Photograph post production

jackbauer

jackbauer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
420
Edit My Images
No
i'm i the only one that hates editing pictures afterwards? surely with the cameras most of us have, there should be no need for editing-if there is-it should only be done as a very last resort. i only have a canon450D with the very basic lens an hate editing-even if it means touchin up the brightness, infact surely post editing has got nothin to do with photography as thats graphic design.

actually, i suppose touchin up the brightness or blendin in the noise is ok (if u really have to alter your picts)its the turning a pict of a cat into a dog that annoys me i guess
 
not really, in those days u either under exposed a pict or over exposed it in the d,room, alot of people in ere completely change their picts- thats just my opinion btw
 
Well you may say that, but there were lots of different ways to manipulate the photograph. There were different blends of chemicals to process the negative in different ways, and then during the printing stage you could dodge and burn on the enlarger and finally there were different blends of chemicals which the exposed paper is put through.

Just saying under or over exposed a picture is vastly incorrect - in my opinion.

I agree with you on some points - I don't agree with wholesale changes - adding a kangaroo, changing a sky - I don't really like cloning out things that weren't there but much of what most photographers do in Photoshop were done in a proper darkroom.
 
jackbauer said:
i'm i the only one that hates editing pictures afterwards?
Click to expand...

Nope, my post production normally consists of a quick levels check and resize. Nothing against people who do spend a lot of time editting though, it's perfectly valid in finalising an image :)
 
If you shoot in RAW you will always have to process them, but that is the point of them in the first place, it gives the control to the photographer.

Photoshop can be an absolute godsend when it comes to rescuing an occasional image too, but I agree that I much prefer to get things right in camera where possible.
 
They're two separate hobbies for me.

My goal, always, is to try and get good photographs straight from the camera. That happens often (or seldom :bang: ) enough to keep it challenging and interesting. I look at the pics and usually realise what I could've done better - advice given by members here is incredibly useful on that score - then I go back and try again another day in light of the lesson learnt.

Post production is just fantastic fun. Something about the limitless possibilities I think, seeing what different effects applied to the same picture can look like.
 
Alison said:
Post production is just fantastic fun. Something about the limitless possibilities I think, seeing what different effects applied to the same picture can look like.
Click to expand...

How right you are! For me this is all part & parcel of DIGITAL photography.

Paul
 
I would hate to think all photographs should all look the same. All correctly exposed, no noise no nothing. Post processing brings a new aspect of orginality IMO
 
Unless you shoot in raw.... and use full manual setting.. your image is being processed when you take the shot..
I started off on 35mm before digital came out, darkroom technique is a massive part of photography. Dodging, burning.. touching up with inks etc etc.
So.. no.. I think photography and processing come hand in hand.
 
I can't imagine what virtue there is in accepting the arbitrary defaults set by the manufacturer in transforming sensor data into an image.
 
I would never think of not processing an image and leaving it at the camera pushed it out... saying that I never shoot JPG's either.

I am sure most people do a certain amount of PP as I think it is necessary to achieve the best out of the Raw file. I would not feel like I have done the image justice if I just downloaded it and left it.

I like to try and make the most out of the images i have captured and for me that mean's running a set raw conversion and touch up process, I try to keep all CS3 processing the same to enable mass batch processing.

But thats me....

Shutterman
 
Post Processing throws a spanner into the works, and makes life more interesting.

If you don't like editing your photos, Jack, then that's absolutely fine. Others, however, may like to, it's all about what the person who's taken the photo wants. They may take a snap of a flat lake, with a blue sky, and want it too look like that. However, they may want it to be moody, or colourful, reflective etc, so they do it to break the mold.

Photoshop etc let's the imagination run wild, so the results from photography widen, and the whole becomes deeper.

That's my opinion on the matter anyway.
 
As alot of people have already said, pp is essentially another tool to use with which to create an image, no matter how extreme or simple the post processing is.

Sometimes all that is needed is a few tweaks and thats it (or even no tweaks at all), you have a photo your happy with. Sometimes though, i like to push a photo to see how far and what i can get out of it; the photo itself may be good enough straight from the camera, but by pushing it in the post processing i feel that, if it works, i've created an image which is somewhat different to just a straight forward recording of that scene, or one which gives more of a particular feeling of a scene.

I guess it depends on how you view photography and what you aim to get from it. I'm particularly found of post processing because i find it exciting to see what i can get from what might be an otherwise bland photo. I see photography as a form of art, and as such don't feel pressured by what some might consider 'boundaries' of photography (or rather preferences in what a photo is). As a result, i do like HDR's, even the more over-cooked ones, because its created an interesting image. Thats not to say i don't like straight from camera photos of course!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top