Original is nice.

[rajmohan99]

Hello All,
I just wanted to ask how many of us would like photos straight from the camera (maybe a few changes like brightness and contrast) which actually works the photographer among us.
TBH I do too use CS4 etc for tweeks and changes, but IMHO robs the true nature of the pictures.
Sorry to sound like an old timer, but just wanted to find out how many think "as it is" "this is how it was" is good.
Would be interested in what TPites think!
Cheers,
Raj.

 

[chris321]

I never really used to do any processing, then I started playing with saturation, brightness, contrast etc. Now I've discovered dodging and burning, which has really helped with some of my shots! I'll only every clone if it's absolutely necessary, but that's about the extent.

It's not anything to do with robbing the nature of the shot for me, just I know what I wanted the photo to look like, and it invariably DOESN'T. The processing is just getting narrowing the gap between the picture I saw in my head, and what the camera recorded!

Chris

 

[Hammerhead64]

I like to keep any shots I do as close to that from the Camera as possible. Which is why anything I post up is invariably rubbish or ignorable ...... I fully agree with chris I only make changes if it doesn't look as it did when I took the shot .......

Paul

 

[Studio16]

I do whatever it takes to get the shot im looking for because to me thats the shot that matters. Dodging, buring, healing, cloning you name it i will do it if it gets people to appreciate the shot. Cars where made to take people from a-b now we race them, tweak them, paint them, kit them out and do what we can to make them look better, go faster and make us feel cooler its the same with photography in my opinion.

 

[Creed]

I voted for making minor changes, I like to add a little contrast, clarity and sharpness to the final image... something which isn't really any different to getting the processing settings right in camera. But other than that I generally like to keep it as shot, bar possibly some cropping.

However, on interesting or moody photo's I often do hover over all the light room pre-sets to get a quick picture of how some of them would look with different processing applied and on the very odd occasion I will apply a pre-set and tweak it if I think it really sets the photo off... see my greencroft thread in general photo sharing images #2... this was an extremely bland image when shot but one that I now love

 

[Marc]

I think it's the processing that makes the photos our own rather than down to what the camera did. Yes, I know that it's the photographer who has to get the exposure and composition right but once we know how to do that, won't all our pictures be the same once we press the shutter? I took up photography to take my own photos, not the same as other peoples'

 

[Creed]

I think it's the processing that makes the photos our own rather than down to what the camera did. Yes, I know that it's the photographer who has to get the exposure and composition right but once we know how to do that, won't all our pictures be the same once we press the shutter? I took up photography to take my own photos, not the same as other peoples'

I see where you are coming from, although I feel sometimes people take it too far and will spend hours tweaking every photo and a lot of them end up looking over processed.... it's a personal thing and some people will like them and some people will not...
I guess it is, at the end of the day, all down to what each individual person feels looks nice.
I personaly like to know my photo is good because I took it that way not because I corrected it in camera, I only like processing if it is done to remove dust / or something distracting that couldn't be helped like power lines etc. Or if it's done to make the photo more artistic. What I personaly don't like is photo's where the sky looks painted on for example

 

[CrazyJay]

I used to do all my photography the traditional way - (film then work in the darkroom). every print I made had extensive dodging and shading, some selective warming during the developing process. I would sandwih negatives with textured film to create effects in the enlarger, make contact negatives and snadiwich those with the original slides to create prints. Solarise prints by exposing them to light during the devleloping stage, I would cut pictures up and stick them together using scissors and glue, I would print 2 negatives onto one sheet of paper and so on. All of these Out Of Camera effects were encouraged, because they were innovative, and in many case quite hard to achieve. the final results were very unlike any photo direct from the camera. sometimes they would work really well, other times they would be catastrophic failures. However, all experimentation was applauded.

Now, with the post processsing capabilities with digital technology, many of these techniques are easier to achieve, yet use of them to create an image seems to be frowned upon.

From an art point of view, my favourite artists are not those that reproduce what they see in front of them, but the surrealists and other modern artists who create images from their imagination, such as Dali, Picasso, Miro, Magritte etc - Perhaps that is why I like any image, whether it be straight from camera, or heavily manipulated.

 

[Creed]

I used to do all my photography the traditional way - (film then work in the darkroom). every print I made had extensive dodging and shading, some selective warming during the developing process. I would sandwih negatives with textured film to create effects in the enlarger, make contact negatives and snadiwich those with the original slides to create prints. Solarise prints by exposing them to light during the devleloping stage, I would cut pictures up and stick them together using scissors and glue, I would print 2 negatives onto one sheet of paper and so on. All of these Out Of Camera effects were encouraged, because they were innovative, and in many case quite hard to achieve. the final results were very unlike any photo direct from the camera. sometimes they would work really well, other times they would be catastrophic failures. However, all experimentation was applauded.

Now, with the post processsing capabilities with digital technology, many of these techniques are easier to achieve, yet use of them to create an image seems to be frowned upon.

From an art point of view, my favourite artists are not those that reproduce what they see in front of them, but the surrealists and other modern artists who create images from their imagination, such as Dali, Picasso, Miro, Magritte etc - Perhaps that is why I like any image, whether it be straight from camera, or heavily manipulated.

I like it when it's arty, just not when it's trying to make a poor photo look like it was good to start with

 

[Arkady]

It's the processing that makes the image - in the days of film you would process the image and print it to create the effect you were after...no-one would argue then that capture was only half the process...

The same is true now - Capture is important - but the camera doesn't know what you have in your mind at that moment so it's up to you to create that in PP...

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Where's the 'choose both' option?

Personally, I don't believe in the 'Everything should be raw vs everything should be cooked' ultimatum. IMO it's pointless.

By all means have your preferences but allow others to have their own without condemning them or suggesting they should make a choice.

I do both, it really depends on the image and the intent.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Where's the 'choose both' option?

Personally, I don't believe in the 'Everything should be raw vs everything should be cooked' ultimatum. IMO it's pointless.

By all means have your preferences but allow others to have their own without condemning them or suggesting they should make a choice.

I do both, it really depends on the image and the intent.

Well said that man!

 

[Grendel]

In my opinion, releasing the shutter is only part of the process. It's just the "capturing" of the scene / image. You then turn this capture into a photograph by processing it as you see fit, just as you would have done with negative to print in film days.

If there's a branch in the way, clone it out; if the sky looks flat, enhance it; if the scene needs more colour, increase the saturation - I don't see the problem personally :shrug:

 

[Jayst84]

Depends on the purpose. Any documentary / journo stuff I don't go cloning things out or adding things in. But I still style them to how I want them, see my Gatwick thread the other month for example; those photos don't look a great deal like the raw file did, but the content is still the same.

Then I have other files that are around 1 GB in size with all the layers open in Photoshop. Horses for courses, whatever the shot needs to get the final image.

What I don't like is what I call "Flickr photography" over-processed (Dragan wannabe) shots of homeless people for example, its just pointless.

 

[Sparkles33]

ATM I'm doing alot of editing, but in 2-3 weeks I won't be (last part of my course means I have to use PS) I prefer straight from the camera, or if it's pics of my niece I cover her scar on her face that she's super selfconcious about, if it's covered she's happy and that's what matters.

I prefer "true" images, but let's face it, how many of us are completely happy with EVERY image that we take? I've yet to hear of a pro who was happy with their every image and I'm just an amature so I've got no chance! Some images that I'm less happy with, I can "salvage" with photoshop.

On the whole though, if I can get it right in the camera - I'm a happy bunny!

 

[FixitDave]

I make minor changes to images, ie contrast, brightness etc...but major changes on specific images like cloning out, repair etc.

I also like to create HDR images

 

[lightpainter]

My opinion is, ‘there is nothing in nature that cannot be improved by Photoshop’!
And I have been taking photos since the early 50’s.

 

[Gonetae]

Sorry I haven't voted as I tend to do all 3 options depending on the picture. It's all art at the end of the day and subjective to each persons personal tastes. All the PP work or lack of it is just a means to an end for me.

Tommy.

 

[Jamieconverge]

In my opinion, releasing the shutter is only part of the process. It's just the "capturing" of the scene / image. You then turn this capture into a photograph by processing it as you see fit, just as you would have done with negative to print in film days.

If there's a branch in the way, clone it out; if the sky looks flat, enhance it; if the scene needs more colour, increase the saturation - I don't see the problem personally :shrug:

do you not think thats faking the image a bit? normally if the sky was a little flat you'd go back to the same scene when it wasnt, if theres a branch in the way, you'd reframe or move to a different view (or temporarily tie it back if you can!)



in relation to the q, im all for processing images to enchance them a little, bring out the contrast a bit etc, but when it gets to people dropping in new skies and heavily cropping im not too much of a fan. i know plenty of people who take everything fairly wide and just crop multiple pictures out of the same frame because the resolution nowadays allows them to retain enough for web display. to me thats very lazy and unskillful.

i agree with the comment that id like to think my photo was good because of my skill in taking it originally, not because id spent hours and hours changing the original into something else.

 

[Jayst84]

...

i agree with the comment that id like to think my photo was good because of my skill in taking it originally, not because id spent hours and hours changing the original into something else.

What if you took 10 photos very skillfully and to get to the final image you needed 2 days in post to combine them. Good post production isn't saving a picture, it's creating something. I guess it depends what you shoot, but a good photo that's had hours of good post production on it, was still a good photo in the first place.

 

[Dom]

All of the above, each images requires different handling. If you just take the images straight from the camera your missing out on images you can only get with PP and like wise if you only shoot HDRi or tone mapped images your portfolio is going to be quite boring. So a mix of everything for me.

 

[Craikeybaby]

I tend not to do anything more than I would have done in the darkroom, shooting RAW you always need to do a little bit of PP anyway.

However I see my photography as recording a place and/or action at a moment in time, rather than being a graphic artist, but there is certainly place for both and even a mixture of both!

 

[68lbs]

As people have already said, clicking the shutter is just part of the process. Read any good photography book or foreward by someone like Joe Cornish, and you will see they refer to "making a photograph".

Your Gran "takes a snap"... we should be aiming to "make a photograph".

 

[Jayst84]

As people have already said, clicking the shutter is just part of the process. Read any good photography book or foreward by someone like Joe Cornish, and you will see they refer to "making a photograph".

Your Gran "takes a snap"... we should be aiming to "make a photograph".

Ugh, I hate that term. I don't take photos I make them.

 

[68lbs]

Ugh, I hate that term. I don't take photos I make them.

The first time I read it, I just thought it was bad English, but it's something that seemed to hit home for me. I'd always felt a little like I was cheating if I used photoshop to do anything after I'd taken a shot. That phrase, made me realise pp was something I needed to do to improve my pics.

I'm not saying it worked, or i've grasped it, but it made me think more about the whole process.

 

[Steve Smith]

Read any good photography book or foreward by someone like Joe Cornish

Joe Cornish isn't a good example of post processing as he uses a large format camera and Velvia transparency film. Once he has pressed the shutter, it's just process the film and it's done.

He's actually a very good example of pre-processing. i.e. looking at the scene, measuring light and deciding which filters, etc. to use to get it right in-camera.


Steve.

 

[kelack]

I pickled both tweak extensively and the minor changes as it depends what it is, the majority of the time I like to only make minor changes but sometimes I'm pretty crap at getting the picture that I need to tweak quite a bit

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Pre production, post production, it all plays a vital role in photography.

You have a choice how to implement process or routine.

I guess the disagreements boil down to some insisting on viewing on what they perceive is truth/reality at all times, no matter the genre and then there are others simply wanting to see good photography regardless of pre and post production process.

To be honest, I'm sick to the nines of the fundamentalist attitude in photography. It has no place in the arts IMO.

If your creating something you love, good on you, be happy about it and accept that the next person is different.

 

[Jamieconverge]

Joe Cornish isn't a good example of post processing as he uses a large format camera and Velvia transparency film. Once he has pressed the shutter, it's just process the film and it's done.

He's actually a very good example of pre-processing. i.e. looking at the scene, measuring light and deciding which filters, etc. to use to get it right in-camera.


Steve.

the pre-processing is what i presume he talks about when he says to 'make' a photo, rather than say taking a shot and 'making it' on a computer afterwards. it implies planning, which is something that i think its a little lost on a lot of photographers these days.

What if you took 10 photos very skillfully and to get to the final image you needed 2 days in post to combine them. Good post production isn't saving a picture, it's creating something. I guess it depends what you shoot, but a good photo that's had hours of good post production on it, was still a good photo in the first place.

of course, a good photo is always a good photo, and i agree with you. but what if it wasnt a good photo to start with ? i mean to me taking an average or a bad photo (say a poorly framed, wonky horizoned oof flat lit landscape) and turning it into a 'good' photo would feel like i cheated a bit, and that i'd feel my skill would be in using the software rather than taking a photo, yet its frequently done and fairly easy to do at that.

 

[Grendel]

do you not think thats faking the image a bit? normally if the sky was a little flat you'd go back to the same scene when it wasnt, if theres a branch in the way, you'd reframe or move to a different view (or temporarily tie it back if you can!)

Yeah but that's not always going to be possible, especially when shooting wildlife. Take this photo as an example. If there had been a blade of grass across the Lemur's face, would I have been wrong to clone it out to save an otherwise lovely photo?

 

[Jamieconverge]

Yeah but that's not always going to be possible, especially when shooting wildlife. Take this photo as an example. If there had been a blade of grass across the Lemur's face, would I have been wrong to clone it out to save an otherwise lovely photo?

of course not, minor edit like you suggested isnt actually changing the picture that much (although i would have personally tried to have found another angle and then cloned as a last resort if it was still the best shot). if the background grass was introduced from another shot, you'd shot from the hip at 30ft and the lemur was actually 10% of the frame, you'd removed cage bars, you'd defocussed areas to give the impression of a wide apeture etc etc then id feel different!

thats a perfect shot by the way!

 

[Arkady]

Well... it's all fake at the end of the day...we don't 'see' in frozen moments after all...it's up to us to interpret the scene, then decide which part of it to capture which angle and viewpoint siuts us best and then how to set the camera controls so as to isolate/exclude those elements in the part of the frame we decide upon, and then as to how we present that image afterwards through our choice of PP...

It's all part of the Process...

 

[CrazyJay]

Just thinking about another field of imaging for a moment. Film-making.

all those people who are dead set against post processing. How would you view a film which had no post processing? - No final cut editing, No digital enhancements to special effects.

I know it's a different thing. But, at the end of the day you are paying to go and see brilliantley made moving images. Do you think your enjoyment of viewing those images would be improved or otherwise by minimal post processing?

Photography is the same, but still.

 

[Arkady]

Nope - I think it all comes down to the vision of the director/director of photography - have you seen the Bonus-Feature edition of Alien with all the documentaries? Look at the rushes - they look crap!
Or how about Blade-Runner?
Or Gladiator - the out-takes without PP look bland and uninteresting...

Hmmm...three Ridley Scott Movies there...but I am a fan...

 

[Efaill]

I don't think I could put my self into any specific category as depending on what my subject is and what I feel like I wanted to do with it I sway between all three. Some come out great from the camera as they are where as some I like to go a bit more arty farty with. Don't think there's one right way what so ever just as there is not one right style of art (painting and drawing).

 

[Sparkles33]

for every image that I edit though, I keep the unedited one too

My theory being that I'm jusr starting to take photography seriously (before it was an average, P&S and so long as I captured pictures that gave me memories, it was finr, now I want more!) so there'll be a day when I flick through the pics and one that I thought was great, I'll think was a bit pants, so if I have the unedited version too, I can change and enhance it.