Keeping it real.

[Phil V]

I have a very positive attitude to post processing, but sometimes I think we on the pro- PP side can make it sound like processing is so key that newer members see it as more important than the actual photography.

There have been 3 threads this week with a 'how's this achieved' type theme, and every time someone has suggested a plugin or processing technique as the answer. Every time they've been wrong!
How is this achieved

Picture Disection

model photoshoot

Photography is a complicated process that starts when you pre-visualise the image and ends when you hang the print on the wall. But the important time is before you press the shutter - NOT after you've downloaded it to your PC.

If you want to produce awesome photo's, spend some time studying composition, light and technique - not watching Youtube photoshop tutorials. I'm nearly thirty years in and still haven't managed 'awesome', and it's not a lack of Photoshop skills that's holding me back.

 

[theurbanclown]

I have a very positive attitude to post processing, but sometimes I think we on the pro- PP side can make it sound like processing is so key that newer members see it as more important than the actual photography.

There have been 3 threads this week with a 'how's this achieved' type theme, and every time someone has suggested a plugin or processing technique as the answer. Every time they've been wrong!
How is this achieved

Picture Disection

model photoshoot

Photography is a complicated process that starts when you pre-visualise the image and ends when you hang the print on the wall. But the important time is before you press the shutter - NOT after you've downloaded it to your PC.

If you want to produce awesome photo's, spend some time studying composition, light and technique - not watching Youtube photoshop tutorials. I'm nearly thirty years in and still haven't managed 'awesome', and it's not a lack of Photoshop skills that's holding me back.

Whilst you are right, that 3rd example is not a good one. The tones are done with subtle colour grading - which cannot be achieved in camera.

 

[Phil V]

Whilst you are right, that 3rd example is not a good one. The tones are done with subtle colour grading - which cannot be achieved in camera.

But the starting point was an image of a backlit subject, with OoF foreground detail to further reduce contrast. Starting with the wrong image won't give a convincing result (the same as fake background blur - it'll never look right).

 

[theurbanclown]

But the starting point was an image of a backlit subject, with OoF foreground detail to further reduce contrast. Starting with the wrong image won't give a convincing result (the same as fake background blur - it'll never look right).

No, I'm not disputing that. I agree that PP should be used to finish a good photo rather than rescue a bad one, but regardless of the way it's shot, contrast has been added in PP along with really good, subtle colour grading. I'm sure the poster of that thread was just interested in how to get those tones - which would be largely the same, regardless of how the photo was shot.

 

[TheTimeChamber]

I think this is the right time to say it, but you can't polich a turd. If you get the majority right in the camera, the PP should be minimal.

Saying that though, Ansel Adams reckoned that the creative process for his shots were like this:

Researching a location: 10%
Taking the photo: 20%
Darkroom Work: 60%
Printing: 10%

They had a video at his recent exhibit in Greenwich that explained the process, and he believed the majority of his work was carried out in the darkroom. But he was a master with his camera and fully understood the principles.

 

[Flightphoto]

Nick, you can polish a turd

There's an episode of Myth Busters, it's an ancient chinese art of polishing soil / dirt into objects but they used that same principle on poo

 

[Flightphoto]

But on a serious note, I do agree with Phil, no one should be reliant on software to do the work, you can't really call yourself a tog if you're just going to go on PS and completely remaster the image - that's called graphic design?

 

[London Headshots]

Yeah, the "probably a plugin" comments on this forum are hilarious. It's the latter day equivalent of "God did it".

 

[Flightphoto]

Next thing will be that Gels are a work of the devil and can only be produced in PS

 

[London Headshots]

But on a serious note, I do agree with Phil, no one should be reliant on software to do the work, you can't really call yourself a tog if you're just going to go on PS and completely remaster the image - that's called graphic design?

So I can't call myself a photographer? I shoot 100% with photoshop in mind. I shoot FOR photoshop. The fact that I might use up 10 lights to light a single person, or that I might hire £30k worth of equipment for a location shoot is completely negated by the fact that I intend to achieve the overall outcome in photoshop?

I do wish I was as much of a photographer as some of the guys here.

 

[jon ryan]

Plug-ins are the equivalent of camera scene modes. Sure some stuff has to have a plug-in (doesn't it? ), but using auto functions in post if you don't understand the fundamentals of editing is not really any different to setting the camera on 'P'.

 

[Flightphoto]

John, have you read my response incorrectly?

 

[Phil V]

But on a serious note, I do agree with Phil, no one should be reliant on software to do the work, you can't really call yourself a tog if you're just going to go on PS and completely remaster the image - that's called graphic design?

Not really because...

So I can't call myself a photographer? I shoot 100% with photoshop in mind. I shoot FOR photoshop. The fact that I might use up 10 lights to light a single person, or that I might hire £30k worth of equipment for a location shoot is completely negated by the fact that I intend to achieve the overall outcome in photoshop?

I do wish I was as much of a photographer as some of the guys here.

back to my original post - it's an important part of the process -Marcus Geezer springs to mind, he produces some amazing stuff in post - but what he shoots in the studio is carefully shot with the finished product in mind, otherwise it'd look pants.

 

[theurbanclown]

But on a serious note, I do agree with Phil, no one should be reliant on software to do the work, you can't really call yourself a tog if you're just going to go on PS and completely remaster the image - that's called graphic design?

It's actually photo manipulation. And colour grading is impossible to achieve in camera, so PP is the only option.

 

[Flightphoto]

I can understand it's an important part of the process but what my point is, is that some totally go the wrong way around and rely on creating a new image out of another. There's nothing wrong with processing in PS, I'm just saying there are those that profess that they are the best but in actual fact are completely tosh at taking a decent photo from the outset and then jazz it up. I just feel that one day nobody will have a creative eye or judgement and will rely purely on software to do all the work that could have been done from the outset if using the camera correctly etc

 

[London Headshots]

John, have you read my response incorrectly?

I don't think I have. My images look nothing like they do in camera once they're finished. I wouldn't shoot anything I wasn't able to take into photoshop. By your logic, I can't rightly call myself a photographer, even though I do it full time, seven days a week, for money.

It's not so much that I dislike the individuals who say what you said, it's that I dislike the fact that many individuals deem themselves able to dictate who and who can't call themselves a photographer.

 

[London Headshots]

I can understand it's an important part of the process but what my point is, is that some totally go the wrong way around and rely on creating a new image out of another. There's nothing wrong with processing in PS, I'm just saying there are those that profess that they are the best but in actual fact are completely tosh at taking a decent photo from the outset and then jazz it up. I just feel that one day nobody will have a creative eye or judgement and will rely purely on software to do all the work that could have been done from the outset if using the camera correctly etc

Very often I can be on a job where I don't really have much of a brief, and the client has been really vague on what they want. I always play it safe in this instance and light the scene with very flat, even light, to give me way movement once I get the shots home.

The original shots look incredibly boring and amateurish (to someone who doesn't understand lighting FOR photoshop), but the net result is that I can take the image in any direction I want.

In this instance, I've relied purely on the software. How am I less of a photographer for doing so?

 

[theurbanclown]

I can understand it's an important part of the process but what my point is, is that some totally go the wrong way around and rely on creating a new image out of another. There's nothing wrong with processing in PS, I'm just saying there are those that profess that they are the best but in actual fact are completely tosh at taking a decent photo from the outset and then jazz it up. I just feel that one day nobody will have a creative eye or judgement and will rely purely on software to do all the work that could have been done from the outset if using the camera correctly etc

There is this weird purist attitude to Photography, that I usually see coming from people who grew up with film and struggle to accept that whilst the fundamentals are still the same, Photography has changed a lot since then.

Creating a great photo is of no less or more talent, whether the bulk was done in camera or with software. It's the end result. Using software still requires skill and a creative eye as much as taking the photo does.

 

[Flightphoto]

To make it even clearer, I'm referring to the people on sites such as DeviantArt etc, who profess that they're photographers because they've completely remastered an image when sometimes they've not actually taken the image from the outset.

But anyway, this is turning a bit sour so I'll take a seat as the responses clearly do not refer to what I'm trying to get at etc

 

[Phil V]

To make it even clearer, I'm referring to the people on sites such as DeviantArt etc, who profess that they're photographers because they've completely remastered an image when sometimes they've not actually taken the image from the outset.

But anyway, this is turning a bit sour so I'll take a seat as the responses clearly do not refer to what I'm trying to get at etc

Looking at this thread and the other 'processing' thread this morning, some people could start a fight in a phone box. I know what you mean (I think) and I don't think you're not anti PP, so you could probably have put it better.

 

[Flightphoto]

I know, I'm quite crap when replying on forums, trying to word something for others to understand is crap without making eye contact!

 

[pooley]

As long as you're not trying to pass of a clearly photoshopped image off as being a true representation of a scene - such as a journalistic shot of an event - then I really don't see the problem. Photography is an art form, its just that some people use processing as an enhancement more than others.

It doesn't make you better or worse, just different. The real skill is getting the image you're after at the time of shooting - even if thats with PP in mind - rather than reting to rescue a crock of poo,

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't think I have. My images look nothing like they do in camera once they're finished. I wouldn't shoot anything I wasn't able to take into photoshop. By your logic, I can't rightly call myself a photographer, even though I do it full time, seven days a week, for money.

It's not so much that I dislike the individuals who say what you said, it's that I dislike the fact that many individuals deem themselves able to dictate who and who can't call themselves a photographer.

The fact is though, most of these threads illustrate an image that clearly relies on a strong lighting technique to achieve what they do, yet all the replies automatically start suggesting this or that plug-in. It's as if lighting, tonality, colour or anything to do with the capture process no longer have anything to do with photography according to these people. It's as there's an opinion that if you see something cool, it must be been done digitally.

Same with all the portrait white background threads... the replies are all talking about how to whiten the background post process Why not light it correctly in the first place? Furthermore... why does the thread have to be 10 posts long or more before anyone mentions this?