To PP or keep as is?...

This "my vision" thing, puts me in mind of the way an artist formulates intention for a painting or a drawing, or sculpture or whatever.
This is not a recording, it hardly matters whether the thing is real or imaginary, that's not its point.
 
joxby said:
This is not a recording, it hardly matters whether the thing is real or imaginary, that's not its point.
Click to expand...

Where is it written in stone photography can't be more than a mere recording and who dictates what the point of it is? I completely fail to understand that perspective.


Edit - Hang on... Or were you saying it doesn't actually matter whether it's a simple recording or more than that? I may have jumped the gun a little there!
 
Last edited:
Andysnap said:
I do whatever needs doing whether its film or digital. Ansel Adams could spend weeks in the darkroom getting a print exactly how he saw it in his mind and post processing has been going on almost as long as photography itself so knock yerself out kiddo:thumbs: .
Click to expand...

Thats the way to go IMO reading AA's books really helps too.
 
Fair points.

I didn't mean it as a criticism; just an observation. I shoot a mix of digital and film depending on what I'm doing and want the results for. So if I envisaged needing to do a lot of PP to realise an image, then I would probably shoot digital in the first place over film. But I wouldn't enjoy it as much or get the same satisfaction from the results as if I'd used film.
 
I'm exactly the same, I use film and digital for different things but if I take a photo on Portra then I want the end result to look like Portra. If that means tweaking the image then I'll do so without even a hint of hesitation.

Anyway, it's the digital lot that try emulate certain films that confuddle me...
 
PMN said:
I'm exactly the same, I use film and digital for different things but if I take a photo on Portra then I want the end result to look like Portra. If that means tweaking the image then I'll do so without even a hint of hesitation.

Anyway, it's the digital lot that try emulate certain films that confuddle me...
Click to expand...

haha..yes. We had a thread a while back about some cameras having a velvia mode.....yikes.
 
PMN said:
Where is it written in stone photography can't be more than a mere recording and who dictates what the point of it is? I completely fail to understand that perspective.


Edit - Hang on... Or were you saying it doesn't actually matter whether it's a simple recording or more than that? I may have jumped the gun a little there!
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, because being real or made up is not its focus, its focus is to be an artwork that provokes a response.
 
PMN said:
I'm exactly the same, I use film and digital for different things but if I take a photo on Portra then I want the end result to look like Portra. If that means tweaking the image then I'll do so without even a hint of hesitation.

Anyway, it's the digital lot that try emulate certain films that confuddle me...
Click to expand...

And no wonder they think that film is was always grainy! I got a free copy of DXOfilm pack 3 and from the default settings on that, comparing my scanned shots with 'filmised' pictures you would think that Tri-X and Tmax 400 were massively more grainy than they actually are usually (plus the Kodachrome 64 setting looks nothing like Kodachrome!)
 
Steve said:
haha..yes. We had a thread a while back about some cameras having a velvia mode.....yikes.
Click to expand...

And you can even add a fake rebate complete with film details on some software. Someone on Facebook posted a picture with the fake rebate but without the effect!
 
PMN said:
I know it doesn't matter, I was asking for clarification of what you were saying because it wasn't entirely clear!
Click to expand...

This is a discussion, contained within are opinions, nothing is written in tablets of stone.

A photo is essentially a recording of something that exists, whereas a painting/sculpture/whatever can be a recording, pure fictitious fantasy or anything in between, that is what I am saying.
If you don't think so, say so, its your opinion but like mine, it won't be written in stone.

and fix that av.......sending me bogeyed ere....slike looking through frosted glass...:)
 
joxby said:
If you don't think so, say so, its your opinion but like mine, it won't be written in stone
Click to expand...

I was purely asking for clarification as to what you were saying because I realised after my initial reply it wasn't actually clear what you meant, therefore I could have been talking total rubbish. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't care what people do one way or the other, it isn't my place to say what other people do with their own photos (unless you're a digi person pretending to be a filmy person which still makes no sense to me).

I might change the avatar, although now I know it winds you up I may just leave it a little longer. :D
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
A photo is essentially a recording of something that exists, whereas a painting/sculpture/whatever can be a recording, pure fictitious fantasy or anything in between, that is what I am saying..:)
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by "something that exists". A photograph is literally that - something written using light. That light may have been reflected from a "real" object and focused by a lens; but equally, it need not have been and could be just as fantastic as any artist's (or photographer's) imagination.
 
I was watching a documentary either on Magnum or Henri Cartier-Bresson (can't remember which, I've seen loads of stuff like that lately) and heard a great quote from HCB. "Photography is just instant painting". I'd never thought about it like that but it immediately made sense because it opened up a whole variety of contexts photography can be used in. Such a great way of looking at it!
 
....and there are software panos which are actually not what the eye sees with the head in a fixed position.
 
Here's one where the lighting caused the WB to go wacky... or it's the scan, I only have the negative, no prints... so I made a BW out of it... other than that, what comes off the scanner is what I keep...
View attachment 1214 View attachment 1215
 
I was reading this thread with interest last week and thinking that people were starting to discuss photo manipulation rather than post processing and while looking for something else found this interesting article
The Ethics of Digital Manipulation

As an incidental aside hating the new forum software with a passion.

What struck me most about this thread was no one seems to have mentioned the idea of getting your technique right so you don't need to much if any post processing after all its a lot better if you can get it right in camera which leads on to your image above Mike I'm assuming you shot it on daylight balanced film. If I were to take shot under indoor lighting I would use a Colour Temperature meter to judge the filtration needed granted not everyone has one but you could try seeing what your dslr is doing in the conditions and work from that. I found that in photoshop Image >adjustments>photo filters > 80 followed by 25% green to my eye gave some sembelance to normal colour.
 
Ah silly me i shouldn't have posted the thread i should just get it right in camera... doh why didn't i think of that
 
Cg_Girl said:
Ah silly me i shouldn't have posted the thread i should just get it right in camera... doh why didn't i think of that
Click to expand...

Don't get too hung up on discussions like this! Whether you shoot digital or film a degree of post-processing is sometimes necessary to get the results you want, and personally I consider the idea that absolutely everything can be made 100% right in-camera to be somewhat ridiculous. I spend time getting my images as 'correct' as I can when I take them and I spend time getting my scans right, but that doesn't mean they don't sometimes need tweaking afterwards. If they do need tweaking, who cares?
 
PMN said:
Don't get too hung up on discussions like this! Whether you shoot digital or film a degree of post-processing is sometimes necessary to get the results you want, and personally I consider the idea that absolutely everything can be made 100% right in-camera to be somewhat ridiculous. I spend time getting my images as 'correct' as I can when I take them and I spend time getting my scans right, but that doesn't mean they don't sometimes need tweaking afterwards. If they do need tweaking, who cares?
Click to expand...


Thanks Paul... It was the one thing that stood out here and especially when i asked the question, was there was no judging, pretty much everyone was off the opinion that it really was personal choice.. obviously i try my hardest to get it right, baring in mind i am pretty clueless with the technicals anyway, one of the reasons of trying film was to spend more time thinking about each shot i took, ( and i adore the look of so many old cameras)....so when someone says that specific comment it bothers me, because it comes across so know it all...
 
PMN said:
Possibly because no-one's made the assumption that people post-process to get round having poor technique? I certainly don't understand why you'd assume that.
Click to expand...


From the large number of threads asking how can I do this that or the other to an image.

However as you say it is not always possible to do what you want in camera I am merely suggesting it is often worth the attempt to if you can because a, it might not be possible in post processing or b, the result will be better or a lot less effort and not correcting for daylight film under artificaill lighting is a good case in point.
 
abbandon said:
From the large number of threads asking how can I do this that or the other to an image.

However as you say it is not always possible to do what you want in camera I am merely suggesting it is often worth the attempt to if you can because a, it might not be possible in post processing or b, the result will be better or a lot less effort and not correcting for daylight film under artificaill lighting is a good case in point.
Click to expand...


But don't you think most people are attempting to get it right?!....quite often people ask how because they are learning
 
Cg_Girl said:
But don't you think most people are attempting to get it right?!....quite often people ask how because they are learning
Click to expand...

Probably they are; but it begs the question as to what they mean by "right". A lot of people are hung up on getting it spot on in camera, because anything done after that is cheating. And how many competitions specify that zero post processing be done to preserve the imagined "purity" of the image?

Personally, I start with an idea of what I want in the print and aim to get the best possible starting point for that final image in camera.

At the risk of stating the sanguinary obvious, since I use black and white negative film, the "in camera" result bears very little resemblence to what was in front of the camera (unless I was photographing a grey uniform wall) and the end result will look considerably different to the negative. If that seems a pointless remark, I'm using it to call attention to the fact that what you get in camera is only a starting point - unless you're using reversal film and the transparency is the final end product.
 
abbandon said:
What struck me most about this thread was no one seems to have mentioned the idea of getting your technique right so you don't need to much if any post processing after all its a lot better if you can get it right in camera
Click to expand...

Have you read Ansel Adams' "Examples: the making of 40 photographs" and seen how defective his technique must have been since he needed to do so much post processing in the darkroom to get a good result? Or was he simply accepting that a purely mechanical reproduction of a scene was less than he actually wanted and saw in his imagination?

The great divide seems to be between those who see the photography as a mechanical means of reproducing a scene as nearly as possible to how it was, and those who see photography as a creative medium of self expression. Yes, some branches of photography must fall into the first camp; but not all. Just as there is a differrence between (say) a police artist producing a portrait of a suspect from a witness' description and a portrait painter. One must be accurate; the other might want to flatter :)
 
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more, Stephen, I wholeheartedly agree with every word in fact. Several years ago I accepted that no form of photography can come remotely close to reproducing what the human visual system can see, that coupled with the personal/artistic aspects of a photographer wanting to put forward an image in a certain way makes the entire concept of recording a scene precisely as we see it with our eyes kinda futile. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with that if it's what people want to do, but I can't understand why people aim for something that's technically impossible.
 
Just depends really. If the result is what I want then I leave it alone. If it isn't I will mess around with it. I don't particularly find pp that much fun so I tend towards doing as little as possible.
 
Exactly the same here. For the most part the scan comes into the computer being pretty much what I want (because I make it that way), but I don't think twice if I need to tweak stuff.
 
Cg_Girl said:
So pretty much as titled... how many of you when shooting film keep it to the basics and don't do anything? Or do you treat ALL your photos the same and PP regardless of whether its film or digital and if so do you have different limits, like real basic for film and fill ya boots for digital? :banana:I assumed it taboo to be honest but reading the odd thread i think i maybe wrong?

Sorry if this has been asked, i did go back and do random page searches to have a look...
Click to expand...


It makes no difference whether I shoot film or digital. I have a pre-conceived idea of what I want... and whether I shoot on film or digital depends on the results I envisage. Ostensibly however... there's not a great deal of difference when it comes to processing.
 
joxby said:
:schtum:

*looks for the unsubscribe button*
Click to expand...


Again?!... Is it because of my question initially or how the conversation ends up?

PMN said:
Exactly the same here. For the most part the scan comes into the computer being pretty much what I want (because I make it that way), but I don't think twice if I need to tweak stuff.
Click to expand...

I need to see how the scanning yourself works as i really don't know, i guess those of us that get developed and scanned to disc are in the hands of whoever does it to a a degree... i like the idea of doing that bit and having some control...

Pookeyhead said:
It makes no difference whether I shoot film or digital. I have a pre-conceived idea of what I want... and whether I shoot on film or digital depends on the results I envisage. Ostensibly however... there's not a great deal of difference when it comes to processing.
Click to expand...


Hello 007 :D I think my main reason for asking was purely being a newbie to film i didn't want to make basic pp changes and then everyone shout at me. I was told you don't PP in film... obviously asking this question i know now that's not true and it really is personal choice
 
If you'd like to see what a difference you can make with the scanning, there is an example on my flickr account which I put up to illustrate the point. The names are the imaginative "scan good" and "scan bad".
 
StephenM said:
If you'd like to see what a difference you can make with the scanning, there is an example on my flickr account which I put up to illustrate the point. The names are the imaginative "scan good" and "scan bad".
Click to expand...

A newbie at Asda, I just knew I'd get this result while the regular staff was on holiday:-
 
excalibur2 said:
A newbie at Asda, I just knew I'd get this result while the regular staff was on holiday:-
Click to expand...

As much as that's terrible and totally unacceptable for any service you're paying for, it does illustrate why I use decent labs for devving and do all my own scanning!

Cg_Girl said:
obviously asking this question i know now that's not true and it really is personal choice
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
I'm lucky that my asda guys are quite good.. This is an asda dev and scan - never had it done elsewhere yet (everything I've shot in the past month or so has been test rolls through cameras so more interested in seeing if it works than getting the best scanned results) but it looks good to me :D In the new year though, I plan on working a lot more with black and white so can then dev my own (and send colour away) and hopefully a V500 is in the pipeline :)


Colin - Portra by Toni Darling Photos, on Flickr
 
Now this is where i don't have a clue, if i got that back i would assume i had done something wrong or something... can someone tell me what you mean or what has happened?


Sorry didn't tag or quote this was for @excalibur2 photo and @PMN comment
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure whose scan(s) you're referring to, but in general if the scan is from a negative (if from a slide you can see immediately if the differences are unacceptable) then if it's colour negative and the colours are "off" it's almost certainly the scan (you can get uncorrectable colour casts, but only in unusual circumstances). In the case of black and white, if the negative has a reasonable density (and I'll stretch this to mean "if you can see an image when you hold it up") then you should get what most people would accept as a reasonable print. I use the word "print" because most people know what prints look like; the scan should look like a print on screen, if you see what I mean.
 
Cg_Girl said:
Now this is where i don't have a clue, if i got that back i would assume i had done something wrong or something... can someone tell me what you mean or what has happened?
Click to expand...

It's basically down to a careless or inexperienced scanner operator, nothing to do with the photographer! Scanning's something you have to be fairly careful with because any kind of dust, hairs, dirt, etc, that are on the film when you scan will show up like crazy in the final image. Scanning's a bit like using a DSLR in that sense, with a DSLR you have to accept that dust spots are just a part of it and you'll have to get rid of them from images every now and then (until there are too many or they start really getting on your wick, at which time you just clean the sensor). It's similar with scanning, even if you're really careful there are sometimes still bits of stuff on there that need to be fixed in editing software. Some scanners and software have functions that recognise things on the frame that shouldn't be there and fix them automatically but they don't always work with every type of film (in fact colour neg film is pretty much all they properly and reliably work on). Fixing stuff manually isn't too big a hassle but it can be quite time consuming, especially if you're fixing up a particularly dirty old frame that's impossible to get completely clean prior to scanning.

Either way, it's all just a part of this wonderful thing that is film. :)

StephenM said:
you can get uncorrectable colour casts, but only in unusual circumstances
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of a completely uncorrectable colour cast? I've had some that have been real pains to correct but I've never had anything I absolutely haven't been able to get at least somewhere near right!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top