PP or not

woody12

woody12

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,452
Name
paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I wonder if anybody can sort out a argument between my 18 year old nephew who's studying photography at college and myself. He dismisses everything I shoot because I apply postproduction to every shot but not to extremes. He been taught that's not proper photography because your image is false with trickery. I try to get the shot correct as much as possible in camera but surely everything we see in magazines, books and posters has been played with to some extent. Surely you have to be a good photography not to enhance your shots even on a small scale. As good as your camera is it never captures the beauty of your eye can produce.
 
I would question whether he may have misinterpreted what the teacher was getting at.

If he hasn't misinterpreted then just an example of a teacher who is BSing.
 
18 year olds * know everything.



*think they


College courses are usually about 20 years out of date, so it's hard to take anything that's learnt from them, seriously. PP is fine as long as it's not done too much - as long as you get decent exposure, sharpness, composition and interesting subject matter in a photo, there's nothing wrong with a bit of PP. Maybe ask your nephew how you're supposed to apply colour grading if PP is not an option.
 
It's simple:
Ask your nephew to show you any image that has had no Post Production.

There's no such thing. All images are processed, because what hits the sensor isn't in a state to be viewed by the human eye, it needs converting to that state. Any software that does that conversion will either add it's own processing to 'guess' what the camera / photographer recorded, will react to camera style settings or will be instructed by a human being.

The nearest thing to a 'pure' image is something shot on transparency film, but for people that use it, they will choose a film which acts in a way they want (different films behave differently) and will often choose to underexpose slightly to produce richer colours.

When Fox Talbot invented the 2 stage photographic process - he created the need for 'post processing'. The teacher should go back to teaching something which he knows about, rather than something he has an opinion about.

Unfortunately it's one of those debates where people believe that their opinion is valid even when there's no scientific basis for it.
 
Yeah, he's been going to college for a year and never heard of raw files. God knows what he's been taught
 
Print him a JPEG shot in Faithful and one shot in one of the more vibrant styles (no idea what they're called) and ask him to explain the difference in the 2 images SOOC.

Then 2 with the same style and different White Balance settings. I'm sure you can make him a thorn in the teachers side with a little effort.
 
woody12 said:
Hi, I wonder if anybody can sort out a argument between my 18 year old nephew who's studying photography at college and myself. He dismisses everything I shoot because I apply postproduction to every shot but not to extremes. He been taught that's not proper photography because your image is false with trickery.
Click to expand...

His teachers are talking out of their backsides. Just tell him to say teh following words to his teachers: "Ansel Adams".

I can however, appreciate the principle. Good post production is something that compliments the image and helps the creator realise their vision. However... plenty of people take images with no thought of what they're trying to achieve and then apply process after process until they create something they think is cool. That's bull****, yes. A good photographer sees the image in their mind before they take it. Press, sports etc. included. A great press or sports photographer KNOWS when something's happening that will lead to a great shot... they don't need to post process beyond the usual colour and contrast adjustments for print.
 
I dont use much pp but everybody different,if your shooting J-pegs the camera taking care of most of the pp.

If your shooting raw your say using an computer and a program for your pp.

Each to his own :)
 
The way I understand it, photographing in film, the oldschool way, there are darkroom techniques which produce effects largely similar to those you can do in Photoshop/whatever. So to say that PP is wrong, well that's just some failed photographer come college lecturer speaking......

I'm no expert though, im sure somebody here will know more about this.

It's also right as mentioned above that EVERY image from a digital camera has already been through processing, else all photo's would be a poorly white balanced mess of dull colours.
 
Last edited:
Of course he may have misunderstood what the teacher was saying.
A lot of people on here keep saying that you should get it right in camera and not rely on PP where you don't have to.
To get it right in camera you need to practice using all the settings, so the teacher could be rejecting all PP shots, at the moment, so that the basics are learnt first.

Alternatively he could be as old as me and not understand PP :D
 
Suvv said:
To get it right in camera you need to practice using all the settings, so the teacher could be rejecting all PP shots, at the moment, so that the basics are learnt first.
Click to expand...

He could be and that would be understandable if he did, but the OP refers to the teacher saying "not proper photography because your image is false with trickery". Of course there is a possibility that the teacher thinks all computers are witchcraft too.
 
woody12 said:
Hi, I wonder if anybody can sort out a argument between my 18 year old nephew who's studying photography at college and myself. He dismisses everything I shoot because I apply postproduction to every shot but not to extremes. He been taught that's not proper photography because your image is false with trickery. I try to get the shot correct as much as possible in camera but surely everything we see in magazines, books and posters has been played with to some extent. Surely you have to be a good photography not to enhance your shots even on a small scale. As good as your camera is it never captures the beauty of your eye can produce.
Click to expand...

I asked a similar question when I first joined and it was put to me this way.

PP that is done now is almost the same as it was done in the dark room. The only difference is its now done on a computer and is available to the masses. But no amount of pp will make a bad photo a great photo.
 
As a fellow photography student I agree with all the above and think your nephew has totally misunderstood what has been said or his tutor is a little naive.

Our tutors all allow PP to our own levels yet they will often ask to see the original image and Meta Data for aperture, shutter sp, iso, focal length, WB etc and ask us if there would be anything in composing and metering for the original image that could possibly reduce PP.

The "Don't rely on PP to rescue a crap image" statement was explained very early on.
 
A photography course at college/sixth form is a waste of time anyway. If you're serious about learning, go to University.

As for me, PP is fair game. I've written a couple essays on the subject, and I try and create the image I visualise in my head, not the one that's possible in the real world, why limit yourself?
 
Digitalize said:
As for me, PP is fair game. I've written a couple essays on the subject, and I try and create the image I visualise in my head, not the one that's possible in the real world, why limit yourself?
Click to expand...

Because learning how to use the camera and get what is required to then being able to further enhance to get the image in your head is a key part they are teaching here.
 
woody12 said:
Hi, I wonder if anybody can sort out a argument between my 18 year old nephew who's studying photography at college and myself. He dismisses everything I shoot because I apply postproduction to every shot but not to extremes. He been taught that's not proper photography because your image is false with trickery. I try to get the shot correct as much as possible in camera but surely everything we see in magazines, books and posters has been played with to some extent. Surely you have to be a good photography not to enhance your shots even on a small scale. As good as your camera is it never captures the beauty of your eye can produce.
Click to expand...

If the course tutor actually is saying this and your nephew hasn't sort of, y'know, garbled it, then that tutor should be reported. I'm not joking. It's like teaching people that zero has no place in mathematics, or that the earth was created in 4004BCE. More or less every photograph taken since about 1840 has benefited from a degree of post processing. If he doesn't know this, he(she?) has no place teaching photography.
 
woody12 said:
He been taught that's not proper photography because your image is false with trickery.
Click to expand...

Whichever muppet of a tutor said that needs a damned good slapping. To be honest it worries me that people are teaching such utter rubbish to students who'll probably take it in, believe it, and limit their own photographic output massively as a result. There's no such thing as "proper" photography, just various different ways of making photographs.

As Pookeyhead mentioned, Ansel Adams is the ultimate example of 'trickery'. Hell, he even called it "manipulation" himself! I'd love to have seen someone go to him when he was still with us and say... Err... Mr Adams, you know your images are all false, right? :D
 
I would like to meet the wizard/teacher who says 'your image is false with trickery'. Sounds quite medieval.

Even darkroom images will be well false with trickery in that case. Cropping, use of filters, exposure time and all sorts of 'tricks' go into that.

Perhaps the young man has got (slightly) the wrong end of the stick!
 
Thanks for all your input. Don't see my nephew as much as I like to, will clarify the full story when I see him. Seems to me that he has got the wrong end of what the teacher has said. Just hurts me that he ridicules what I take when basically it's a hobby I enjoy, while he is going to work for a big cooperation taking photos for they art and design department. Hope he makes it, but meanwhile back in the real world it nice to get respect for trying to get out there and improve. Sorry about the rant but most. Teenagers think they know all the answers. But I do love him.
 
woody12 said:
Thanks for all your input. Don't see my nephew as much as I like to, will clarify the full story when I see him. Seems to me that he has got the wrong end of what the teacher has said. Just hurts me that he ridicules what I take when basically it's a hobby I enjoy, while he is going to work for a big cooperation taking photos for they art and design department. Hope he makes it, but meanwhile back in the real world it nice to get respect for trying to get out there and improve. Sorry about the rant but most. Teenagers think they know all the answers. But I do love him.
Click to expand...

Does he realise that the corporation most likely doesn't employ any photographers, and that it's all freelance?
 
woody12 said:
...but meanwhile back in the real world it nice to get respect for trying to get out there and improve.
Click to expand...

I take photos for myself and if other people enjoy them it's a bonus but any critisism will be water off a ducks because I take photos for myself :D

Be happy in your hobby and take photos for yourself :D
 
woody12 said:
Thanks for all your input. Don't see my nephew as much as I like to, will clarify the full story when I see him. Seems to me that he has got the wrong end of what the teacher has said. Just hurts me that he ridicules what I take when basically it's a hobby I enjoy, while he is going to work for a big cooperation taking photos for they art and design department. Hope he makes it, but meanwhile back in the real world it nice to get respect for trying to get out there and improve. Sorry about the rant but most. Teenagers think they know all the answers. But I do love him.
Click to expand...

Try not to get too dishearted by it, he's young and his opinions and views will change in time as his knowledge and maturity increase. If he wants to get into this seriously then he'll very quickly learn that pretty much every photographic image we see has had a degree of post processing. Just be patient with him, it'll work out well in the end. :)
 
Don't feed the trolls
 
woody12 said:
He been taught that's not proper photography because your image is false with trickery...
Click to expand...

This sounds great, being taught photography by Catweazle! For those of you born after 1970 you might want to Google it.
 
Maybe said nephew should be introduced to TP and post some non-pp'd shots for critique ;) :lol:

For me, where PP is concered there are lots of shades of grey (pardon the pun).

For instance, if you're taking studio portraits the PP you do would probably be different to a landscape shoot as in a studio you can control the lighting and set the camera accordingly. The PP for studio work might me more based on making the subject look better (digital make-up, spot removal) and for group shots perhaps a head-swap for the person that always blinks :lol:

For a landscape shot, due to the camera's lack of dynamic range you may have to tweek the exposure and/or add a grad filter in PP.

Then there's the scenario where you just grab a shot, exposure could be waaaay out, it's wonky etc but you might be able to use PP to rescue it.

With all of the above though, I don't think I've said anything that couldn't have been done in the darkroom....... ;)
 
Heres a thought on it.

JPEG the camera does the adjustments and RAW the photographer does. Is that not kind of similar to comparing Auto and Manual on the camera?

Does he shoot everything in Auto too?
 
Ask him to ask his teacher how Ansel Adams managed to get the photo's he did without any kind of editing in the darkroom.

If he thinks Adams' isn't a real photographer for editing his photo's in such away then you have to laugh
 
Last edited:
Hmmm,

Dodge
Burn
Crop

Pretty simple darkroom techniques, are they ok because they are film techniques? Dealing with spots or dust? Is that processing? What about mounting a print or choosing a paper for its visual properties?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top