Is it bad to rely on PP?

stupar said:
Hi Sal

Good question. Generally I think people might argue both ways.
In my opinion I think its better to concentrate on actually being able to take good shots without relying on PP to much otherwise you risk losing the fundamentals of photography which is taking good photographs.

That said a tiny amount of PP doesn't do any harm e.g cropping, levels, curves, B&W etc.
When you are using it to try and polish a turd then you know something has gone wrong!
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
This subject raises its head over and over again and I dont mean to offend anyone on here but it is clear that some people dont understand RAW and JPEG. ANYONE who shots RAW NEEDS to PP! RAW images look horrid and need to be manipulated into a work of beauty. If you shoot JPEG you have already applied PP in camera by selecting a picture style.

I dont undertsand why anyone would shot RAW just to put them through a basic package iditing package at a simple setting such as "neutral", "landscape", "portrait" etc. If you do that shot JPEG and change the camera style to whatever one you want.... its the same thing.

If you want to PP and know you will on your PC after a shoot IMO shot RAW and not JPEG as if you process a JPEG in LR or PS too much it degrades the quality of the picture too much, you are basically processing it twice. Again IMO sharpening is worst of all as a destructive process and should only be done once... preferably at the end of PP.
 
Last edited:
I'm a graphic designer so I use Photoshop all day every day and use my skills to enhance my photos. Maybe that's because I'm new to photography and therefore I'm not yet a good enough photographer to get it right first time. If at some point I'm able to get images bang on in the original camera, that's great, but I still think certain adjustments in Photoshop will make an image even better.

At the end of the day, what's the difference between using an ND grad filter to enhance the sky and doing the same thing in Photoshop?
 
boliston said:
I'm not sure if resizing for the web and converting to a jpeg counts, but I always like to try and get everything correct at the picture taking stage if possible.
Click to expand...

In which case you are severly limiting your photography.

Photography is as much about having the vision to take the image the way YOU want to in the first place. Why do you think we use lighting? It is to change the light to what we want at the time of taking the image. In the darkroom prints would be dodged, burned, toned and hand coloured to get them how the photographer wanted them.

Why do you want to limit yourself to only the first part of the process?

Do you somehow see it as "better"?
 
I am probably the laziest article some of you would ever have the pleasure of meeting, so to help keep the effort down, I shoot to JPEG. Obviously I fine tune the settings in the camera, but I let it do the work and try to avoid post work. If I spot a JPEG that I think needs cropping or the colours boosted a bit, I will. Most of the time though they go straight in "the folder". Job done, put the kettle on.

When I had just gotten into photography, I shot in raw and PP'd, but soon got bored of that.


htid said:
At the end of the day, what's the difference between using an ND grad filter to enhance the sky and doing the same thing in Photoshop?
Click to expand...

Except from a purist point of view, none. Just a different way of skinning a cat, etc.
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic :) I always add pp to images, which I always shoot RAW. It provides flexibility and allows me to correct any issues with:

a) My technique
b) The lens
c) Noise
d) Cropping (if I'm using a prime and it's the wrong length!)

For example, I was shooting the other day wide open and half a stop underexposed at ISO 6400 and needed to pay attention to each file individually, to ensure noise or smudging didn't ruin the image. I did that deliberatly as I didn't want a JPG engine making decisions for me ;)
 
To quote Joel Tintjejaar...

"I'm not interested in the world as it is, I'm not interested in what the camera can record, I'm just interested in what I see. Once you have visualized the image you have in your head and convey it to the world, then I think it becomes art."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjintjelaar/
 
I find a lot of people have a funny attitude to pp'ing - when asked what pp'ing they did on their image lots of people invariably reply "oh very little, the bare minimum really" before going on to list the 37 seperate types of change they made. It's almost as if they're ashamed of it and are trying to downplay it's impact on their image.

I don't pp as a rule, mainly because my pictures aren't of a high enough standard to warrant it. I'd rather leave average pics as average rather than polish a turd. However I'd have no qualms about pp'ing something if it took it from good to great.

Unless the pp'ing is part of the style of the picture then imho the picture should look natural, the sky could've looked like that etc, but the underlying assumption should probably shift to one in which pp is considered the norm and not commented on unless there's something wrong with it in terms of style or application.


(I think that's what I think anyway...!)
 
AliB said:
Do you somehow see it as "better"?
Click to expand...

You weren't asking me but, generally yes. I've messed about with PP, watched others messing with processing and very often the results are less natural and worse than the original. Bad B&W conversions, bad HDR, bad selective colouring, false bokeh, over saturation, you name it, it's all been on here.

People seem to think that just because you can carry out 100 steps you should. I don't find avoiding processing limiting at all.
 
dod said:
You weren't asking me but, generally yes. I've messed about with PP, watched others messing with processing and very often the results are less natural and worse than the original. Bad B&W conversions, bad HDR, bad selective colouring, false bokeh, over saturation, you name it, it's all been on here.

People seem to think that just because you can carry out 100 steps you should. I don't find avoiding processing limiting at all.
Click to expand...

Dod I must agree with that but also it can enhance an image.

I suppose it's down to the eye of the beholder.
 
dod said:
You weren't asking me but, generally yes. I've messed about with PP, watched others messing with processing and very often the results are less natural and worse than the original. Bad B&W conversions, bad HDR, bad selective colouring, false bokeh, over saturation, you name it, it's all been on here.

People seem to think that just because you can carry out 100 steps you should. I don't find avoiding processing limiting at all.
Click to expand...

This is where I see there is a difference, all the things you mention I would classify as artisitic effects. Yes its PP, but the most I do when PP RAW would be levels, colour, WB, sharpening and noise reduction.. basically things the camera would do when converting to JPEG. The difference is I get to make the choices and you forget to mention good B&W conversions. I do however agree that It can be taken to extremes but not all will do that. The FACT is if you shot RAW PP is practically unavoidable IMO.
 
Last edited:
Donki said:
This is where I see there is a difference, all the things you mention I would classify as artisitic effects. Yes its PP, but the most I do when PP RAW would be levels, colour, WB, sharpening and noise reduction.. basically things the camera would do when converting to JPEG. The difference is I get to make the choices and you forget to mention good B&W conversions. I do however agree that It can be taken to extremes but not all will do that. The FACT is if you shot RAW PP is practically unavoidable IMO.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "generally". :) I didn't forget good B&W conversions, they just didn't fit with my point :D Same could be said about good HDR etc etc etc. Obviously if you shoot RAW you're going to have to process, and that's where the problems start :p

I'm definitely not getting caught up in the "define artistic" argument though, art's too often just an excuse for any old ***** :p
 
GrittyShaker said:
But if you had an unlimited supply of prints (which is what you essentially have with a digital Jpeg), then why would you need negatives?

If you convert straight to Jpeg from the RAW file without doing any PP, it will look worse than shooting in Jpeg.
Click to expand...

The beauty of working with Nikon's own software as opposed to 3rd party apps from Adobe etc is that the in camera settings are all retained in the raw file so there is no difference from a jpeg saved from the raw image in view nx2/capture nx2 and a jpeg produced directly from the camera.

Given the fact that I will get the same result from jpeg or raw then there is no advantage in shooting jpeg really.

Also I might want to produce a jpeg in various sizes and compression levels depending on the final use, but the in camera jpeg only comes in one size and one compression level, so to produce another jpeg would mean opening one jpeg, changing it and then saving as a "jpeg from a jpeg".

Jpeg is not really designed to be opened, changed and then re saved.
 
Going back to the thread title then yes, it is bad because if you say you are relying on PP, you're saying that you can't take a decent photo without relying on PP (getting away for the moment from whether or not in camera processing counts and whether you shoot in raw or jpeg).

That said, there's nothing wrong with processing a photo after you've taken it. 'd hate for my photography to end once I've clicked the shutter button. For me, it's about enhancement rather than error correction.
 
AliB said:
In which case you are severly limiting your photography.

Photography is as much about having the vision to take the image the way YOU want to in the first place. Why do you think we use lighting? It is to change the light to what we want at the time of taking the image. In the darkroom prints would be dodged, burned, toned and hand coloured to get them how the photographer wanted them.

Why do you want to limit yourself to only the first part of the process?

Do you somehow see it as "better"?
Click to expand...

I tend to operate on the basis that I see something that I think is worth capturing, and assuming I get basic things like aperture, shutter, focus correct then I have a fair chance of getting a capture of what I have seen.

I seem to remember reading an article about Henri Cartier Bresson and the fact that he loved taking pictures but had little interest in the darkroom stage and would get this done by someone else.

I think that all photographers have varying levels of interest in post processing and I've tried it but tend to get bored with it quite quickly, but other photographers really "embrace" the whole PP side and often enjoy it more than the process of actually going out and capturing images.

Each to their own is the answer I think, rather than a "right" or "wrong".
 
dod said:
You weren't asking me but, generally yes. I've messed about with PP, watched others messing with processing and very often the results are less natural and worse than the original. Bad B&W conversions, bad HDR, bad selective colouring, false bokeh, over saturation, you name it, it's all been on here.

People seem to think that just because you can carry out 100 steps you should. I don't find avoiding processing limiting at all.
Click to expand...

While I can see plenty of merit in the "just because you can does not mean you should" and "desaturate does not = Black and White" sentiments that's where the agreement ends and I think somewhat differently.

There are loads of images that I really like that have been enhanced by good PP. Take a look at http://www.yerburystudio.com/ Have a look through the different subjects and the archive.

Trevor and Faye both grew up shooting on film and have retained a lot of the character of film shooters but they have embraced digital and the PP required to polish images.

Again, Kenny Martin, all these are PP'd http://www.kennethmartinphotography.com/Artist.asp?ArtistID=27305&Akey=TV568YFL

For classic wedding work Gill Taylor http://www.gilltaylor.co.uk/

All of these images have been PP'd and from where I sit are better for it :D
 
I shoot RAW use DPP and maybe clone in PS that's it, i shoot landscapes and sometimes there's a dirty big log in the way of a lovely tree.

when using lights (studio) i use :eek: portrait professional :thumbs::thumbs:, for those who want to look younger and alot smoother :naughty:

8-10 clicks and hey oh, even my sisters paper thin wrinkled skin looks amazing,


but i tell her i like the wrinkled look


PS is a must for wedding togs


Merc
 
Last edited:
I see not doing any post processing as the same as taking your negative film into Boots and accepting the prints you get back. They can be fine, but usually you can do better by working in the darkroom.

I accept that this is a bit of a generalisation as the image is much more customisable in camera than using film, but that is a form of post processing as far as I am concerned.

Of course, using slide film is another matter...
 
Bythesea said:
I see not doing any post processing as the same as taking your negative film into Boots and accepting the prints you get back. They can be fine, but usually you can do better by working in the darkroom......
Click to expand...

I've seen the results of boots and they often look terrible. When I've had 35mm film that I want developed i tend to send them to Peak Imaging in Sheffield and they seem to do a better job than Boots although cost more. Boots is aimed at people who just want somewhere quick and cheap to do their rolls of holiday snaps, and these type of people are not overly discerning about quality.
 
I find it quite odd that anything regarding processing always ends up revolving around raw Vs JPEG. I just don't get this infactuation with arguing the toss - seems to me there are a lot if armchair enthusiast on here who'd rather quote what they've read on a website than actually getting out there....

I did a teaching day at work today, showing three guys if varying abilities how to take better pics and use their cameras better. Not once did we talk about file types, processing, in-camera adjustments and what-have-you...... These three guys were over the moon at what they learned and you know what, after a decade of doing this professionally, that was probably one of the most rewarding days for me because there was no BS, just enjoyment about taking shots we wanted to take....
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I've seen the results of boots and they often look terrible. When I've had 35mm film that I want developed i tend to send them to Peak Imaging in Sheffield and they seem to do a better job than Boots although cost more. Boots is aimed at people who just want somewhere quick and cheap to do their rolls of holiday snaps, and these type of people are not overly discerning about quality.
Click to expand...

True - I was using Boots as a generic processor there. But by selecting Peak aren't you getting them to do some post processing for you as they are going to tweak the machinery to get the best results?
 
specialman said:
I find it quite odd that anything regarding processing always ends up revolving around raw Vs JPEG. I just don't get this infactuation with arguing the toss - seems to me there are a lot if armchair enthusiast on here who'd rather quote what they've read on a website than actually getting out there....

I did a teaching day at work today, showing three guys if varying abilities how to take better pics and use their cameras better. Not once did we talk about file types, processing, in-camera adjustments and what-have-you...... These three guys were over the moon at what they learned and you know what, after a decade of doing this professionally, that was probably one of the most rewarding days for me because there was no BS, just enjoyment about taking shots we wanted to take....
Click to expand...

But the OP started the thread on PP, hence talking about PP and how do you know how much people get out there?
 
Donki said:
But the OP started the thread on PP, hence talking about PP and how do you know how much people get out there?
Click to expand...

The OP started off about processing, not the merits of raw, JPEG or any other file format...... but hey-ho, who am I to question the populous?... :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
The beauty of working with Nikon's own software as opposed to 3rd party apps from Adobe etc is that the in camera settings are all retained in the raw file so there is no difference from a jpeg saved from the raw image in view nx2/capture nx2 and a jpeg produced directly from the camera.
Click to expand...

The jpg is embedded in the RAW file. Canon's DPP software does the same.

boliston said:
Given the fact that I will get the same result from jpeg or raw then there is no advantage in shooting jpeg really.
Click to expand...
I'd say the opposite. Why shoot RAW if you end up with the same jpg image?

boliston said:
Also I might want to produce a jpeg in various sizes and compression levels depending on the final use, but the in camera jpeg only comes in one size and one compression level, so to produce another jpeg would mean opening one jpeg, changing it and then saving as a "jpeg from a jpeg".

Jpeg is not really designed to be opened, changed and then re saved.
Click to expand...
Not quite right. So long as you keep the original jpg intact you can save from that as many tmes as you like to a different size. It's when you resave over a jpg a number of times that you start to get issues.
 
fabs said:
Going back to the thread title then yes, it is bad because if you say you are relying on PP, you're saying that you can't take a decent photo without relying on PP (getting away for the moment from whether or not in camera processing counts and whether you shoot in raw or jpeg).

That said, there's nothing wrong with processing a photo after you've taken it. 'd hate for my photography to end once I've clicked the shutter button. For me, it's about enhancement rather than error correction.
Click to expand...

For me it's both. I don't get every shot right!
 
boliston said:
I've seen the results of boots and they often look terrible. When I've had 35mm film that I want developed i tend to send them to Peak Imaging in Sheffield and they seem to do a better job than Boots although cost more. Boots is aimed at people who just want somewhere quick and cheap to do their rolls of holiday snaps, and these type of people are not overly discerning about quality.
Click to expand...

Which to me is exactly what you're doing by not getting even the basics of PP right - i.e. just tweaking exposure (the camera can't always capture the dynamic range of what you are shooting), contrast, saturation - just basics before you even start to enhance artistically.
 
specialman said:
The OP started off about processing, not the merits of raw, JPEG or any other file format...... but hey-ho, who am I to question the populous?... :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:lol: - always ends up the same
 
Dave in Wales said:
Is it bad to rely on PP ?

YES....IMHO

Get it right in the camera.

D in W
Click to expand...

Some shots would be impossible to get in camera, I for one heavily rely on post processing to get the shots that I envisage in my head.

In fact, I couldn't do my shots without it.

I agree with the sentiments of others, it's a necessary tool just like the darkroom was. Anyone who keeps the sentiment that Photoshop (and there are plenty of those in this world) has no place in the photography world, just doesn't understand processing at all.
 
specialman said:
I find it quite odd that anything regarding processing always ends up revolving around raw Vs JPEG. I just don't get this infactuation with arguing the toss -

I did a teaching day at work today, showing three guys if varying abilities how to take better pics and use their cameras better. Not once did we talk about file types, processing, in-camera adjustments and what-have-you...... These three guys were over the moon at what they learned and you know what, after a decade of doing this professionally, that was probably one of the most rewarding days for me because there was no BS, just enjoyment about taking shots we wanted to take....
Click to expand...


that would be like showing somone how to steer a car better, but letting them drive round in 3rd gear all the time, or are they shooting Auto:)

because i could have my camera in M and it set to iso 1600 @ 1/500 f/2 on a sunny day and :shrug:


the basics first and PS comes right after click for some


Merc
 
EOS_JD said:
For me it's both. I don't get every shot right!
Click to expand...

I was generalising but I agree, to a point. By the time I get to the processing stage, the exposure is right because I will have deleted any that are wrong in camera. Ones where I do have to correct for exposure will be where I have used high ISO and have overexposed but that is deliberate so no really an error. ;)
 
boliston said:
The beauty of working with Nikon's own software as opposed to 3rd party apps from Adobe etc is that the in camera settings are all retained in the raw file so there is no difference from a jpeg saved from the raw image in view nx2/capture nx2 and a jpeg produced directly from the camera.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have thought NX2 would be any different to LR when simply converting to Jpeg. Perhaps I've got it wrong then.

Someone on another forum I frequent was arguing that he didn't need to use RAW. He shot three images in RAW+Jpeg, and uploaded the in-camera Jpeg, together with a Jpeg converted from the RAW (with no processing other than the conversion), and I identified which were the in-camera Jpegs due to them being sharper and having less noise.
 
boliston said:
The embedded jpeg is for preview purposes only. The embedded jpeg is not used to create the final jpeg as that is created from the raw data.
Click to expand...

Yes you're probably right. But doesn't change the fact that is all you do is change the raw to a generic setting, you would have been as well just shooting jpg.
 
fabs said:
I was generalising but I agree, to a point. By the time I get to the processing stage, the exposure is right because I will have deleted any that are wrong in camera. Ones where I do have to correct for exposure will be where I have used high ISO and have overexposed but that is deliberate so no really an error. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow! you delete an image where exposire is wrong? one of my favourite ever wedding shots was over 2 stops under exposed (my error) - but easily corrected in Lr (v1 at the time).

Why would you delete shots like that?
 
:agree:

Some of my faourite shots werent "perfect" in camera, but I knew I had the goods in the file, just a simple tweak in LR and all is fine... I never delete anything EVER as you cannot tell just from the LCD and Histogram, you need to see it fullsize to make any judgement call.
 
add to that it's one of the fastest ways to corrupt a card.....
 
EOS_JD said:
Wow! you delete an image where exposire is wrong? one of my favourite ever wedding shots was over 2 stops under exposed (my error) - but easily corrected in Lr (v1 at the time).

Why would you delete shots like that?
Click to expand...

jamesoliverstone said:
:agree:

Some of my faourite shots werent "perfect" in camera, but I knew I had the goods in the file, just a simple tweak in LR and all is fine... I never delete anything EVER as you cannot tell just from the LCD and Histogram, you need to see it fullsize to make any judgement call.
Click to expand...

I did say I was generalising, there are always exceptions. To clarify, If I take a shot where, for whatever reason, the exposure is completely out of whack then I will take another one having corrected for that error. When I then have the shot I want, I delete the one I don't. If it is a sports shot, the I may not have the opportunity to retake so in that case I would have no choice but to keep the shot and make the best of it.

AliB said:
add to that it's one of the fastest ways to corrupt a card.....
Click to expand...

Never had a corrupt card in over 6 years. ;)
 
Well, just got back to this thread...

I like what someone said about PP being just another tool. Thinking of it like that has made me less concerned about fiddling about a bit with the image as long as its not trying to (as another poster put) "polish a turd".
 
Basically it all boils down to weather you want to do the processing rather than the camera. If you produce jpg's rather than raw (and no! I don't want to get embroiled in that debate again) then you are letting the camera settings decide how your shots are processed, if those settings are not appropriate your chances of correction are somewhat limited compared to raw. Some, like me, prefer to do the processing ourselves, and for most shots, it doesn't take too long. Plus, it is possible to put some form of shine even on the proverbial t**d, so long as you rub hard enough.........
Shoot in raw + jpg, process the raw and compare the two jpg's. If you prefer the ooc jpg's then you probably don't need to pp. As others have already said, getting things right in camera should be every togs goal, but sometimes we get it wrong, this is when pp ing the raw can get you out of the mire. Photography is an art form, it is what is conveyed to the viewer that ( to my mind) is what is important rather than how accurate the scene is to real life. You only need to look in any photo mag to see examples of MAJOR pp being applied to get the perfect (?) pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top