Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2015 · Why the fuss about post processing?

  
 
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Why the fuss about post processing?


http://petapixel.com/2015/01/26/w-eugene-smith-considered-darkroom-work-90-photos-creation-process/


Jan 30, 2015 at 02:26 AM
Almass
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Why the fuss about post processing?


A good thief is the one who never get caught!

There is no one single famous photo which has not been altered one way or the other.

Even master painters altered their drawings.

It is very frustrating for me when photographers are at pain at replicating a photo or a style from a famous photographer and resisting to accept that the camera is merely the container and not the canvas.

Every single famous photo has been post processed in a physical or digital darkroom.

Make no mistake.

Each and every famous photograph has been altered one way or the other........ if they can do it, why don't you?

From before Horst to Mert & Marcus, all photography went through the drill.

Photography is simple, you simply have to accept that a camera and lens are only few of the tools.





Jan 30, 2015 at 04:53 AM
lylejk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Why the fuss about post processing?


Still remember what Ansel Adams said, and I'll paraphrase: a great photo is not just captured; it's made.


Jan 30, 2015 at 08:57 AM
eeneryma
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Why the fuss about post processing?


For the serious photographer, the hours in the darkroom have been replaced by the hours in front of the computer monitor. There is far more control over the final product, but the learning curve to make all the refinements is significant. And the number of possibilities in processing the original shot can be mind numbing. The adage about "getting it right in the camera" is not as true as it once was.

Gene Smith was a night owl who worked tirelessly to perfect his photos. One of my photography teachers in NYC told a story about how he would pass Gene's apt. in the middle of the night and through the open curtains you could see Gene holding up his photos, comparing and evaluating them, ad nauseum.

Thanks for posting Karen.



Jan 30, 2015 at 09:18 AM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Why the fuss about post processing?


Ooh, thanks for posting! I was going to post it too!

Here's the other article referenced...
http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2013/11/20/in-the-darkroom-with-w-eugene-smith/

Since I came of age with photography in the digital world... never realized the darkroom had this kind of capability.


Karales continued, getting more specific about the technique: “Gene always liked to get separations around people, figures, and that was always done with potassium ferrocyanide. It was the contrast that made the prints difficult. Gene saw the contrast with his eyes, but the negative wouldn’t capture it the same way. So he would have to bring the lamp down and burn, and then if that spilled too much exposure and made it too dark, you would lighten it with the ferrocyanide. You had to be careful not to get the ferrocyanide too strong, and yet you couldn’t have it too weak, either. If it took too long, it would spread. So I would blow the fixer off of the paper so ferrocyanide would stay in an area, and then dunk the paper right away to kill the action. Or if you wanted something to go smoother, then you left the fixer there. It was extremely delicate and complicated, but we got it down pat.”



Jan 30, 2015 at 10:05 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Why the fuss about post processing?


I have a mixed feeling about this. For example I hate fixing stuff in post processing that the camera should have been able to capture. Sharpening and DR comes to mind. I never sharpened or color corrected a slide. Of course the dr of slide film was pretty bad.

I also have some resistance to adding stuff that was not there, like a moon, or transposing a sky from another image.

That said, I do lots of post processing and in fact most of my recent work is HDR, usually with 3 files.

One of the problems for photographers is that there is a whole school of thought amongst us that will cry foul if the image does not look as crippled as the current technology demands. If you get the image back to what you saw you are accused of cheating.

I just read a long thread at landscape where more than once people complained that the DR available from Nikon/Sony was too much for them. This may just be defensive because current Cannons cannot produce it.



Jan 30, 2015 at 11:34 AM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Why the fuss about post processing?


ben egbert wrote:
I have a mixed feeling about this.... crippled as the current technology demands....


I think this always going to be a debate.
Just like the 24 vs 36 vs 50+ megapixels is a debate now when 2 vs 3 megapixels was a debate in the early days of digital.

Just look at what Karales said about Smith....
"It was the contrast that made the prints difficult. Gene saw the contrast with his eyes, but the negative wouldn’t capture it the same way. So he would have to...."

Fun debate... but I bet it will never be settled





Jan 30, 2015 at 11:49 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Why the fuss about post processing?


FarmerJohn wrote:
I think this always going to be a debate.
Just like the 24 vs 36 vs 50+ megapixels is a debate now when 2 vs 3 megapixels was a debate in the early days of digital.

Just look at what Karales said about Smith....
"It was the contrast that made the prints difficult. Gene saw the contrast with his eyes, but the negative wouldn’t capture it the same way. So he would have to...."

Fun debate... but I bet it will never be settled



Right, no matter how good the technology gets, somebody will be able to make it better in post processing. Post processing is fun when it is aimed at creative stuff, not so much fun when it is simply fixing stuff that is broke. I suppose as an ex-engineer, I am always critical of technology that does not work up to the levels already possible.

Ask my wife what I think of door hinges that have steel on steel, and squeak because of it. So simple to make the pin out of steel and the hinge of brass. I will be really glad when I don't have to apply pre sharpening to fix softness introduced by the AA filter. And I see the new Canon is supposed to have better color accuracy, hooray.




Edited on Jan 30, 2015 at 12:24 PM · View previous versions



Jan 30, 2015 at 11:56 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Why the fuss about post processing?


+1 @ Almass.

I used to be the extreme "purist" that if it didn't happen "in camera" ... well, that was my basis for exclaiming that Ansel Adams ... "He Cheats !!!" upon learning of how he manipulated in the darkroom.

I shot chromes to have a "standardized" processing and it presented me with a "what ya shot, was what ya got" approach @ very "in camera" oriented which places tremendous emphasis on the photographer's acceptance to the film profile being used and it's inherent characteristics and / or limitations. It also kept the computer or lab tech from imparting THEIR INFLUENCE on the direction for the image ... essentially leaving the only VARIABLE to the "in camera" aspect @ my decision making.

Decades later ... I came to realize the significance that post-production plays relative to the capture being but ONE piece of the overall process. The fact that I CHOSE to relegate myself to STANDARDIZED process so I could control the variable, did not mitigate the fact that there was still a production @ capture AND a post-production processing.

This is unchanged. What has RADICALLY changed, is the ease at which we can adjust our post-processing to suit our individual tastes, profiles and goals for a given image. We are no longer relegated to standard processing or a dependency upon others in order to retain control of ALL VARIABLES in the entire process.

Light>Lens>Sensor (Film)>Processing>Display (Screen / Print). The recording of the light through the lens onto our capture media (sensor or film) is NOT the completed process. Whether we entrust the continuation of the processing to the OEM camera mfr, a third part or we perform the processing ourselves ... the processing still MUST be performed in order to yield a final product. How standardized, dynamic or mundane, global or selective or creative that processing is rendered is a matter of choice.

Those who cry foul @ "Cheating" (self included @ my youth) are showing their limited view and understanding of the processes (standard or otherwise) and the objective for the image @ A) I did this with self-imposed limitations, B) I'm entrusting this to criteria established by others or C) I did this with all available utility.

It's your image, your message, your call ... you can go with Ekatchrome, Kodachrome, or FujiChrome and use standard processing. Or you can hook up with a lab tech and do custom lab work to present your image as you desire it to be, or you can do it yourself in the darkroom.

NOTHING has changed ... we still have capture & post-capture processing required to yield a finished product. Some folks want to have a "hands off" approach to the processing (yet, it still MUST be done to some degree by someone, somewhere along the way), while others desire a much greater "hands on" refinement of control for their vision. Neither is inherently wrong, but some are much better suited for "Hands Off" because they haven't yet developed good control over "hands on" (and it shows). Others have spent the time, effort and diligence necessary to develop a good command and control of their image processing (still working on my personal development) and it also shows when they have developed a mastery thereof (my objective to strive toward @ someday I hope to get there).

Again, your image, your message, your call ... but SOMEBODY is doing the PP in all images. Whether or not it is you or the OEM algorithm camera profile(s), well, that's your call also.



P.S. I guess I should go read the article now.



Jan 30, 2015 at 12:18 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Why the fuss about post processing?


ben egbert wrote:
I never sharpened or color corrected a slide.

Color correcting transparencies (slides) was not easy for the casual photographer or enthusiast.

When I shot transparencies professionally for publication, I used a Minolta color meter and took with me a box full of Wratten CC gel filters. I remember a rush job where I needed to shoot 4x5 transparencies in the dead of winter of a south facing store. It was a brilliant day and the front of the store was illuminated by sky light. Color temp reading was over 10,000 Kelvin! I ended up using an 85. The unfiltered transparency looked OK, but when compared to the filtered shot you could tell how blue the unfiltered trans was.

I've also gone back and scanned personal photos that looked good. I then applied WB in post processing and saw how much they could improve.

I don't understand the "purist" SOOC argument. I don't remember ever making a print for framing that didn't include at least dodging and burning. I still have a jar of potassium Ferro cyanide left over from wet printing. Even the f64 purists didn't print straight. Look at the work of the photo-impressionists (Steichen, etc.) and they made VSCO look SOOC.



Jan 30, 2015 at 02:14 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Why the fuss about post processing?


Yes, slide film at the slr level and no printing which I did for 20 years gave some of us a taste for PP free photography. But I will not deny that the PP I do in digital is absolutely necessary. But I do have a thing for AA filters. It seems so Rube Goldberg to me.


Jan 30, 2015 at 02:46 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Why the fuss about post processing?


ben egbert wrote:
But I do have a thing for AA filters. It seems so Rube Goldberg to me.

I see a Leica M Monochrom in your future. ;-)



Jan 30, 2015 at 03:30 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Why the fuss about post processing?


As a student I started off with black and white and was disappointed by little drugstore prints. Christmas brought an enlarger. For me there was nothing in life quite as magical as watching that first 8 x 10 print develop in a yellow plastic wash tub in the basement. Since then I've associated post-processing with photography. Heck, I happily modified Kodachrome 35mm color slides by adding catch lights picking off emulsion with a pin. I sometimes added a cropping mask, filter or an additional film frame, color or black and white, to the slide mount to get the projected image I wanted. When processing my own transparencies I could push process, increasing contrast and grain, or force reticulation, or color pseudo-solarize them. What matters to me is the final image. Does it say what I want it to say? All's fair in love, war and making images.



Jan 30, 2015 at 04:16 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Why the fuss about post processing?


dmacmillan wrote:
I see a Leica M Monochrom in your future. ;-)


Or a Canon 5DR, I don't do monochrome.



Jan 30, 2015 at 05:33 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Why the fuss about post processing?


I can go out and shoot for hours and enjoy every minute. Then I need to cull and process. That seems more and more like a chore. I suppose processing 300 landscapes for a blurb book did not help. I worked on that 10 hours a day for a week.

If I was a pro photographer, I would definitely hire someone to do the processing.



Jan 30, 2015 at 06:20 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Why the fuss about post processing?


+1 @ 5DR ... that would work for me sans AA filter. Personally, I prefer doing my monochrome from an RGB file ... it helps with separation / masking selection.

+1 @ reciprocal relationship of volume of images shot vs. amount of PP willing to perform.

Adams is quoted to something along the lines of 12 in a year is a good crop.

Wedding shooters that ratchet out 1,000+ images per event and are booked up every week, may cull and farm out to the lab, or simply pass the volume of images onto the customer on CD @ OEM JPG's for them to deal with it @ more than one way to contend with the issue. But, "somebody" is doing it (OEM/jpg/LR preset, outsource, self) ... just depends on the degree of control you want over the images ... canned, standard or custom.

If volume is your bread & butter, PP usually isn't ... vice verse.



Jan 30, 2015 at 06:39 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Why the fuss about post processing?


I have one image, that was pretty good SOOC but I have worked it at least 30 times, including using two different HDR programs and it did not even need HDR. I just want to tease out the last gram of goodness.




Jan 30, 2015 at 08:00 PM
Greg Campbell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Why the fuss about post processing?


IMO, PP has become an extension of the Gearz obsession that defines much of modern photography. So, you bought a 'Five Dee Mark Three' and enough Red Ring glass to outfit a large observatory. Good work! What's that you said? Your pictures still sorta suck?

What's the solution?

MORE GEARZ! (What else!?!)

"Do you have the 'right' version of PS?"
"Got LR?"
"How about Photomatix?" (Because HDR fixes everything! )
Etc., etc.

Instead of making the effort to improve their photography, so many people blindly look to a gadget, bit of kit, or 'better' software to fix their craptastic pics. ("This new plugin lets me push the saturation to ELEVEN!") IMO, this is 50% plain laziness, and 50% the result of marketing monkeys like Kelby who relentlessly push this "You need to buy X!" meme as a way to make money.



Jan 31, 2015 at 12:19 AM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Why the fuss about post processing?


"This saturation goes to ELEVEN!"

There's certainly an aspect of that too, Greg. And I see that "you need to buy x now!" in a lot more than just photography.

I think we had a thread here a few months ago where the main consensus was "take more pictures and you will improve" - but to go with those pictures, why not do a little PP to really make it better.



Jan 31, 2015 at 12:45 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Why the fuss about post processing?


+1 @ some of Greg

Folks are marketed rather than taught. Great processing existed ten years ago ... and longer back than that. The fundamental things of pp are unchanged. I could still be using CS3 just fine (only upgraded to CS6 @ "last chance" for upgrades (i.e. no CS7 to follow). A great chef isn't measured by how many knives he has in the kitchen, rather by what he does with the one he uses.

The "pop & wow" movement (which I can go with @ times) has retarded the growth of the masses in understanding how & why vs. dive-bomb Sliderville. Granted it has spurned some popularity via the ease of use @ others and it does have an allure ... like bees to a flower ... the greater the crayon, the more popular it is.

That said ... we all started somewhere ... but we do get to decide our direction. Personally, I'm more of an "old school" Margulis @ thinking "what / why" vs. Kelby @ formulaic "do this, do that" slider ratcheting ... yet still looking back to the masters of the brush to learn understanding light and movement in image making. First we learn to emulate, then we learn to create ... but, imo ... the depth of understanding @ the tenets of your craft have an influence on how one limits themselves on the emulation / creation pendulum.

The reality in our digital PP realm is that it is all a giant math equation. The numbers haven't changed since the inception of digital, based on 0-1, revised to a scale of 0-255 (8 bit). As such, any "new" software is only a repackage / pre-package of what has always been available.

Granted most folks in today's societies don't aspire to develop their own methods, but that's largely what Adams did over the years. Painters of yore did similar with making their own paints, etc. But, that's not what the masses did, so human nature is essentially unchanged @ emulation vs. creation ease vs. exceptionalism.

Marketing of "new tools" has always been part of advancing technology, realizing that whatever was created new was crafted out of what existed old. Being able to discern whether or not you can do the same with what you already have is the antidote. Imo, you can spend a $$$ learning a "new tool", or you can spend some time learning to better harness the tool you already have ... recognizing when you are the point of constraint vs. when your tools are the point of constraint.

Does GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) occur in software as well as hardware ... yup.

That's not to say nothing new ever comes along that is worthy, but it is to suggest that not everything new is really new.



Jan 31, 2015 at 08:59 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.