Processing vs Photography Skill

[Braineack]

this is the girl i was thinking about. her stuff is HEAVILY photoshopped.

Russian Mother Takes Magical Pictures of Her Two Kids With Animals On Her Farm

her style is now really popular and copied very often. Like this guy: Little Kids And Their Big Dogs

Las Vegas Family Photographer | LJHolloway Photography

Is another photographer I was thinking of. Same shots over and over, using the same lens, same pose, same composition, and over processing the images in post (especially the eyes). She's very popular online, and posts over at FM.

Now I'm not saying they are bad photographers, however, the photography in some/lots of the shots aren't all that great, and it's the same composition over and over. But without PS, you'd never hear of them.

As opposed to @gnagel here, who is obviously a VERY talented photographer who uses a maybe a more meticulous approach to his post-processing.

My Favorite 10 Pictures of the Year

 

[Original katomi]

Re post 14.
Changing the sky.... nice thought, but please when you make these statements consider that some of are disabled and
Will not have the option of going back, sometime that moment is all you get.
I have shots that are no so good and yes I would love to have the ability to be able to walk to the same place and retake them but it is not possible.
This not a personal attack on the op just me sitting here in a lot of pain waving a hand
Hello, and saying not all can do what others can.

 

[SquarePeg]

For me, all that matters in photography is the final result. How you got there -no post process, faked golden hour light, substituted sky, composited moon, focus stacking, image stitching, Nd filters, presets, noise reduction, film... none of that, to me, lessens your photo’s legitimacy. As long as the photo isn’t claimed to be sotc or part of a news story or documentary, then anything goes if I like the end result.

It’s Art.

 

[smoke665]

@Braineack Not sure where you're going with your comment, as the ones you referenced above represent a different style or approach to a finished product. Obviously there are those that like the product if they're attracting a following, and imitation. IMO establishing a marketable style that sets you apart from others in a highly competitive field is the key to success for a professional. I can think of one wedding photographer who posts here occasionally, that has a distinctive look. He's been very vocal that he doesn't deviate from that look. There's another fellow who just posted a head shot recently in his typical, dramatic, gritty style, of Dragan processing. From a business standpoint I learned early on that you can't be all things for all people.

 

[Braineack]

@Braineack Not sure where you're going with your comment, as the ones you referenced above represent a different style or approach to a finished product. Obviously there are those that like the product if they're attracting a following, and imitation. IMO establishing a marketable style that sets you apart from others in a highly competitive field is the key to success for a professional. I can think of one wedding photographer who posts here occasionally, that has a distinctive look. He's been very vocal that he doesn't deviate from that look. There's another fellow who just posted a head shot recently in his typical, dramatic, gritty style, of Dragan processing. From a business standpoint I learned early on that you can't be all things for all people.

My point that there are tons of photographers that are much stronger at post-processing than actual photography and it works spades for them.

Take away the instagram filters and composited backgrounds, and you're left with average photography at best.

Sure, the masses love it, doesn't mean I do. Success isn't necessarily a good judge.

It's the same way people like Jason Lanier, he took fairly average images, processed the ever-living-daylights out of the images, and now people throw money at him. The one image that comes to mind is the bride lifting her dress in the desert with a camaro in the background driving by. He used a wide-angle and placed them in the bottom corner so they are warped and distorted, it's trashy as hell, then processed poorly in his "unique" style.

I actually think he can take decent photos, but used these parlor tricks to get clients in the door.

 

[smoke665]

I actually think he can take decent photos, but used these parlor tricks to get clients in the door.

Let's just say I'd be highly p***** if my daughter had chosen this as one of her wedding photos. Still your talking about professionals, marketing a product. That's why many highly qualified photographers choose to remain amateur, because of the freedom to choose.

 

[Braineack]

I get into pretty annoying debates with my wife about what is good photography.

All she cares about is if the people in the photo look good. The end. Hard stop.

She couldn't care less about any of the foundations of art.

 

[smoke665]

@Braineack don't get me started LOL I have a DIL who equates quality with high price in all things including photographers. I've had to bite my tongue on many occasions at her choices.

 

[Braineack]

But her viewpoint is exactly why bad photographers with HDR software can accel in the biz.


The original question was about our thoughts on photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill.

I'm not against processing, and good processing can without a doubt make for great photography -- think of Dan O here.

Or fashion photographer Lindsay Adler. She heavily processes her images, but she is highly skilled in photography behind it.


I was helping a friend find a local photographer for her family, and she asked about this person: http://ridgeandramble.com/galleries/

perfect example of how processing can ruin images. Her photos are decent enough, but it looks like she bought a $10 LR preset package and clicks the "green" one and applies it throughout all her images and that's that.

With good processing, a lot of these shots could be stellar, but as displayed, imho, they are all hard to look at. cold and dark processing for what is supposed to be happy/brighter emotion.


My day job is front-end development. Often I interview developers who claim to be full-stack, or work with other designers/developers who want to become full-stack. Most of the times, when I see their portfolios, the UX/UI is completely rubbish, or they don't actually know how to do things I'd expect a front-end developer to be able to do/know, like common accessibility or even systematic HTML standards. Sure they can set up their own DB and be the sole developer on project, but that comes with a lot of compromises.

I often tell my team, while I would like to be able to do it, I have no desire to learn back-end development -- beyond SQL queries. There's so much to learn do in my niche, that I'm more impactful to our team/projects being an expert at the view layer. Sometimes you get a Dan O who is skilled at it all, but there's so much to learn and do in my focus area, that I'm plenty busy and can crank out really cool "gold-plated" work.

 

[stapo49]

For me, all that matters in photography is the final result. How you got there -no post process, faked golden hour light, substituted sky, composited moon, focus stacking, image stitching, Nd filters, presets, noise reduction, film... none of that, to me, lessens your photo’s legitimacy. As long as the photo isn’t claimed to be sotc or part of a news story or documentary, then anything goes if I like the end result.

It’s Art.

There are some schools of thought that insist everything should be done "in camera" with little or no processing at all and then you have the other way of thinking in which anything goes. I agree that photography is "art" and that focus stacking, ND filters, presets etc are legitimate techniques/processors that allow you to create this art but I still have an issue with composite moons, fake golden hours and substituted skies. That of course is just my personal opinion and everyone comes at their art differently.

 

[Derrel]

Some people like to do photography other people are more interested in digital imaging.

 

[JBPhotog]

FWIW, when film was the only medium used to capture images, photography was viewed by the masses(and many art directors I worked with) as a Black Art. It wasn't easy to know what manipulations the settings would have until you had a few rolls under your belt, meaning film LOL. So as a working professional I found that although there was competition, many of the pro shooters actually knew what they were doing if they managed to stay in business after a couple of years. Aesthetics aside, competency of the mechanics was a do or die prerequisite.

With the advent of digital and the ability to see within seconds the actual image, competency started to decline. If you doubt my words, I suggest you talk with art directors and designers who's job it is to buy photography on a daily basis. So much can be manipulated in post today that the quality standards of 'in camera' capture have declined to the point of ridiculous. Of those who are actually competent at the craft, have been forced to address the post processing workflow in order to separate themselves from the now exponential number of so called photographers. This aspect has led many to develop very distinctive processing styles and I would venture to suggest that the content of the images toady are less of a 'style' than the processing approach.

Traditionalists will likely minimize this skill and suggest that the 'only' approach would be to get it right in camera and there is something to be said for that, quality of the file does matter. However, I would also argue that if we only accepted what came out of the camera as a legitimate exercise in photographing something, how boring would the craft become, I'd say dull, tedious and dreary. As with any creative process the artist should IMO, use all the tools at their disposal in order to create the result they visualized. The creative process is much wider today than it has ever been and post processing can be and for many 'is' the reason they enjoy the craft.

Let's not forget, that the instant you press the shutter there are many factors that influence the final image, post processed or not. There is a bit of hypocracy if one proclaims to only accept what comes out of a camera when it has been post processed in the camera from the Raw file, Picture Controls applied, contrast, film simulations and highlight and shadow details enhanced etc.

 

[SquarePeg]

For me, all that matters in photography is the final result. How you got there -no post process, faked golden hour light, substituted sky, composited moon, focus stacking, image stitching, Nd filters, presets, noise reduction, film... none of that, to me, lessens your photo’s legitimacy. As long as the photo isn’t claimed to be sotc or part of a news story or documentary, then anything goes if I like the end result.

It’s Art.

There are some schools of thought that insist everything should be done "in camera" with little or no processing at all and then you have the other way of thinking in which anything goes. I agree that photography is "art" and that focus stacking, ND filters, presets etc are legitimate techniques/processors that allow you to create this art but I still have an issue with composite moons, fake golden hours and substituted skies. That of course is just my personal opinion and everyone comes at their art differently.

This way of thinking has so many holes in it. Cameras manipulate the digital image in camera in so many ways already. Fuji has conversions to multiple film simulations and changes to wb, exposure, saturation etc after the photo is taken but before it’s uploaded. What if composites could be done in camera or skies could be swapped? Would that make it ok?

Leaving 30-40% of the tools in the shed is pretty short sighted IMO.

As to your own acceptance of some manipulations and rejection of others - each person has their own ideas of what is acceptable to them, what they think of as “too far” and what they like and don’t like for a final result. As they say - you do you.

 

[stapo49]

each person has their own ideas of what is acceptable to them, what they think of as “too far” and what they like and don’t like for a final result. As they say - you do you.

Totally agree.

 

[smoke665]

Actually I have the capability on both the K3II and the K1MII to composite in camera, from HDR, Pixelshift, Highlight correction, Shadow correction, multiple images (additive and average), profiles, etc., which I sometimes find useful. So technically I could easily claim that a multiple composite image was SOOC, but I prefer to "see" what is taking place in the composite, to exert my influence on the process rather then allow the camera to do it for me. For me it is as much a part of the creative process as the part behind the camera, but that's me, and not to everyone's taste.

@JBPhotog "competency started to decline" I think I've already said somewhat the same, thing earlier, but yes I agree with you on the decline. Maybe not so much competency but laziness in their approach behind the camera. As to the SOOC film purist, I still remember the hours spent in the darkroom "post processing" film and prints to get what the camera didn't quite produce.