Processing vs Photography Skill

[stapo49]

I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer? Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?

 

[SquarePeg]

I think you can make a good photo great or make a great photo incredible with some good processing skills. But the bones have to be there with composition, lighting, dof, focus, shutter speed...

Processing skills can also “save” a photo and make something bad into something decent.

But processing can’t make a poor photo into an incredible one.

 

[Designer]

Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?

For me, no.

I can accept some digital editing, and I'm o.k. with that, but if I see it has had too much manipulation, then I tend to discount the photograph in my mind.

 

[SquarePeg]

To answer your question, I think it’s 70/30 photo/processing. Those really amazing photos are usually focus stacked, composites, stitched panos or heavily processed.

 

[Soocom1]

Eye of the behonlder

 

[smoke665]

You're sort of opening a can of worms, which really doesn't have an answer, as it depends on what you wish to accomplish with a final image. Obviously for those more interested in being behind the camera, rather then in front of a computer, the closer to SOOC you can get the better. For them the idiom "Garbage in, garbage out", has significant meaning, as a good exposure can be tweaked to move an image from good to great. Bad images can be recovered (to a point), things like correcting color, cloning out objects, replacing objects, etc. are all possible, but it takes time. Time that takes away from being behind the camera.

Then you have a subset of photographers, who create images of something outside the abilities of the camera. An individual exposure isn't as much an issue as you're pulling together bits and pieces to create a composite of multiple images. Its a given going in that you'll be spending more time at the computer then behind the camera. I watched a video of a car shoot the other day, it took roughly 4 hours to shoot, but the photographer spent in excess of 30 hours on processing.

Nothing wrong with either approach, just different strokes for different folks.

 

[Original katomi]

Each to their own, if photoshop helps you achieve your dream then why not but one still has to see the image or the potential in the first place

 

[Braineack]

I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer? Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?

Some of the "best" work out there today is complete sh*t simply because of good digital editing.

The photographer in eu who takes pictures of her kids with dogs/chickens comes to mind.

 

[zulu42]

What's more important is people's viewing skills.

 

[Ysarex]

I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer? Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?

Back in the day before digital I spent more time in the darkroom making a print than I did behind the camera making the negative.

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Skill in the field or studio is really important in my view. I am not that into editing photos, and my skill is more as a photographer than as a digital editor. I spent my first 25 years in photography mostly concerned about framing and composition and timing, and I began to edit my photos somewhat in 2010.

If I have to spend more than about 10 minutes on any one image, I think that I did something quite wrong. Normally I spend about 3 minutes or less deciding what should be done with a particular frame. Oftentimes I will work diligently on one photo and then select the similar frames, and paste those changes onto up to 15 frames. I learned quite a few years ago that consistency in exposure was a real time-saver in Photoshop or in Lightroom.

Of course there are situations where you need to spend quite a while to either save a blown exposure or to make complicated pixel level edits, such as when cloning out unwanted items, or when working with hair, Etc..

I think the above estimation of 70% photography and 30% processing is about right.

 

[ac12]

As was said, the basic GOOD image has to be shot by the photographer.

You can't fix lousey composition by editing.​

You can "fix" stuff in post, to make it better, like removing unwanted objects.

So you DO need some post processing skills.

On the other hand, do you want to spend several hours on a single image?
Maybe for an IMPORTANT shot, but not for most of the stuff that I shoot.

 

[Jeff15]

For me, 65% of the fun is getting the image but the processing is fun too.....

 

[stapo49]

Thanks for the responses folks. Personally I don't have a problem with images being enhanced in Lightroom, Photoshop etc to your, or if you are a pro, to your clients liking
Though I do have an issue with substituting skies in an image. If the sky is no good at the time go back when it is. The only caveat with this is if the photographer is selling images to be used in advertising, marketing as this is all based on smoke and mirrors anyway.
Also some really nice images there Derrel.

 

[smoke665]

@stapo49 the ability to digitally manipulate an image has expanded beyond anything capable of capturing in camera. You mention sky replacement, but is that really bad? Say one day you capture a gorgeous sky at the beach, but the water isn't right, and another day you get a tremendous rolling surf but the sky is bland, they're still both your images, so why wouldn't you combine them into your vision? I have a file of nothing but sky shots, various textures and other scenes for backgrounds. Personally I see nothing wrong with using them when needed, but that's me. Photography is first an foremost an artististic expression of the photographer, so visions, opinions and tastes are going to differ. I do believe that digital editing can lead to a photographer not taking enough time on setting up the shot, thinking they can always fix it post. To me that mind set is creating unnecessary work.

When it comes to marketing, digital manipulation has gotten so bad that ongoing discussions have/are taking place, and even laws are being put in place for "Truth in Photography". Where do you stop with editing, is it okay to, smooth the skin, change eye color, slim the waist and thighs, what about extending the neck, basically dissecting and reassembling the model in a "perfect", alibiet unrealistic form. Me personally, when I look at a photograph in a magazine I see and comprehend the editing done to the model, and it's not likely that I'd "envision" myself looking that way even if I used the product being sold, nor would I have any negative feelings about myself for not conforming to the "perfect" model, but there is a fear that some might. Really truth in advertising is not something new, it's been tossed around, cussed and discussed, since the beginning of time, gullibility isn't something new. As P.T. Barnum is quoted saying, "There's a sucker born every minute"