When is post processing to much?

[Goldcoin79]

I have just got to the stage with my photography where I have started using RAW instead of setting the camera to JPEG so I can make adjustments to all the things that a RAW file allows you to do.

The first time I did this I was amazed by how much you could make a picture look better and the control you had over the exposure, white balance and shadows etc. This did lead me to question weather there was more skill in getting it right shooting in JPEG than some one who doesn't need to worry about getting the exposure and white balance right because they know the can correct it because they have shot in RAW. I totally understand why it can be said it is better to shoot in RAW because of the control you have after but could you not get a not so good photographer who as long as he gets the focus correct and maybe the depth of field they can just rely on correcting everything else in post.

The other question this subject has lead me to question, is how much post processing is to much? I understand most pictures can benefit from a bit of editing but I also get pleasure when I have set the camera up myself to get the image I was aiming for and the exposure looks good.

Photo editing is in itself a skill and needs knowledge but my main interest is in taking the photos and getting the setup and settings right to get the image I'm aiming for. So when would you say a photo is edited to much to the point that it covers up a lack of photography skills?

I am interested in your views on this discussion as it has been going round in my mind for a few days now.

James

 

[nola.ron]

Editing is indeed a skill on its own. However, processing can't replace skills with getting it right in camera. Editing is used to enhance the image and make it pop. Keep in mind that simple editing such as white balance, exposure, contrast, etc does not make a good image, it makes the image POP. Proper editing can give a photo the feel of a 3rd dimension from shadows and depth.

As you learn, you'll spend less time editing and more time shooting. This is because you will get faster at general editing and also because you will start to produce better photos straight out of camera. For instance, I no longer have to adjust the exposure in most of my edits. Same can be said for white balance when I shoot.

In general, a little editing is better than a lot of editing. I make micro adjustments in my images up and down the developer functions in lightroom. If I didn't get the shot correct in camera then I'll switch into photoshop or get deeper and/or more aggressive with my lightroom edits. Shooting JPEG the pictures are still being processed - it's just a computer that's doing it and the computer does not always know what looks best. A JPEG image already has contrast adjustments, etc.

 

[Derrel]

When photos start to look ridiculously over-saturated and "juiced" [juiced is a reference that used to often be applied to steroid-addled bodybuilders and athletes], then post-processing has gone too far. That's my opinion. However, if one wants to do photo-illustrations, the sky is the limit, and there is no longer a ridiculousness limit enforced. Look at some of the popular aggregator sites devoted to digital imaging...they are filled with garish, absurd, and even clownish stuff, but then there's a pretty big segment that eats that stuff up, just like it was junk food or soda pop or empty-carb boxed stuff being sold as "food" these days.

So, the answer would be, "It all depends on your taste and education, and your desires."

 

[robbins.photo]

Editing is indeed a skill on its own. However, processing can't replace skills with getting it right in camera. Editing is used to enhance the image and make it pop. Keep in mind that simple editing such as white balance, exposure, contrast, etc does not make a good image, it makes the image POP. Proper editing can give a photo the feel of a 3rd dimension from shadows and depth.

As you learn, you'll spend less time editing and more time shooting. This is because you will get faster at general editing and also because you will start to produce better photos straight out of camera. For instance, I no longer have to adjust the exposure in most of my edits. Same can be said for white balance when I shoot.

In general, a little editing is better than a lot of editing. I make micro adjustments in my images up and down the developer functions in lightroom. If I didn't get the shot correct in camera then I'll switch into photoshop or get deeper and/or more aggressive with my lightroom edits. Shooting JPEG the pictures are still being processed - it's just a computer that's doing it and the computer does not always know what looks best. A JPEG image already has contrast adjustments, etc.

I've got to go with Derrel on this one, the moment you start saturating stuff to where you can look at it and say, "That is not natural" then it's time to tone it back down. I've seen some really nice shots - on Flickr mostly, that would have probably been great, but they overworked them to the point where it looked almost cartoonish to my eye. Some folks go in for that thing, especially on landscapes - I follow a different aesthetic I suppose. If I wanted a digital rendering I'd sit at home and do digital rendering.

 

[Braineack]

When it looks like what people consider HDR.

 

[btraven]

Right when you say to yourself "Ooh, that looks cool!". That's precisely the moment you should start dialing it back.

 

[slackercruster]

OP...It is all a matter of taste.

 

[peeteygirl]

I think the answer is very subjective. I categorize myself as a 95% photographer and 5% digital artist because I over saturate thing to produce the coolest images, not the most truthful ones most of the time. It really depends on what you want to create. Before anyone shoots me down over the oversaturation thing, I'm just a quirk who likes bright colors.

 

[The_Traveler]

Don't worry about what others think is too much.

Make the image look like what you conceive of in your mind's eye/
Get where you like it.

Using other people's rules means you will conform and make the same pictures that everyone else does.

And if you don't know what you want the image to look like, rethink photography as a good hobby for you.

 

[KelSS90]

I'm still very new to photography, but I do use lightroom to adjust my images...

While I see where you're coming from in the fact that a better photographer who gets the shot right in the camera won't need as much post processing, there is only so much that can be done when editing. I have had some shots where the lighting was way off, and while they were more acceptable after editing, they still weren't great. In editing some old photos that I had taken in auto mode, I also realized adjusting the exposure up too much brings out a lot of noise in the picture (obviously depending on your camera and settings used).

The level of editing that crosses the line into "too much" is really subjective and depends on the feel of the image and goals that the photographer has for it. For me, I edit to where I like it and then leave it alone for at least a day. When I go back to it, I almost always tone it down from where I had originally set the adjustments to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amolitor]

The process of developing a clear vision of what the picture ought to look like isn't something I've seen discussed by anyone except me:

Photos and Stuff: Whence Inspiration?

and a followup essaylet:

Photos and Stuff: Inspiration Thought Experiments

which might help you work out what a picture ought to look like. Then you can simply process it until it looks like that.

 

[The_Traveler]

a better photographer who gets the shot right in the camera won't need as much post processing,

there is only so much that can be done when editing. I have had some shots where the lighting was way off, and while they were more acceptable after editing, they still weren't great.

These statements are only partly true and the difference between them and the full truth is important.

a better photographer who gets the shot right in the camera won't need as much post processing A photographer tries to get it as right as possible in the camera. For example, if you are photographing a scene where the crucially important parts are grey and the entire important background is very bright, the single exposure that will capture the entire scene will not be 'right' in that it will require significant editing to finalize it.

there is only so much that can be done when editing. Many photographers don't believe that creativity stops when the shutter button is pressed. Not every photo is meant to represent the reality that you see in front of you. A captured image may only be the start or even just a part of the final.

 

[KelSS90]

there is only so much that can be done when editing. Many photographers don't believe that creativity stops when the shutter button is pressed. Not every photo is meant to represent the reality that you see in front of you. A captured image may only be the start or even just a part of the final.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree here. My point was simply that, there are shots that are simply not good, regardless of what is done in post processing. Sometimes a bad shot is just a bad shot.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Overread]

When my client/myself/my target audience does not like the result.

That basically covers when you've edited too far (assuming that you took the photo correctly for the effect in the camera to begin with). As a result what is too much can and will shift depending on what your end resulted want is. If you want oversturated HDR stuff that looks like a cartoon - GO FOR IT. If you want black and white go for it - if you want just a little here and a little there go for it.

Some people will like it and others won't - shoot for who you intend it for.


Note that I'd always advocate learning more than you need to use - learn how to edit beyond what you need for day to day editing so that you can choose how far and what methods to use from a position of choice instead of just repeating a process without having any real options.


I know people who've taken good photos in camera and then used them in a collage or done extensive editing to them. The idea of "getting it right in camera" is totally true no matter how much or how little editing you want to perform. Everything else is just convention or listening to specific market groups who will all want different things.

 

[Steve5D]

I've got to go with Derrel on this one, the moment you start saturating stuff to where you can look at it and say, "That is not natural" then it's time to tone it back down.

But, by the same token, one could then argue that black and white photography is "too much"...