Post Editing..Right or Wrong!!

Having started this post can i explain the reason behind the question:
I was given a landscape dvd for xmas 'Chasing The Light' which i thought was a brilliant dvd and very informative but i noticed in it he said on a couple of occasions that although he had got the photo he was after certain things in the composition were not right but that was ok because he could remove them later in pp.
So being new i wanted to know if this is the way its done. ie:
 
stu59 said:
Having started this post can i explain the reason behind the question:
I was given a landscape dvd for xmas 'Chasing The Light' which i thought was a brilliant dvd and very informative but i noticed in it he said on a couple of occasions that although he had got the photo he was after certain things in the composition were not right but that was ok because he could remove them later in pp.
So being new i wanted to know if this is the way its done. ie:
Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing that up.

In this instance, then it's absolutely fine to post process. Your original question seemed to be asking is it OK to simply take photos that are not very good, and fix them afterwards... which is not a very good way of working. It seems to me that you are asking despite your best efforts, if something is till not how you want it, can you change it... answer: yes. Although in reality, as others have said.. you can actually do whatever you want... I'm sure however that you wanted an opinion as to what is the best way of working.


although.... ethical debate in 3....2...1.....

:)


[edit]

My take on this is that if you can't achieve what's in your minds eye in camera, then you carry on working post production. If what you wanted CAN be achieved in camera but you show no interest in learning how to do so, and reply on post processing instead, that makes you a poor photographer... maybe a talented digital artist... but a poor photographer.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
b)

Jon knows full well the point I'm making.
Click to expand...

You do tend to jump to conclusions when you have no evidence, don't you? Do you allow your students this luxury, or do you insist that they offer appropriately supported argument with their hypotheses?
A good photo is a good photo, yes...
Click to expand...

Excellent! We have consensus! Perhaps Adams got it right!

All we need now is a definitive definition of 'good photo'. I'll offer: 'The best of which the photographer is capable'. The more capable photographers will produce results of a higher standard as they are likely to have a wider knowledge/experience with which to work. Of course a certain level of ability is innate/latent.

...but if you think that Adams for one second meant that it's OK to abandon all skill and discipline because a good photo is a good photo.. you're clearly missing his point.. and the point of this thread.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the question the OP asked.

You've conveniently side stepped another question, so I'll ask it again.

So if you don't think it's appropriate to take any old random crap, and fix it later, and as the OP asked "I ask this question because would it not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo knowing that it can be manipulated later in post editing. "... what exactly was the point in the Adams quote?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo, but who would want to? And why? The point of the Adams quote is that the photograph is the paradigm. Not how you got it. The photograph. The more skill you have, the better your result is likely to be.
 
jon ryan said:
You do tend to jump to conclusions when you have no evidence, don't you? Do you allow your students this luxury, or do you insist that they offer appropriately supported argument with their hypotheses?
Click to expand...

I'm not at work.
 
Composure, exposure and focus need to be need to be done correctly in camera. Once you take the picture your cameras processor adjusts white balance, adds contrast, saturation, sharpening, noise reduction, even dynamic range optimisation or artistic filtering, etc...

Your camera is just a mini computer with the ability to capture images, and post processes the captured image for you. So what is wrong with shooting in RAW and deciding your self how you want these settings applied, instead of being constrained to what your camera manufacturer things your images should look like.

I agree some folk over do it but some times the detail or colour in a image need to be exaggerated a little bit in order to portray or draw attention to the context that inspired you to take the photo in the first place. Remember you have just made a 3 dimensional image into a 2 dimensional image
 
fracster said:
Good, I hope you don`t pontificate this much to your poor students............:)
Click to expand...

No.. like I said. I'm not at work. Plus, my students aren't actually going out of their way to "win" arguments against me, like some on here are.... but ultimately, I'm not at work, so I fail to see the relevance of what I do for a living.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You've clearly not read what I said elsewhere in this thread have you. I said if something can't be reshot, then yes, post processing to correct mistakes is valid.. it sands to reason therefore that a fire extinguisher or exit sign at a wedding venue is also covered by this. It's not your fault it's there.. you didn't chose the wedding venue, and therefore there's nothing wrong with removing it.

Having a fire extinguisher in your shot because you have no choice but to include it, is not your fault, nor does it make you a bad photographer.

Where did I say that it did? I said using it to mask bad photography is wrong.

I often even composite models into a shot. I'm working on a series now. The backgrounds were shot in Scotland, but the models will be shot in the studio. They have to be because the background shots were long exposures in the dead of night up a mountain. That's fine too... because I have no choice. That's what I need to do in order to create what's in my head.
Click to expand...

Of course it fits, I know it's a crap photo technically because of the rubbish in the back ground and I know that i'll have to polish it later to make it an acceptable end product.

I've also read what you originally posted, and everything you've posted since and you're coming across very angry and frustrated and I imagine you sitting there, red faced, shouting at the monitor and pulling your hair out. You seem unable to actually accept most people's view's and tbh, you don't come across in the best light in this thread.

As I said, taking a good photo and improving it is more acceptable than polishing a turd. However, I recently came across this saying:

"You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter" :D
 
Pookeyhead said:
No.. like I said. I'm not at work. Plus, my students aren't actually going out of their way to "win" arguments against me, like some on here are.... but ultimately, I'm not at work, so I fail to see the relevance of what I do for a living.
Click to expand...


Then they should be, because otherwise they aren't pushing the boundaries enough.
 
Harvey... in the reply from me you just quoted... I was agreeing with you :) Having a fire extinguisher in the shot is not your fault if there's nowhere else you can take it from... the people getting married booked the venue.. not you. That doesn't make it bad photography.

I don't understand why you're arguing with someone who's agreeing with you.

:thinking:


DemiLion said:
Then they should be, because otherwise they aren't pushing the boundaries enough.
Click to expand...

Imean arguing over semantics like "Not so good/rubbish".
 
Last edited:
Harvey_nikon said:
Of course it fits, I know it's a crap photo technically because of the rubbish in the back ground and I know that i'll have to polish it later to make it an acceptable end product.

I've also read what you originally posted, and everything you've posted since and you're coming across very angry and frustrated and I imagine you sitting there, red faced, shouting at the monitor and pulling your hair out. You seem unable to actually accept most people's view's and tbh, you don't come across in the best light in this thread.

As I said, taking a good photo and improving it is more acceptable than polishing a turd. However, I recently came across this saying:

"You can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter" :D
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on how runny it is? [/pedant]
 
Pookeyhead said:
Harvey... in the reply from me you just quoted... I was agreeing with you :) Having a fire extinguisher in the shot is not your fault if there's nowhere else you can take it from... the people getting married booked the venue.. not you. That doesn't make it bad photography.

I don't understand why you're arguing with someone who's agreeing with you.

:thinking:




Imean arguing over semantics like "Not so good/rubbish".
Click to expand...

The difference between the two term is pretty big. 'Rubbish' is something worthless, to be thrown away. 'Not so good' is a stage or two down from 'good'.

"What are his chances of survival?"
"Rubbish"

No so good, eh?
 
jon ryan said:
The difference between the two term is pretty big. 'Rubbish' is something worthless, to be thrown away. 'Not so good' is a stage or two down from 'good'.

"What are his chances of survival?"
"Rubbish"

No so good, eh?
Click to expand...

Seems like I'm the only one in here actually trying to make a clear distinction that helps the OP. Everyone else is here to score points off one another.

Fine... your penis/ego/lens/camera (usually fully interchangeable in Photography Forums and amounts to the same thing) is biggest and wins.

You troll every thread I'm in [edit] that we're in together... lets not give you anymore ammunition[/edit]. I'm flattered in many ways.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Seems like I'm the only one in here actually trying to make a clear distinction that helps the OP. Everyone else is here to score points off one another.

Fine... your penis/ego/lens/camera (usually fully interchangeable in Photography Forums and amounts to the same thing) is biggest and wins.

You troll every thread I'm in [edit] that we're in together... lets not give you anymore ammunition[/edit]. I'm flattered in many ways.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to regress to insult when you are questioned?
 
stu59 said:
Having started this post can i explain the reason behind the question:
I was given a landscape dvd for xmas 'Chasing The Light' which i thought was a brilliant dvd and very informative but i noticed in it he said on a couple of occasions that although he had got the photo he was after certain things in the composition were not right but that was ok because he could remove them later in pp.
So being new i wanted to know if this is the way its done. ie:
Click to expand...

If this had been your opening question, you'd have got more useful answers:thumbs:
 
Pookeyhead said:
You or I saying that now we're competent, time served and knowledgeable is just an academic exercise, but are you really suggesting that this is advice we give beginners? Really? If you were to teach photography, you;d say.. "Do whatever you want.. so long as it looks OK in the end, who cares?"





Someone new to photography started this thread and asked if it's OK to take rubbish images and fix them after. Leave your egos to one side for a minute and consider the advice you are giving please.
Click to expand...


You do know that beginner doesn't = mindless numbskull? You find your way as a beginner, not through posts on random forums, but by reading, and reading, and trial and error and getting out there and experimenting. Damn right I will tell a beginner that they should experiment with processing, see what they come up with, let yourself go, there are NO rules only the ones you decide to follow.

I think you over think almost everything David, tbh. Where is your sense of freedom and fun? Photography is supposed to be FUN! some on here make it sound like a bloody depressing, rule enforcing, strict chore!

I didn't say I would tell a beginner to "do whatever" - I think my post was clear enough to suggest that if the processing isn't blatantly obvious, there is no OTT photo manipulation, and the end result looks natural enough so as not to be questioned, it does not matter how they got there.

Also, let me tell you, I'm not trying to "score points" - I just give my opinion, if it differs from yours there's no need to pounce on it until someone agrees with you, Mr. constantly trying to score points ... ;)
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm sort of with David on this.

If you're starting out and you take a crap photo...

Firstly don't bin it.

Work out why it's crap/not-so-good/rubbish, and improve on that technique.

If you don't know why it's crap yet, keep it and work it out later.

If you post a photo that someone says is crap/etc/etc in their crit, accept their point of view and evaluate the crit- don't argue & don't make half arsed excuses. NB: they may not always be right!!!


If the photo is crap & you know that it's crap, see above.

Don't trying to turn it into something passable with an arty filter, B&W processing or HDR. It will still be a crap photo. The possible only exception is occasional BW rendering when the colours really don't work, but usually if it's crap in colour then it's crap in BW.
 
Crap to whom? The taker might well see something worth saving in this "crap" image. As ever, "crap" is very subjective.
 
PaulF said:
Hi,

Welcome to TP, it's generally a helpful and friendly place :thumbs:

This thread seems to have moved in a few directions, but to answer your question:
No, it would not be simpler to take a 'not so good' photo in order to correct it later. That 'correcting' requires a certain amount of post processing skills and can be time consuming.
I know you said you are new to photography but once you have more experience you'll realise that it's far simpler to take a 'good one' in the first place then as others have said, process to improve not to rescue.

There are no 'rights or wrongs' though really, each to their own. Some people love to spend hours post processing :)
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
b)

Everyone seems to be ignoring the question the OP asked.
Click to expand...

Pookeyhead said:
Seems like I'm the only one in here actually trying to make a clear distinction that helps the OP. Everyone else is here to score points off one another.

Fine... your penis/ego/lens/camera (usually fully interchangeable in Photography Forums and amounts to the same thing) is biggest and wins.

You troll every thread I'm in [edit] that we're in together... lets not give you anymore ammunition[/edit]. I'm flattered in many ways.
Click to expand...

Err, I think I answered the OP question on page 2........
There does seem to be some in here who want to push their own opinion as the only one of value, life's too short, move on.
 
One point I'd like to make to the O.P.

If all the contributors to this thread had been face to face in a room together, the discussion would probably have been friendly, respectful and differences of opinion would be seen for what they really are - just opinions and not that different actually.

The lack of body language and the ability to do real time linguistic checks leads to the kind of stuff we've seen here.

If you read between the lines of this thread and ignore all the noise, there's a lot to be gained from it. :thumbs:
 
DemiLion said:
Please feel free to find a gate post to argue with.
Click to expand...

Wha?? that doesn't even make sense. The only person in here trying to argue, is the one you were so quick to agree with, without having a point of your own. That's a trend on here "I agree with x" - no mind of your own lads, either have an individual point or why even bother? Soon as anyone responds you bail out ...



simon, that could be said for any forum discussion , ever!

I assure you my points would come across the same way. Sensible, non forced ...
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
simon, that could be said for any forum discussion , ever!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Most know this, few take it into account, myself included sometimes.


Cagey75 said:
I assure you my points would come across the same way. Sensible, non forced ...
Click to expand...

That's not actually possible really ;)
 
It's a pretty simple answer IMO and will probably concur with a lot of others here:

If an "ok" shot can be made good in PP I will make it so.

If it's not a good shot to begin with and has no potential to begin with... delete.

One of my best ever shots was in Egypt several years back when I first got into photography. I didn't get it bang on but years later I re-edited to create a real nice image.

According to Davids theory, I should have gone back to Egypt and re-shot, only to get the same thing I could get in post??

Do whatever means necessary to make the end product a good one. If you can't ask someone to move, clone them out...if you don't have a graduated ND filter, use the RAW file to get what you want.

Potential for me means work on it in post and or reshoot but not just "you could get it right in camera so do it again".
 
Cagey75 said:
You do know that beginner doesn't = mindless numbskull? You find your way as a beginner, not through posts on random forums, but by reading, and reading, and trial and error and getting out there and experimenting. Damn right I will tell a beginner that they should experiment with processing, see what they come up with, let yourself go, there are NO rules only the ones you decide to follow.
Click to expand...

I can't agree more. I've not disputed that anywhere in this thread. I made it quite clear I felt there was nothing wrong with post processing (look at my work.. do I seem like someone who doesn't use process their images.. sometimes quite a lot?), and my ONLY point was in answer to the OP's question "Is it ok to make not so good images and fix them afterwards". The only time I've been in dispute with anyone in this thread is when they've suggested that there's nothing wrong with making "not so good work" with the INTENTION of fixing it afterwards. Since the OP clarified what he meant, I've not even mentioned that either.

Seems to me that whenever I'm in a thread with one or more of the same 4 people, this happens.
 
Well, I rarely step in to be honest, I just eat the popcorn :D Crossed wires then, as I meant processing is fine but not exactly to cover up, more to enhance.
 
One more thing,David Byrne winner of the ( landscape photographer of the year 2012 ) has just been Disqualified from the competition for using photoshop to make a composite Image (see www.photplusmag.com ) :shake:
 
bruno106a said:
One more thing,David Byrne winner of the ( landscape photographer of the year 2012 ) has just been Disqualified from the competition for using photoshop to make a composite Image (see www.photplusmag.com ) :shake:
Click to expand...


Just? That was ages ago.... but.... your point?
 
My point is that he had taken an excellent shot and then he added a canoe would he have won L/S photographer of the year without it I doubt it with all the other entries just taking similar shots? to me it's cheating
 
bruno106a said:
My point is that he had taken an excellent shot and then he added a canoe would he have won L/S photographer of the year without it I doubt it with all the other entries just taking similar shots? to me it's cheating
Click to expand...


This is a sore point actually, as he is a forum member I think... but, it's cheating in that particular competition, yes, as they asked for entries not be edited to that level, but in fairness, there was no ill intent from David.. he simply did not read the regulations. Is it cheating generally though, if it's your own work and not intended for a competition that asks for a single exposure? I fail to see how it's cheating in that case. I often comp in models after the shoot. Sometimes it's not practical to have the model on location.

Surely it's only cheating if someone asks you not to do it, and then you do it to give some kind of advantage over others who are not?
 
Even my best shots need some PP to achieve the look I intended. Probably a lack of skill on my part but I find that everything needs at least a little curves tweak.
 
This not the first I've seen this type of shot by accredited photographers, There was one where the person took a shot of a new York skyline, then because he didn't like the actual sky he replaced it with a more moodier shot from another photograph.
with people doing things like this you only have to decent photographer and a wiz with a computer
 
To the OP, it's your choice as to how much, if any, PP you carry out. There is no right or wrong as its purely subjective.
You did the right thing by watching that DvD as Joe Cornish is widely accepted as being among the best of the modern day photographers. Can I also suggest that you get a copy of the book of the same name. In it he explains, in depth, how he approaches taking the images and what his intentions were.
On a personal note re PP I don't like the heavily altered HDR images but I would never presume to tell the photographer that they were wrong for doing it, it's their choice not mine.

To David. Are you really a university lecturer? I would certainly hope you are far more open minded at work than you are here!

Andy
 
Keebsuk said:
To David. Are you really a university lecturer? I would certainly hope you are far more open minded at work than you are here!

Andy
Click to expand...


(sigh)...

I'm not at work.

Besides, how am I not open minded? I've nothing against post processing... just post processing to rescue a shot that was badly taken because the photographer couldn't be bothered getting in right in the first place. If that makes me narrow minded, then yes, I'm narrow minded. That's the only time I'm against post processing. I just believe that newcomers should be encouraged to get as much right in camera as possible. I didn't realise that made me narrow minded. (shrug).
 
Last edited:
Ok - thinking about this and wondering.....

I pretty much 99% agree with what Pookeyhead has been trying to say, but his posting style leads to him being mis-interpreted sometimes, which is a shame.

But - and I've thought about this before - is there an argument to suggest, with the tools now available, there is a legitimate artistic reason for literally blazing away at anything and then creating something in pp?

There's loads wrong with that thought, but I can't help feeling there's a germ of something not wrong in it.

However, and I think this is David's point, that level of pp should be a predetermined decision, not an afterthought, unless you're not too bothered about improving your photography technique. Nothing wrong with that as long as your honest about it.
 
Pookeyhead said:
(sigh)...

I'm not at work.

Besides, how am I not open minded? I've nothing against post processing... just post processing to rescue a shot that was badly taken because the photographer couldn't be bothered getting in right in the first place. If that makes me narrow minded, then yes, I'm narrow minded. That's the only time I'm against post processing. I just believe that newcomers should be encouraged to get as much right in camera as possible. I didn't realise that made me narrow minded. (shrug).
Click to expand...
It doesn't.

It bothers me that people have turned the PP into an excuse not to learn photography.

Sure PP is a valid part of the process, you and I and many others say this all the time. However there's a limited number of members here who see no value in the photography skills at all, sadly they can't understand why their over manipulated pictures still don't look as good as pictures where it's done properly (in camera).
 
bruno106a said:
This not the first I've seen this type of shot by accredited photographers, There was one where the person took a shot of a new York skyline, then because he didn't like the actual sky he replaced it with a more moodier shot from another photograph.
with people doing things like this you only have to decent photographer and a wiz with a computer
Click to expand...

Maybe but life and technology move on. Previously we needed a camera, film of choice and chemicals. Then we used all of those plus a scanner and an editor. Now we use a camera and a photo editor. We have always needed more than component one in the chain in order to produce an image. Today we do need to be able to have some skill on the computer as well as some skill with a camera. Previously many just handed their film to a lab and collected it later, pros included, so you could say that today you need to have more combined skill than previously.

At the end of the day the best photographers combined with the best processors will produce the best images so IMO nothing has changed except the technology used to achieve the end goal.
 
Phil V said:
It doesn't.

It bothers me that people have turned the PP into an excuse not to learn photography.

Sure PP is a valid part of the process, you and I and many others say this all the time. However there's a limited number of members here who see no value in the photography skills at all, sadly they can't understand why their over manipulated pictures still don't look as good as pictures where it's done properly (in camera).
Click to expand...

Equally, there are people who appear to think that any form of PP is heresy. They are wrong.

Photography involves a number of processes. It always has done. It probably always will. The more you study, the more you learn, the better your results will be. If you neglect any of the processes, your final images will not be as good as they could be, and it is the final image that really counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top