"No processing"

PMN said:
STILL you're missing it!

I'll say this once more and that's it - how you arrive at the end result doesn't matter as long as you arrive there. I'm not saying either processing or not processing makes you any less or more of a photographer, I'm saying you need to do however much or little processing as you need to achieve the results you had in mind when you took the photo.

I'm assuming when you shoot you already know how you want the end image to look and you're not just sitting there messing with sliders for the sake of it hoping a magical image will suddenly pop out of the screen at you?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. What point do you think I'm missing? You seem hellbent on interpreting my argument as saying that not processing is bad, which isn't what I've said at all.
 
Steve Smith said:
My experience so far is purely analogue desks but I plan to sit in on a few events and learn to use the Yamaha digital desk this year.
Click to expand...

Which Yammy, the M7? The trick with digital is not to think of it any differently to an analogue desk, as long as you can maintain an analogue ethos you'll be fine. All the bigger Yamaha digital desks (M7CL, CL5, PM5D) are pretty straightforward and logical so if you know your way round an analogue you'll be absolutely fine. :)

I know I'm drifting off topic here but if you ever have chance to play with a DiGiCo SD7 then they have a neat little trick up their sleeve - a camera and screen in the middle of it so you can have video talkback with the other end of the multicore!

GkdOChn.jpg


Frightened the crap out of me the first time I hit that button accidentally! :lol:

P.S. Sorry for the drifting off topic, just felt it might lighten the mood!
 
ghoti said:
You seem hellbent on interpreting my argument as saying that not processing is bad, which isn't what I've said at all.
Click to expand...

Nope I'm saying whether you process or not simply doesn't matter if you get the results you want, it's something there to be used if needed. That's what you're totally missing because you keep bringing it back to the same point of whether it's inherently either good or bad when the simple fact is it's neither.
 
PMN said:
Which Yammy, the M7?
Click to expand...

They have an M7CL and an LS9. It's the LS9 I plan to learn.

Up to now I have been using the A&H GL4000 which has now become the monitor desk (unless Midge Ure is playing when the LS9 had to go on stage to monitor three channels!).


Steve.
 
PMN said:
Nope I'm saying whether you process or not simply doesn't matter if you get the results you want.
Click to expand...

I know we keep veering off topic, but to use another music analogy, if it sounds good, it is good.


Steve.
 
PMN said:
Nope I'm saying whether you process or not simply doesn't matter if you get the results you want, it's something there to be used if needed. That's what you're totally missing because you keep bringing it back to the same point of whether it's inherently either good or bad when the simple fact is it's neither.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I'm arguing that the idea that it's inherently bad is ridiculous. It doesn't follow that it's always necessary to fulfil a vision. Although it is obviously adding an extra layer of creativity. In this sense, and this sense alone, it is always good - even if the resulting image is ****. By which I mean: at least it's all your own work.
 
PP in my opinion is a sliding scale that starts at minor correction that you could could argue is stuff that could be due to camera processing needing tweaking to outright fakery and artistic creation. When i see someone posting a picture and stating PP has been carried out I generally dismiss and move on, when i see a pic that the taker states as straight out of the camera I look close and give it thought and time. If the picture is a straight picture that has been corrected I ask why? If the picture has been artistically altered to create somethig else then I judge also accordingly.

Each time i go out with my camera i look at the results and have a think and see what i could do better and how to learn.
I have never PP'd and to be honest as an IT professional working on multi million £ systems its not a skills thing its a pride thing.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
They have an M7CL and an LS9. It's the LS9 I plan to learn.

Up to now I have been using the A&H GL4000 which has now become the monitor desk (unless Midge Ure is playing when the LS9 had to go on stage to monitor three channels!).
Click to expand...

The LS9 is actually my least favourite digital desk in the world! They're very fiddly and the screen resolution is awful which isn't too nice if you're spending a while behind it. They do a job though and it's probably a good one to learn on because bigger desks you move to will probably seem easier to use than the LS9. :)

Steve Smith said:
I know we keep veering off topic, but to use another music analogy, if it sounds good, it is good.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Whether you EQ'd, compressed, whatever, simply doesn't matter as long as it sounds good.

ghoti said:
Although it is possible to control your own FoH sound with a long enough lead or radio unit. I've done this frequently myself, especially when using an in-house engineer.
Click to expand...

Or you could just leave the guy to do his job and stop patronising him by assuming being a musician automatically gives you a greater understanding of live sound than a sound engineer. That's something pub acts do, not serious musicians. Any musician is more than welcome to ask me to adjust a sound to suit his tastes but if he tries to fiddle with my desk he'll usually get a good verbal slapping.

ghoti said:
It doesn't follow that it's always necessary to fulfil a vision.
Click to expand...

Why are you taking the photo in the first place if you have no vision/idea of how you want it to look? The idea of creating the image you see when you press the button on top of your camera is central to the whole principle of editing and when to use it, if you don't know what you want it to look like when you take it then maybe you shouldn't actually be taking it.
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
PP in my opinion is a sliding scale that starts at minor correction that you could could argue is stuff that could be due to camera processing needing tweaking to outright fakery and artistic creation. When i see someone posting a picture and stating PP has been carried out I generally dismiss and move on, when i see a pic that the taker states as straight out of the camera I look close and give it thought and time. If the picture is a straight picture that has been corrected I ask why? If the picture has been artistically altered to create somethig else then I judge also accordingly.
Click to expand...
This is the attitude was originally speaking against that some people argue doesn't exist. Post-processing already happens in the camera. If you do it manually then you're just taking control of that process. Dismissing manually post-processed images offhand is silly because all of your digital images are post-processed automatically according to the preferences of the software designers.
 
PMN said:
The LS9 is actually my least favourite digital desk in the world! They're very fiddly and the screen resolution is awful which isn't too nice if you're spending a while behind it. They do a job though and it's probably a good one to learn on because bigger desks you move to will probably seem easier to use than the LS9.

Exactly! Whether you EQ'd, compressed, whatever, simply doesn't matter as long as it sounds good.

Or you could just leave the guy to do his job and stop patronising him by assuming being a musician automatically gives you a greater understanding of live sound than a sound engineer. That's something pub acts do, not serious musicians. Any musician is more than welcome to ask me to adjust a sound to suit his tastes but if he tries to fiddle with my desk he'll usually get a good verbal slapping.

Why are you taking the photo in the first place if you have no vision/idea of how you want it to look? The idea of creating the image you see when you press the button on top of your camera is central to the whole principle of editing and when to use it, if you don't know what you want it to look like when you take it then maybe you shouldn't actually be taking it.
Click to expand...
Deary me. I'm not saying you don't start with a vision.
 
ghoti said:
Deary me. I'm not saying you don't start with a vision.
Click to expand...

No you didn't, you're right, you said you don't think it always follows that you have to fulfil a vision which my reply is a perfectly valid response to.

Sit back and consider this question for a few moments before blurting out a reply - unless you know what you want the image to look like why are you taking it? What's your reason for pressing that button? What are you hoping to achieve? If you have a reason for taking it then fine but if you don't then why bother?

I'm not by any means saying every click of the shutter has to be a great image, I take loads of photos that are plain crap or don't work out for whatever reason but I always have an end result in mind when I press the button.
 
PMN said:
No you didn't, you're right, you said you don't think it always follows that you have to fulfil a vision which my reply is a perfectly valid response to.

Sit back and consider this question for a few moments before blurting out a reply - unless you know what you want the image to look like why are you taking it? What's your reason for pressing that button? What are you hoping to achieve? If you have a reason for taking it then fine but if you don't then why bother?

I'm not by any means saying every click of the shutter has to be a great image, I take loads of photos that are plain crap or don't work out for whatever reason but I always have an end result in mind when I press the button.
Click to expand...

Look at what I said in context. I said that manual post-processing is not always necessary to fulfil a vision. Not that you don't have to ever fulfil a vision.
 
PMN said:
Right, as we seem to be going from London to Paris via Tokyo with all this let's break it down.

Can you sum up, in one or two lines concisely and simply, what your actual point is?
Click to expand...

I already have. Numerous times. Other people seem to have understood.

But here we go again: manual post processing is often seen as less worthy (see Mr Bump above for evidence). However, ALL digital images are post processed. If you don't do it manually you're delegating control to a third party (the software designers) which makes the argument that it's less artistically valid to manual process somewhat silly and ironic.
(There's a different argument to be had about wholesale manipulation - cloning and the like - but that's not what I'm talking about)
 
ghoti said:
But here we go again: manual post processing is often seen as less worthy (see Mr Bump above for evidence)
Click to expand...

Evidence of what? Someone's opinion? :thinking:

I think it's fairly clear that the vast majority of people who've replied really don't see an inherent problem with any of this and that the only one making a big deal out of it is you.

Let me ask a simple and direct question - why does any of this matter to you? How does it affect your photography? Does the amount of processing you do affect how artistic and creative you feel?
 
Almost everyone who uses a medium or craft for artistic expression has to use someone else's choices somewhere along the way.

If you paint with oils or watercolours, it is unlikely that you mix your own paints or make your own brushes.

If you sculpt, you probably use tools someone else made.

Not many musicians play instruments they made themselves*

Even if you use slide film in a camera, with the slide being the finished product, someone has formulated the emulsion and decided what the colour endition and contrast will be.

(* I do sometimes and I have a friend who exclusively uses instruments he made himself - but we're not normal people!!).


Steve.
 
Good points, Steve, and ultimately none of those things make the work any less personal. Using sculpting tools made by someone else doesn't mean whoever made them can take part of the credit for the sculpture. Choosing the right tools is sometimes every bit as much a part of the creative process as actually using them.

I play my Precision for some things and my G&L L2500 for others. Same principle. :)
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Evidence of what? Someone's opinion? :thinking:

I think it's fairly clear that the vast majority of people who've replied really don't see an inherent problem with any of this and that the only one making a big deal out of it is you.

Let me ask a simple and direct question - why does any of this matter to you? How does it affect your photography? Does the amount of processing you do affect how artistic and creative you feel?
Click to expand...
What? It's just a counter-opinion to an idea I've seen expressed. That's what discussion is all about isn't it? It doesn't matter in the great scheme of things, it's a talking point, that's all.
 
Steve Smith said:
Almost everyone who uses a medium or craft for artistic expression has to use someone else's choices somewhere along the way.

If you paint with oils or watercolours, it is unlikely that you mix your own paints or make your own brushes.

If you sculpt, you probably use tools someone else made.

Not many musicians play instruments they made themselves*

Even if you use slide film in a camera, with the slide being the finished product, someone has formulated the emulsion and decided what the colour endition and contrast will be.

(* I do sometimes and I have a friend who exclusively uses instruments he made himself - but we're not normal people!!).

Steve.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if practical it's certainly not a bad thing to take control yourself. That's my point.
 
PMN said:
Just answer the damned question! How does it affect your photography?
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but who cares? Like I said, it's a talking point. This is a discussion forum, yes? It doesn't have to affect me personally. Stop being silly.
 
PMN said:
Rubbish, it's a stupid idea to walk into a gig and try control everything yourself and wanting to do so screams insecurity.
Click to expand...

Again your analogy is poor. A gig is a completely different thing, with different practicalities.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
It doesn't
Click to expand...

Bingo, there we have it. Finally.

Exactly, it doesn't matter, it's inconsequential, what the hell do you think my point has been for the last 20,000 words? How can you realistically discuss something that has absolutely no importance? It's a non-point, there's no discussion to be had, mountain out of a molehill.

ghoti said:
Again your analogy is poor. A gig is a completely different thing, with different practicalities.
Click to expand...

Almost 20 years of international touring experience both on and off stage disagrees but you're welcome to your opinion.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Sit back and consider this question for a few moments before blurting out a reply - unless you know what you want the image to look like why are you taking it? What's your reason for pressing that button? What are you hoping to achieve? If you have a reason for taking it then fine but if you don't then why bother?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure your reasoning is valid here. Are you saying you've never just taken a shot to see what happens, or that doing so is a bad thing?

What's wrong with just taking a shot with absolutely no idea how it's going to turn out?
 
PMN said:
Bingo, there we have it. Finally.

Exactly, it doesn't matter, it's inconsequential, what the hell do you think my point has been for the last 20,000 words? How can you realistically discuss something that has absolutely no importance? It's a non-point, there's no discussion to be had, mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...

It has relative importance as a general counterpoint. Which is a valid reason for informal discussion.
 
PMN said:
Bingo, there we have it. Finally.

Exactly, it doesn't matter, it's inconsequential, what the hell do you think my point has been for the last 20,000 words? How can you realistically discuss something that has absolutely no importance? It's a non-point, there's no discussion to be had, mountain out of a molehill.

Almost 20 years of international touring experience both on and off stage disagrees but you're welcome to your opinion.
Click to expand...

Right. So running a gig has exactly the same practicalities as taking and processing a photo? Really? You're on the wind-up.
 
ghoti said:
Right. So running a gig has exactly the same practicalities as taking and processing a photo? Really? You're on the wind-up.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about principle's for heaven's sake, forget practicalities and take a step back. The general principles of why you would or wouldn't process a sound are essentially the same as why you would or wouldn't process a photo, if you need to process then do and if you don't need to process then don't.

Why you can't see that I honestly have no idea. I'm talking playschool stuff here, it isn't complex.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
I'm talking about principle's for heaven's sake. Principles, concepts, ideas, ways of thinking. Forget the specifics and take a step back. The general principles of why you would or wouldn't process a sound are essentially the same as why you would or wouldn't process a photo, if you need to process then do and if you don't need to process then don't.

Why you can't see that I honestly have no idea. I'm talking playschool stuff here, it isn't complex.
Click to expand...

But we were talking about specifics. Whether, if practical, it makes sense to take control of your own decisions. Obviously there are vastly different considerations between a gig and processing a photograph here.
 
as a professional you do what it takes

sometimes that includes PS.. it isnt abig deal

If it always includes PS, you don't eat
 
ghoti said:
Yeah, but if practical it's certainly not a bad thing to take control yourself. That's my point.
Click to expand...

I think you have summed it up there with the words if practical. It isn't always practical though.


Steve.
 
Rapscallion said:
[Devils Advocate]

Isn't this akin to saying that film photographers handed over artistic control to the chemists at Fuji or Kodak?

If i have been using the same camera make for years and understand how the camera processes, is my picture built on this knowledge less artistically worthy?

[/Devils Advocate]
Click to expand...

The general publics ignorance of film manipulation does to me seem like the main genesis of the dislike of digital post processing.
 
There is one inescapable fact which makes the whole argument totally meaningless - the fact that WE process the world around us and have done since we were born.

After all we use a lens to see the world with - our eyes.

And these lenses are subject to a whole range of defects which glasses and other aids help to correct (to "process") - and how many of the "no processing" school wear glasses or contacts?

But the main defect is one which no one in the "no processing" argument ever seems to want to face - the fact that our eyes, actually being a lens, produce an image on the retina which is exactly the way any lens produces an image - upside down and reversed!

Our brain then has to "process" this image to reverse it again so that the world appears the right way up and the right way around.

So every one of us (and of course all the "no processing" adherents) are actually processing all the images our eyes see of our world - including while we are taking photographs - every second of our lives, yet no one seems to argue against that!

Except of course for one notable occasion in The Bible when a man is told "If thine eyes offend thee pluck them out"!

But I guess that's taking "no processing" a little too far!

.
 
I think there's 2 essentially different processes that are being melded into the one heading of "post processing" - I cheerfully confess that my view is formed from having spent years using film - we can draw similarities between film and digital processing, but in my view they are often inaccurately framed (deliberate pun!)......
I'll try to extrapolate - most of what I shot on film relied on me "getting it right in camera" in the first place - so there was no need for individual hand-printing - you made sure the focus, exposure and framing were "right", so that when the results came back from the processors you could go through the prints, bin the closed eyes or occasional "missed focus" shots - job done!
You'd choose the film for it's characteristics (usually based on things like colour rendition, fine grain, speed and "latitude"), and you'd choose your processor for their ability to consistently process the images, perhaps to input your preference (in my case, "slightly warm, slightly dense") - you then gave them a pile of exposed film, and "left them to it" - essentially, your job was done........
Nowadays most people have to try to mimic that part of "processing" themselves, sweating over a computer to do so - to be frank, I find it boring in the extreme, and would cheerfully return to letting a good lab do it for me.......

That's one part of "post processing" - then there's the part that irks me, and I suspect a lot of other people - it's when simple "optimisation" is left way behind, and images enter the land of "computer faffed imagery" where the simple craft of photography is left behind, and all sorts of gimmickry is used (rather like the worst of Cokin's filters/soft focus/superimpositions - as someone almost remarked "images on acid").
Perhaps I'm being a sensitive little flower over it, but I do resent "effects" when they're visible - many a time I glance at the TV screen to see over-use of grey grads, to over-damp down the sky..........

I had many "goes" with the original Photoshop over many years, and came to the conclusion it was probably the most ghastly, unintuitive piece of software ever made - I get on far better with The Gimp, but really do not enjoying post processing at all - it's a necessary evil these days.......
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
I think there's 2 essentially different processes that are being melded into the one heading of "post processing" - I cheerfully confess that my view is formed from having spent years using film - we can draw similarities between film and digital processing, but in my view they are often inaccurately framed (deliberate pun!)......
I'll try to extrapolate - most of what I shot on film relied on me "getting it right in camera" in the first place - so there was no need for individual hand-printing - you made sure the focus, exposure and framing were "right", so that when the results came back from the processors you could go through the prints, bin the closed eyes or occasional "missed focus" shots - job done!
You'd choose the film for it's characteristics (usually based on things like colour rendition, fine grain, speed and "latitude"), and you'd choose your processor for their ability to consistently process the images, perhaps to input your preference (in my case, "slightly warm, slightly dense") - you then gave them a pile of exposed film, and "left them to it" - essentially, your job was done........
Nowadays most people have to try to mimic that part of "processing" themselves, sweating over a computer to do so - to be frank, I find it boring in the extreme, and would cheerfully return to letting a good lab do it for me.......

That's one part of "post processing" - then there's the part that irks me, and I suspect a lot of other people - it's when simple "optimisation" is left way behind, and images enter the land of "computer faffed imagery" where the simple craft of photography is left behind, and all sorts of gimmickry is used (rather like the worst of Cokin's filters/soft focus/superimpositions - as someone almost remarked "images on acid"). Perhaps I'm being a sensitive little flower over it, but I do resent "effects" when they're visible - many a time I glance at the TV screen to see over-use of grey grads, to over-damp down the sky..........

I had many "goes" with the original Photoshop over many years, and came to the conclusion it was probably the most ghastly, unintuitive piece of software ever made - I get on far better with The Gimp, but really do not enjoying post processing at all - it's a necessary evil these days.......
Click to expand...

This is of course were your wrong, many professionals have since the dawn of photogrpahy looked to produce such "faffed imagery" using filters and darkroom processes.

Obviously it was possible to "drop shots off at the lab" and still produce exellent work but I think alot of the reaction agenst photoshop stems from most photographers being unaware of the level of post processing that took place in the days of film.

Basically you were sold a simple process that limated the effort involved and you look to talk down any process that involves more effort.
 
"most photographers being unaware of the level of post processing that took place in the days of film.
Basically you were sold a simple process that limated the effort involved and you look to talk down any process that involves more effort"

Essentially, cobblers! Got the t-shirt of film processing, spent hours in darkrooms "faffing", so am all too aware of what was possible - yes, some people did a great deal of darkroom work, but I frankly didn't enjoy the "faffing" involved (hence used a lab to do the boring stuff).
I wasn't "sold" anything, I had a free choice, and chose to leave the boring process of processing to someone who was paid to do it. Rather than spending hours in a darkroom I was then released to do what I was paid to do - take pictures! If people want to spend hours at their computers, that's absolutely fine, but please don't tell me it's "essential" for all of us - there always were keen photographers who would spend hours dodging, burning and toning, they are probably the same ones glued to their computers nowadays.

The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) was that there is a lot of difference between what I'd call "optimisation" (exposure and colour balance for instance) and hard-core "image manipulation", much of which to my mind is as unnecessary and as ineffective in making good images as "over-darkroomed" or "over-cokined" photos in the days of film. Certainly many aspects were easier back then - it was either sharp or it wasn't - no sliding scale, it was in or out..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top