Post Production ~ Debate it Here

[Boomn4x4]

Now what you may have been trying to get at is that people's opinions vary on how much post processing is "acceptable".

What I'm trying to get at is that photography is an intrepretive art form and no other artist has any right to tell any other artist that his intrepretation is wrong.

This whole, "your photograph MUST look like the real scene" makes no sense to me. Isn't forcing people to look at art in a particular way a complete violation of the entire concept of "art"?

If I look at a beach ball on the sand, and I think, "those colors really look cool against the sand"... why is it so bad that I want to take a photo of that ball, soften the contrast of the people walking on the sand, desaturate the background and over saturate the ball, and sharpen its edges to make it really stand out? Why does my intrepretation of that ball have to be exactly as I see it with my eye?

 

[RjL]

It is EXACTLY my opinion that photography is an art form.

The topic of this thread was not the PP a camera processes internally or the type of production done when changing from file type to file type. It was the manipulation and production that is done by the photographer/editor.

Ill agree that PP is the same as an artist who uses a canvass, paint, and tools to paint an image. Just during the past few weeks of browsing forums and searching the "internet" I found lots of randomly posted, "Your picture should look perfect out of the camera and need no PP." or something similar to that.

I quoted "interenet" because as we all know: Everything on the internet is true.

RjL

 

[nonamexx]

Just to make it clearer photography has other uses than being an art form so there are situations where manual post-processing would be absolutely unacceptable.

I'm sure the passport authorities would say no to an airbrushed or enhanced image of my face.

I'm also sure that police photographers don't spend their time beautifying pictures of crime scenes.

 

[Boomn4x4]

I'm also sure that police photographers don't spend their time beautifying pictures of crime scenes.

They certainly do.... photographs of finger prints are sharpend, pulling out shadows to better reveal faces... Don't tell me you have never heard, "This enhanced survelance image caputred the criminals....."on your evening news?

Post processing is a big part of police photography... and incidently, completely admisable in court.

 

[nonamexx]

I'm also sure that police photographers don't spend their time beautifying pictures of crime scenes.

They certainly do.... photographs of finger prints are sharpend, pulling out shadows to better reveal faces... Don't tell me you have never heard, "This enhanced survelance image caputred the criminals....."

Post processing is a big part of police photography... and incidently, completely admisable in court.

I was talking about artistry involved.

As for admissibility in court, it depends on the laws of the country, no?

If photos can be manipulated, judges are warier of relying on them entirely. And don't tell me that the police are always "impartial" witnesses.

 

[iamacyborg]

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"

Yup.

Although, simply saying something is "art" is a cop-out. If your art piece is juvenile, poorly thought out and visually looks like poop, most people would be well within their rights to call it bad.

 

[Chamelion 6]

It is EXACTLY my opinion that photography is an art form.

The topic of this thread was not the PP a camera processes internally or the type of production done when changing from file type to file type. It was the manipulation and production that is done by the photographer/editor.

Ill agree that PP is the same as an artist who uses a canvass, paint, and tools to paint an image. Just during the past few weeks of browsing forums and searching the "internet" I found lots of randomly posted, "Your picture should look perfect out of the camera and need no PP." or something similar to that.

I quoted "interenet" because as we all know: Everything on the internet is true.

RjL

When I shot film, I dodged, burned, and manipulated every print I made... Well most of them... Now that I shoot digitally, I do the same in the computer.

The finished product is the thing, not the process used to get there. That said, my feeling is the best PP is when the viewer is unaware of it. When it emphasizes the key elements without tipping it's hand.

I'm not a fan of overly processed, heavily saturated images. There are exceptions, of course, but mostly it comes off as amaturish and cliche.

 

[enzodm]

Just to make it clearer photography has other uses than being an art form

+1.
It's just a technique, like painting (an oil painting or the walls at home) writing (a novel or a letter to tax office), etc.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

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.

Consider yourself flogged. This subject comes up every 3-4 weeks and a quick search would have revealed that simple fact to you.

 

[flea77]

Now what you may have been trying to get at is that people's opinions vary on how much post processing is "acceptable".

What I'm trying to get at is that photography is an intrepretive art form and no other artist has any right to tell any other artist that his intrepretation is wrong.

This whole, "your photograph MUST look like the real scene" makes no sense to me. Isn't forcing people to look at art in a particular way a complete violation of the entire concept of "art"?

If I look at a beach ball on the sand, and I think, "those colors really look cool against the sand"... why is it so bad that I want to take a photo of that ball, soften the contrast of the people walking on the sand, desaturate the background and over saturate the ball, and sharpen its edges to make it really stand out? Why does my intrepretation of that ball have to be exactly as I see it with my eye?

And had you kept quoting you would have seen:

is pretty much based off personal opinion.

No one is forcing you to do anything. On the flip side, if your vision alters the image and makes it look unrealistic, who are you to tell me I have to accept it as art? I have every right to think of it as complete rubbish if I so choose, regardless of your intent. Hence me explicitly stating that it is based on opinion.

Allan

 

[Derrel]

I am entirely in favor of post production. Without post production, we would have lousy fences between us and our neighbors. And as well all know, a good fence makes a good neighbor. Without posts, our fences would need to be made of stone or masonry! So yeah, I'm in favor of post production. Cedar, treated wood, metal posts, composite posts....it's all good!

 

[enzodm]

I am entirely in favor of post production. Without post production, we would have lousy fences between us and our neighbors. And as well all know, a good fence makes a good neighbor. Without posts, our fences would need to be made of stone or masonry! So yeah, I'm in favor of post production. Cedar, treated wood, metal posts, composite posts....it's all good!

As sometimes occurs with your ironic posts (pun intended ) I had to resort to the dictionary to understand . So I learned a new meaning.

 

[vtf]

I am entirely in favor of post production. Without post production, we would have lousy fences between us and our neighbors. And as well all know, a good fence makes a good neighbor. Without posts, our fences would need to be made of stone or masonry! So yeah, I'm in favor of post production. Cedar, treated wood, metal posts, composite posts....it's all good!

My thinking exactly:thumbup:

 

[mwcfarms]

I had a discussion with another photographer friend of mine recently. He is a bit of elitist and snob who says if you edit/post process your images you are not a photographer but an editor or photoshop artist. This also comes from the same guy who thinks that the Hasselblad is the best camera ever made. I have no experience with this brand so can't comment but find it amusing nonetheless. We agree to disagree. I think photos can be amazing in camera and then some are amazing when pushed to the limits with processing. Everything is part of the process in the artists eye. In the end does it really matter. I find this topic right up there with the which is the best brand of camera and what is the best lens for ...... insert subject here. Everything is a tool in which we use to bring out the best in each piece we produce. That is all. This isn't meant as a flame/flog just my thoughts.

 

[RjL]

I agree with you mwc. I think that the pro photographers (or those who think they are pro) are just being snobby when they say the photographs should be untouched to be "correct".

Thanks for all the responses. Seems as though this is debated often yet everyone still has an opinion to share.

RjL