it this way.

A reasonably good picture can receive a dramatic improvement with post-production. Adjusting white balance, contrast, colours or brightness can give a massive improvement to a good composition which is probably a little flat Straight out of the camera.

A bad composition on the other hand can be made decent with PP but never can be made "good".

Since a camera's sensor can never accurately cover the entire visual sensory range of a human eye, I don't see PP as "cheating". If PP is cheating, so is the use of (physical) filters and so is the use of HDR techniques.

Completely agree :thumbup:

 

[RjL]

there are photos that doesnt need editing and there are photos needs PP to make it more dynamic.

basically that's it.

I think there are far more dynamic possibilities for PP tools than simply this.

RjL

 

[Robin Usagani]

Kinda like supermodels and moviestars. They look so hot but yet they wear make up. LOL

 

[RjL]

Kinda like supermodels and moviestars. They look so hot but yet they wear make up. LOL

So true! Great analogy.

RjL

 

[Light Artisan]

Every photo is edited in some fashion, if you shoot JPG it's edited in camera the moment the picture is saved to the card - if you shoot RAW you have to convert it, if you don't touch it other than changing its format then that's as close to out of the camera as you can get, but there is still post processing involved.

I'm not a purist, I want my photos to look the best they possibly can - even if it's not exactly how the scene looked when I was pressing the shutter release. I do however try to keep my photos 'real' looking and try to avoid oversaturation, etc.

 

[enzodm]

In this digital age PP tools open a new realm of possiblities to an artist/photographer.

For the most of operations, it just makes apparently easier to do things that in the past took much time and wasted film and paper in dark room. So easier that often the beginner goes over the good taste.
Some other operation is aimed at curing issues of digital photography.
Then, yes, there are also extra things you can do that cannot be done before, at least starting from photos. Although I'm having difficulty at finding one good example.
I do not think there is much variation of opinion on PP. Typically the beginner feels PP as cheating, but changes mind very quickly when he/she starts to understand that photos are never a faithful copy of the true reality.

 

[iamacyborg]

Post processing is fine, whether it be digital manipulation or analog burning and dodging techniques on a "proper" print (I use the term proper loosely), and I think the vast majority of people would agree with me.

The problem though, is that people tend to get carried away with it, and essentially end up trying to polish a turd.

Basically, if you don't have a good photo to start with, post processing won't do anything for it.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Why does this question even come up????

ALL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE POST PROCESSED

yes... I am yelling.

No matter if you take a picture with a film camera, a cell phone camera, or a digital camera.... the photo gets processed. It is impossible to view an image unless it is processed.

In the days of film, the image was recorded to a negative. The negative was taken out of the camera and post processing was added.... sharpness, color correction, levels, tones, highlights, dodging, burning.... all of it was done using various techniques. Even with film, a photograph wasn't made until it was post processed. People seem to ignore this because most people took their roll of film to a developer and got back an envelope with pictures in it. Those photos were processed without them knowing it. Sure, for the most part it was an automatic process and a processing machine did it, but they were certainly processed none the less.

In the days of digital, most of that processing is handled by the software in the camera. The raw data is recorded to an image sensor, the camera then takes that data and applies the processing you tell it to in your camera settings. When the camera was made, some computer programmer came up with some processing settings that he thought looked the best for most types of pictures. Add a little sharpness, add a little color, make highlights this bright and shadows this dark. If you pull the camera out of the box, and press the shutter, this is the processing that is done to every image. If you aren't happy with those settings, you can change them with some camera settings. Again, most people seem to ignore this because when they click the shutter button, they see an image... but again, even though the process was automatic, processing was done.

Since the processing is so complex, it would be impractical to program your camera to give you all the available processing options. Because of this, post processing computer software is available. You shoot a raw image, then take that image out of the camera (instead of letting the camera do it for you) you load it into your software, and do the processing yourself.

... You've been flogged :thumbup:

 

[iamacyborg]

Why does this question even come up???? ...

Because the question you've answered isn't the question that was asked. The debate isn't as I understand it, about general post processing that falls out of people's control, because we all know it happens.

I think the question being asked is more about heavy post processing. You know, the stuff beginners tend to get carried away with, oversharpening, HDR, blowing highlights and shadows by increasing contrast, etc.

 

[vtf]

I shoot in the RAW, so I PP on everything.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Why does this question even come up???? ...

Because the question you've answered isn't the question that was asked. The debate isn't as I understand it, about general post processing that falls out of people's control, because we all know it happens.

I think the question being asked is more about heavy post processing. You know, the stuff beginners tend to get carried away with, oversharpening, HDR, blowing highlights and shadows by increasing contrast, etc.

In that case, there is no answer.... because the question is now, "how much post processing should you do?"

Photography is a form of art... I'm sure we can all agree to that. It is a creative intrepretation of the world around us. Asking a photographer "how much post processing is the right amount?" is no different than asking an canvas artist, "how much paint should you use?"

Simply put, it is absolutly illogical to put boundraies on creative work. "How much post processing should you do?" ..... "As much as you need to to acheive the artistic intrepretion you are looking for"

 

[flea77]

I think you misunderstood the whole concept. I don't think anyone will argue that all images are PPed to some degree, and there is nothing wrong with that.

On the flip side, one should always strive to get it as close to 100% as possible in camera. Why? Well first off the more you get right in camera, the less work you have to do later. Then there are things (like composition etc) that can not really be fixed after the fact.

Next, you mention that digital opens up new possibilities.....not really. It can now be done faster, cheaper, and easier, but you are not likely to do anything that was not done before in a darkroom.

Now what you may have been trying to get at is that people's opinions vary on how much post processing is "acceptable". That is a whole different can of worms and is pretty much based off personal opinion. Mine says you can make minor corrections, adjustments, sharpening, cropping, all aimed at making the photograph look more like the original scene, but once you exceed that you are no longer doing photography but graphic arts instead. Nothing wrong with graphic arts at all, it is just different than photography.

Allan