Post Editing..Right or Wrong!!

Every image unless a poloroid type instant is messed with to some degree, this has happened since photography began, it all part of being a modern photographer it's another tool. Photography is clearly easier as ethnology improves.

David very curious, and this isn't having a go, your gallery looks like every image has been heavily adjusted in some way, which is fine.

If you want to take a photograph, then do so, if you want to make an Image or piece of art then do whatever you want.

There has NEVER been anyone say, Great image, but because you used photoshop your a **** photographer....

Anyone who says they don't adjust there images are talking rubbish.
 
simon ess said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am opinionated, and a grumpy old fart, yes.. I admit it freely :) I really want to put this to bed, so I'll not respond to any further comments about it, but I do feel there is a contingent on here that seem to want to get one over on the Uni lecturer for some reason.

simon ess said:
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?
Click to expand...

Hmm.. a legitimate reason for blazing away at anything without thought or reason? I think I see what you're getting at.... kind of... but isn't that the old argument of a million typewriters and a million monkeys? Surely if you machine gun everything with a camera, sooner or later you'll get a good one... and even if not, some of them can be rescued digitally. Perhaps so... but as a working method it has little to recommend it.. especially professionally, where you are pretty much told what to shoot, and when to shoot it. You need to be able to have the skill to get it right. I certainly have issue with actually recommending that to a newcomer to the hobby/industry.

simon ess said:
There's loads wrong with that thought, but I can't help feeling there's a germ of something not wrong in it.
Click to expand...

Well.. things are afoot that are not a million miles away from where you're heading with this argument. Computational photography for instance, where parameters such as depth of field and focus points can actually be changed post shoot... yes.. that's coming. It's hear now actually, but not in mainstream products. Even with that, there will still be need to get so many other things right.

One day... probably not as far away as we think, sensors will have a dynamic range and curve response to allow a single, high bit depth capture that encompasses all, and equipment will allow post shoot adjustment of exposure, focal point and depth of field without any quality detriment whatsoever. When THAT happens, THEN it's time to rethink how we teach the next generation, and it will happen in my working life. THEN everything will be down to post shoot digital skills. Well, I say everything... but you'll still need compositional skills, and lighting skills... that will NEVER change. You'll still need to be creative, and innovative.. THAT will never, ever change either.

simon ess said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point... thank you.
 
jon ryan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not wrong, just have a different opinion. :thumbs:
 
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...

In contrast, I for one think there's a lot of members that can't see the appreciation for changing times and technology. Essentially, stuck in their ways.

Times change, as do people, as do methods and practices.

Horses for courses.
 
Studi0488 said:
David very curious, and this isn't having a go, your gallery looks like every image has been heavily adjusted in some way, which is fine.
Click to expand...

yes.. you're right.. they have. I've never once spoken out against post processing. I think it's great. I post process a great deal of my work. Where have I said I don't? :)

It's never a means to rescue a mistake though. It's planned for. I know exactly what I need to do to an image to get what I want even before I take the shot.
 
David:

What are your thoughts to this image:

179833_192193160804726_1379343_n.jpg
 
Phil Young said:
In contrast, I for one think there's a lot of members that can't see the appreciation for changing times and technology. Essentially, stuck in their ways.

Times change, as do people, as do methods and practices.

Horses for courses.
Click to expand...

Actually I find that there are as many young people who eschew PP as there are old folks. Usually, like for the OP it's done out of ignorance of the history of photography.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's not doing much for me.... Why? :)
Click to expand...

Because for me, it originated from the image below and was a chance grab in a bus ride. I didn't have time to set up nor to go back so is a great example of something that I saw a bit of potential in and wanted to polish my turd so to speak :)

OK - not the most amazing image in my collection...but I like it and it represents for me, what can be done with a bit of thought process from the other end of photography as well - the creative processing.

182123_10152426297825305_1276972784_n.jpg
 
I genuinely prefer the original capture. I love the symmetry in the three trees. I'd just crop the right to match the left, then bring out some cloud definition and texture.... straighten the wall

8gYze.jpg



the JPEG artefacting has made a mess of things.. but with a RAW.... you get the idea.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I genuinely prefer the original capture. I love the symmetry in the three trees. I'd just crop the right to match the left, then bring out some cloud definition and texture.... straighten the wall

8gYze.jpg



the JPEG artefacting has made a mess of things.. but with a RAW.... you get the idea.
Click to expand...

But then you've just done the same thing as me - PP is obviously a matter of taste but even so - you've still rescued an image I didn't have time or thought to get right on cam - we have done exactly the same things but on a different scale.

The point is - it wasn't perfect in cam so we've rescued in PP. Something I'm SURE we are all guilty of.
 
When have I said there's anything wrong with post processing? You're the third person in this thread to do this to me.. LOL

I LOVE post processing... to me, it's just a continuation of what I used to do in a darkroom. I used to composite separate negs, I used to create custom dodging tools... all manner of things. Nothing in my shots is reality. It's rare I keep things straight. The first time in ages I kept a shot straight was in those I posted in the Landscape forum called "Galloway"... that's the first time in AGES i've kept a shot straight.

My objection to post processing is when it's used as a recourse for poor technique. Every single time I post process an image, I plan for it. I know exactly how it will look, and I know exactly how I need to shoot it in order to give me teh RAW file I need to work with.

Now.. the above image? It was a chance grab... it couldn't be reshot, and no, there's nothing wrong with post processing this to correct for mistakes in it... because it wasn't a planned shot. If you read the thread, I've said several times already that with unrepeatable, quick grabs, you often have to rely on PP, and as the shot wasn't planned, and was grabbed quickly, mistakes are not a reflection of your photographic ability.

However... my retouching of your image was quite minimal, and apart from the crop and warp, was simply levels and curves. I think the original is a better image... but that's just a personal preference.. no right or wrong there at all.
 
Pookeyhead said:
When have I said there's anything wrong with post processing? You're the third person in this thread to do this to me.. LOL

I LOVE post processing... to me, it's just a continuation of what I used to do in a darkroom. I used to composite separate negs, I used to create custom dodging tools... all manner of things. Nothing in my shots is reality. It's rare I keep things straight. The first time in ages I kept a shot straight was in those I posted in the Landscape forum called "Galloway"... that's the first time in AGES i've kept a shot straight.

My objection to post processing is when it's used as a recourse for poor technique. Every single time I post process an image, I plan for it. I know exactly how it will look, and I know exactly how I need to shoot it in order to give me teh RAW file I need to work with.

Now.. the above image? It was a chance grab... it couldn't be reshot, and no, there's nothing wrong with post processing this to correct for mistakes in it... because it wasn't a planned shot. If you read the thread, I've said several times already that with unrepeatable, quick grabs, you often have to rely on PP, and as the shot wasn't planned, and was grabbed quickly, mistakes are not a reflection of your photographic ability.

However... my retouching of your image was quite minimal, and apart from the crop and warp, was simply levels and curves. I think the original is a better image... but that's just a personal preference.. no right or wrong there at all.
Click to expand...

I often agree with you David and sometimes find you are the victim of "hunt down the lecturer" but have to say, this thread and your opinion on the matter seems a bit like "when does bread become toast". I understand where you are coming from don't get me wrong, but I just feel you should be saying something like;

"if you want the satisfaction for practising the history of photography - try and get it as close to 100% in camera as possible". Satisfaction being the word for me because for me, it doesn't matter if it's PP or a filter that gets the image to look a certain way...but then I didn't grow up using film so that could be an influence.

At what point is PP NOT acceptable to correct mistakes (ie - having the time to put the camera on a tripod etc) and what PP is acceptable when applicable???
 
Phil Young said:
I often agree with you David and sometimes find you are the victim of "hunt down the lecturer" but have to say, this thread and your opinion on the matter seems a bit like "when does bread become toast".
Click to expand...

I don't see why. It's quite simple......

Phil Young said:
At what point is PP NOT acceptable to correct mistakes (ie - having the time to put the camera on a tripod etc) and what PP is acceptable when applicable???
Click to expand...


...when you can't be arsed learning how to get things that should be right in camera, right in camera.. and instead relying on a post process in he mistaken belief that it's easier. The reality is of course, that if you got it right in camera, it would have taken a fraction of the time as it wouldn't need repairing.

What am I talking about? Fixing poor exposure, massive amounts of cropping that eat away at quality... sharpening to try and correct poor focus or lack of tripod use... trying to pull back blown out highlights when you should have used a grad, or shot a HDR set (proper HDR, not all this tone mapped stuff), masking off and blurring out backgrounds because you used the wrong aperture... dodging and burning or relying on "highlight/Shadow" because you don't understand lighting ratios in a studio... that kind of thing... that's wrong.

The exception is when you were forced to quickly grab something on the spur of the moment... then it's only natural to make mistakes.

At all other times... there is no excuse to be correcting any of those things post process if you know what you are doing.


What am I not talking about?

Anything that is being done because that was your intention from the start....[edit] Unless your intention was to get nothing right because you think you can polish a turd :)[/edit]


I'm baffled by your "practising the history of photography" comment.. I have no idea what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that getting it right in camera is somehow a thing of the past, and not giving a **** is the future?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I don't see why. It's quite simple......




...when you can't be arsed learning how to get things that should be right in camera, right in camera.. and instead relying on a post process in he mistaken belief that it's easier. The reality is of course, that if you got it right in camera, it would have taken a fraction of the time as it wouldn't need repairing.

What am I talking about? Fixing poor exposure, massive amounts of cropping that eat away at quality... sharpening to try and correct poor focus or lack of tripod use... trying to pull back blown out highlights when you should have used a grad, or shot a HDR set (proper HDR, not all this tone mapped stuff), masking off and blurring out backgrounds because you used the wrong aperture... dodging and burning or relying on "highlight/Shadow" because you don't understand lighting ratios in a studio... that kind of thing... that's wrong.

The exception is when you were forced to quickly grab something on the spur of the moment... then it's only natural to make mistakes.

At all other times... there is no excuse to be correcting any of those things post process if you know what you are doing.


What am I not talking about?

Anything that is being done because that was your intention from the start....[edit] Unless your intention was to get nothing right because you think you can polish a turd :)[/edit]


I'm baffled by your "practising the history of photography" comment.. I have no idea what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that getting it right in camera is somehow a thing of the past, and not giving a **** is the future?
Click to expand...

The history comment was for things like;

exposure correction. For example...if I shot something at ISO100 that should have been 400...that doesn't matter as boosting in PP would yield the same image, the difference being - having got it right at the scene would have been more satisfying. Just one quick example.

I'm not saying things shouldn't be right in camera FIRST, by any means. I just think it should be a little more open ended than how it's coming across.
 
Phil Young said:
The history comment was for things like;

exposure correction. For example...if I shot something at ISO100 that should have been 400...that doesn't matter as boosting in PP would yield the same image, the difference being - having got it right at the scene would have been more satisfying. Just one quick example.

I'm not saying things shouldn't be right in camera FIRST, by any means. I just think it should be a little more open ended than how it's coming across.
Click to expand...

Ok.. that's fair enough... but if you were on a tripod, and forgot it was on 400 and not 100... that's not necessarily lack of knowledge, or willingness to learn.. it's just carelessness... not having a checking procedure.
 
Last edited:
Phil
You really have fallen into the trap of looking for an argument that doesn't exist.
David's restated his point several times. Which is that PP is sometimes good and sometimes awesome. But it should never be used as an excuse to not learn photography.

For me the example shots that draw the line are fake shallow DoF, or shooting in dull flat light.

There's PP that'll fool some people but for any photographer, it's just stupid and fake.
I'd say lazy, but fake DoF takes a lot of effort to get a crap result in PP and a split second to shoot. For flat light, we have to learn what subjects suit what light and shoot those as the light permits. For smaller subjects we can add flash but that'll not work for landscapes.

Whenever PP is mentioned so many want to see it as a yes/no issue for ease of argument.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Ok.. that's fair enough... but if you were on a tripod, and forgot it was on 400 and not 100... that's not necessarily lack of knowledge, or willingness to learn.. it's just carelessness... not having a checking procedure.
Click to expand...

If we're just relating this to landscapes then I agree but sometimes...it happens, perhaps not in landscapes.

But then if we're JUST talking about landscape then my point isn't relevant...
 
I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone here: show me a digital image that hasn't been processed ... I - the world - await your offerings.

If you shoot jpg or tif then the camera has processed the image (to some extent, or another) after you clicked the shutter. RAW files can't be displayed as an image (they're just a series of 0 & 1 bits) so your computer has processed the image so you can see it.

So, post processing is neither good nor bad - it's unavoidable.
 
Bristolian said:
I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone here: show me a digital image that hasn't been processed ... I - the world - await your offerings.

If you shoot jpg or tif then the camera has processed the image (to some extent, or another) after you clicked the shutter. RAW files can't be displayed as an image (they're just a series of 0 & 1 bits) so your computer has processed the image so you can see it.

So, post processing is neither good nor bad - it's unavoidable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has to be processed from RAW to a bitmapped format, but you can do so without making any additional changes to that image in terms of how it looks. The camera will not be adding any processing to a RAW image.. that's the whole point of it... and if you change nothing else yourself, then it's not "processed" in the way we are discussing here.. it's merely been converted from one format to another.

This thread isn't really about whether processing is bad or not anyway... it seems to have gone wrong somewhere long the way. It's about whether relying on processing to fix things that really should be dealt with in camera is wrong... such as poor exposure, poor focus etc.
 
PP has always been a part of photography.

With film it was - dodging, burning, test strips, push processing, choice of paper etc.
With digital it is pretty much all of the same things (equivalent)

Since the dynamic range of the whole system is generally a lot less than the scene, we are always making compromises and tweaking out in post

Additionally when it comes to what is artistically acceptable one mans over saturated image is the same as another mans dull lifeless image

Whilst the PP purist brigade want everything done right in camera, what about using grad filters, or ND filters, or choice of aperture? ... the real philosophical question here is...

Are we going for art or reality?
 
Richard King said:
Whilst the PP purist brigade want everything done right in camera, what about using grad filters, or ND filters, or choice of aperture? ... the real philosophical question here is...

Are we going for art or reality?
Click to expand...
This, but unfortunately, if we're going for reality, we're left with a limited choice of focal lengths, small apertures (we don't see a limited DoF), and a fairly fast shutter speed,

Of course that opens the question "what is real" do we use slow shutter speeds to show a sense of movement? Using a fast shutter speed on a moving object 'freezes' the motion, the human eye never sees this?
 
jon ryan said:
You let your standards slip simply because you're not at work? I wonder how many of your students are on this forum?
Click to expand...

Jon, could you take your gripes to PM? This is a friendly forum, you and David dont seem to get on, and the arguments in threads are tiresome.

Pretty please?
 
It does make me laugh that some people think PS is the same as what we used to do in the darkroom, there are some similarities, but no way could you rescue images like you can now.

Without a shadow of doubt PS has dumbed down the skill of photography, but then again its created another skill, "Photoshopery" :)
 
treeman said:
It does make me laugh that some people think PS is the same as what we used to do in the darkroom, there are some similarities, but no way could you rescue images like you can now.

Without a shadow of doubt PS has dumbed down the skill of photography, but then again its created another skill, "Photoshopery" :)
Click to expand...

Photoshop hasn't dumbed down any skill and IMO such comments are often made by those who aren't terribly adept at using it. Digital photography has made it easier for a less experienced photographer to produce a reasonable image, yes. But it's also made it easier for a very good photographer to produce something really special. That's technology for you and generally speaking that's what it's meant to do but placing some kind of universal "blame" on PS makes no sense to me.

And to a great extent, PS does mimic what we did in the darkroom, it's just quicker, cleaner, more efficient, requires less space and is more easily accessible to the masses. I think it's probably that last bit which annoys many of the old school photogs.
 
Last edited:
I don't have problem admitting I'm not very good at PS at all, I just wish some so called photographers would admit the same about their photography skills.

Digital photography has made it easier for a less experienced photographer to produce a reasonable image....
Click to expand...

Quite, so its reduced the skill needed to obtain acceptable images, or dumbed down.

And to a great extent, PS does mimic what we did in the darkroom, it's just quicker, cleaner, more efficient, requires less space and is more easily accessible to the masses. I think it's probably that last bit which annoys many of the old school photogs.
Click to expand...

Yes there are some similarities, but speaking as someone who spent ten years working in a pro lab printing exhibitions for some of the top photographers of the time, I know how little was done to those original negatives or transparencies. The only major retouching work tended to be done on large format transparencies and then it was for the ad agency because something wasn't quite right for the ad and not the photographer.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I do feel there is a contingent on here that seem to want to get one over on the Uni lecturer for some reason.
Click to expand...

I dont post much but read all the threads and have noticed this.

Shame really, because he is one of the posters who takes a lot of time to explain and give advice.

I personally have learn't a lot from reading his and others' posts here (notably Phil V).

Anyway, love-in over.... back to topic
 
Post work is to enhance a good shot not correct for poor work or lack of knowledge.

I love doing pp but to improve not correct lazyness......

Get it right in camera and you save hours faffing on the computer.

Get it right first time and you have moor time in the pub!!!!! which reminds me..... Focus = Beer time.

some times every one has a slip up.

I very rare shoot in Raw....... Only dual on crucial large scale work.
 
Last edited:
treeman said:
I don't have problem admitting I'm not very good at PS at all, I just wish some so called photographers would admit the same about their photography skills.
Click to expand...

Well, OK, but I'm not sure why that would be important. I'm not too fussed about how anyone else gets to their end goal but instead about the quality of the finished product. As a result I really don't need anyone to admit anything. If I like your work, I like it; if I don't, I don't. Photographic images are too subjective to get caught up in such details and I'm not sure why I should admire someone who is great at taking photographs but rubbish at processing them any more than someone who is not so great behind the lens but superb at post processing. Today you need both skills.

Quite, so its reduced the skill needed to obtain acceptable images, or dumbed down.
Click to expand...

It has reduced the skill required to produce images of acceptable quality but it hasn't reduced the skill required to produce great images. And I don't think it's PS that's done that, either, it's the advent of digital photography as a whole.

Yes there are some similarities, but speaking as someone who spent ten years working in a pro lab printing exhibitions for some of the top photographers of the time, I know how little was done to those original negatives or transparencies. The only major retouching work tended to be done on large format transparencies and then it was for the ad agency because something wasn't quite right for the ad and not the photographer.
Click to expand...

How little was done to "some" but not all. And the choice of film in the first place by the photographer was manipulation in itself. I shot a Leica M6 for many years and I did very little to mine, either but OTOH, I cannot profess to seeing things in black and white. I still shot black and white film 99% of the time, though. :D
 
Treeman: "Yes there are some similarities, but speaking as someone who spent ten years working in a pro lab printing exhibitions for some of the top photographers of the time, I know how little was done to those original negatives or transparencies. The only major retouching work tended to be done on large format transparencies and then it was for the ad agency because something wasn't quite right for the ad and not the photographer."
Click to expand...

And technology has moved forward, to everyone, if your a purist and want everything in camera then so be it, its your choice, however IMHO your not using the tools available and will NEVER produce images to compete in todays digital manipulated world.

If its a hobby then really no one should matter but yourself.

However in a commercial enviroment, there is without exception NO area you are going to be able to survive in without it.

As for rescuing poor shots, we do it all the time, if that means we are rubbish photographers then so be it, but there isnt anyone else could do it better or not make the same errors, because of the time constraints, model costs etc, if we have to chop an arm of a model rather than reshoot we will and do, we regulary miss the odd eye thats not quiet open so use another shots eyes, but then again I come at most things commercially so have a slightly different angle on the whole subject.
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
Jon, could you take your gripes to PM? This is a friendly forum, you and David dont seem to get on, and the arguments in threads are tiresome.

Pretty please?
Click to expand...

I reckon he secretly fancies me :)
 
Story of my life :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top