Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Do you rely on Post Processing for Final Image?

For myself: I tried a for a time to do straight out of camera JPEGs, only using in camera adjustments for tones on my Olympus E-510 which is pretty extensive. Ensuring WB was correct with custom WBs. Then I decided that I don't crank out 100s of shots anyways, editing RAW files for 10 photos a day isn't too bad, correcting only for tonal adjustments and shadow/highlights as its a problematic item on the E-510 and only RAW files can make most of the sensor. JPEGs are a bit meh at times.

However I leave the original intent and direction there, as i saw it.

I thought of this as I've seen high calibre photogs shoot and deliver straight. Light PP. Very RAW. However there are also expert Photoshoppers who give new light to their photos.



What about you?

Also I just want to add, my newest pet peeve, fake vignetting.

Unless you're using a direct positive process (Like Polaroid or Daguerrotype) there's always significant post processing involved in the final image. Some people simply choose to let somebody else (Lab or programmer) control it.

I recently started doing wet printing in a darkroom, there are many tips/tricks and techniques to altering the image there too, including fake vignetting. It is nothing new, PS just made it a lot easier than picking up an airbrush, a pencil or manipulating the image during printing.

Pet peeve pointless polls and debates along the lines: is a photo still a photo if you do too much post process and is photography an art form, just do what you want regardless of what other people do or say.

You need a don't care one way or another category in the poll.

i always wonder how people define PP... boost saturation? contrast? NR? sharpness? wb? but u can still set those in the camera's settings right?..
I just leave the setting as it is in the camera, and PP them in camera raw and export them as jpg... but i know someone have their own setting in their camera and just shoot jpg... so which one is pp?

i find it interesting when people claiming there's no PP for their photos, but they have some crazy picture style setting in their cameras while they shoot...

+1

On one hand, I think that PP'd photos are cheating, and shows that the photographer never really had a good set of eyes or the knowledge to get the image he wanted straight out of the camer.

On the other hand, photography has been art for some time now and like all art, it is hugely affected by technology and what the computer can do. This is a good thing because it gives you choice. You can pp or choose not to.

I struggle between the two almost on a daily basis. In my heart, I think i will always be a purist, but I also want to experiment


I completely agree with this statement...
It's too easy to criticize, choose what YOU want to do, and do that.

honestly all that should matter is the end image and how good it looks

if the composition and focus are good, then what you do in processing afterwards is a matter of taste and how you want the image to come across to the viewer.

why bash someone because technology has allowed more control and flexibility.

photography is an art.. and art should have no restrictions

Make that +2.

+ 3 EV

For I use PP and adjustments almost on all photos. I shoot jpeg and all settings are on "0". I am sure everyone does edit their work, even professionals.

Even if you say you dont, you still correct the hue/saturation, sharpening, raw/jpeg, etc in camera or otherwise. Even if youdont, you still download the raws, open in your software and edit (WB, sharpening, crop, etc..). So, you are tweaking the images.

A lot of people would say you got a good photo because of PP. I say otherwise, I got a good photo because I took the time, camera and made sure everything is good and that's MY version of the photo.

Everyone else can take a scene, portrait, what makes it special are my settings.

Photography is a way of expression.


btw: CHUCK NORRIS!

My pet peeve is when people say things like "oh, that looks photoshopped" when it could have been created by some third world class software that doesn't have the rights to lick the boots of the real photoshop.

And I agree with the statement of what do we define as post processing, and how far can you take that? Most photos will go through some degree of post processing - even if its only a RAW editor to output it to Jpeg - that is post processing to me!

+4

And I'll raise you with people asking me why I shot something in such a such ISO or setting. For that reason, I periodically hide my exif data on flickr. Look at my photos, not whether I choose 1600 ISO by accident.

Re: pebbz

i just shoot iso 1600 in bright daylight because i forgot to change it from the night before ... & i still get the photos!

all photos are PP they have had some one chose for it to be saturated or highlights recovered, be it the photographer or the designer of the processor in the camera making the Jpeg or the scientist making a specific emulation of film... the image dose not reflect reality. (as much or as little as we try for it to)

+5

All photos have some form of post processing - even choosing your RAW converter can make a difference.

Does it really matter in the end?

+....? Do we really need to add anymore nails to the coffin?

Agree, and similarly when you shoot jpeg only, you are letting the camera control the processing for you. I shoot RAW and PP always.

Yeah, I hate it when that happens One time I went from a dark room to a bright room in a museum and forgot to change the ISO and got a rude comment on my picture like "why would you ever want to shoot at ISO1250 and 1/1000?"

I agree with everyone that it is really up to the photographer whether or not they want to manipulate their images with software or whatever...

However, I think that the term "PP" is not defined well enough. While some people will state that simply converting the image into digital information is PP (and technically, it is), I think that this definition is rarely used. IMO, when the term "PP" is used, it is often referring to manipulating the image intentionally to obtain results distinctly different than what was originally captured. Adjusting saturation, highlights, shadows, sharpening, cropping, etc are forms of PP -- the user is controlling these variables and adjusting them to change the overall aesthetic of the image...

However, simply converting a RAW file to JPG (bar the previously mentioned adjustments) doesn't count as PP in my book. To me, its analogous to saying that putting tires on your car counts as 'modding' it...

Just my 0.02

well to me raw to jpg is PP, even when people change "picture style" while shooting is also PP to me as well.. tires analogy sounds weak to me because there are tons of tires for different purposes... from RE92s to R-compounds and snow tires... they all have different purposes... and of course, without tires the car won't move unless u are fred flinstones

hehe, I do the same mistake. I just find it annoying when someone questions why? If it looks like an obvious mistake, then it probably is.

Yes there are levels of post processing and sure there is no gradient for amount of post processing nor should there be. Is correction of a tilted horizon any different the cloning out a dust spot or cropping or adjusting the white balance? They all change the image aesthetics. It's only the photographer that can have an intent and an aesthetic. The light gathering camera doesn't it just does what it does, there is no natural purity or reality in what it does after all it's only man made technology.

If I have a tilt shift lens I may choose to take a image that looks like a miniature toy. I might also leave the tilt shift lens at home (or at retailer) and PP a faux tilt shift image. Putting aside that I personally don't like the look of 90% of the faux tilt shift images, the result is what others see not the steps that brought it into existence.

You might not like faux tilt-shift or indeed the results of a real tilt-shift lens or HDR (actually HDR tone mapping) or my pet peeve heavy handed use of textures that are really not textures but someone else's photograph. But it is still an image and still has it's basis in single or multiple photographs, just the same as a snapshot that was taken without any intent except to push the button.

If you haven't seen it yet check out BBC 4 The Genius of Photography http://tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10569

It might help you to see that this is not an age old debate unless you are an armchair quarterback.

Sorry your tire analogy doesn't hold water as tires are the most important performance and handling modification you can make on your automobile.

OK, you are right that there are different tires for different purposes.

However, my intention if you're drawing the analogy back to tires is that, in general, you won't choose a certain RAW->JPG converter because the differences in output between different RAW converters, in general, won't have a large enough difference that you can justify choosing one over the other for its "look" (disregarding printing and colour profiles). In general, people will usually only have 1 or 2 sets of tires at a time (I know there are a whole bunch of car enthusiasts on this forum so perhaps I should have chosen a different analogy). Though, I will agree with you that choosing different picture styles can be considered as a PP technique...

@Metrix: With your TS example, I am not saying it wouldn't be considered as PP, nor am I saying that if you "fake" it with PP that it is 'unacceptable'.

My point isn't that post processing techniques need to be justified or that they are a 'bastardized' method of producing a nice aesthetic. I use PP techniques all the time.

What I am saying is that: why should a necessary step such as shooting in JPG or using a RAW converter be considered as post processing when it is just as necessary or important a step as setting your shutter speed, ISO, etc? My reason for using the tire analogy is that tires are a necessity on every car. If the step of converting your RAWs is analogous to putting tires on your car, then everyone would have 'modded' their car.

Really though, what we are arguing isn't really as important because I think we agree on the most key point here, and that is that PP or no PP, a photo is still just a photo.

Bernard sorry in my ramblings I failed to succinctly restate the point I made before your original comment. Taking a photograph is technology and post processing is part of the technology it alway has been and always will be so a debate on the amount of PP is irrelevant, might I say pointless or splitting the proverbial hair. You have to separate the art and intent and aesthetics from the technology as a tool.

People categorize and make up boundaries that don't really exist why I don't know?

I try to add selective colouring, vignetting, and HDR to all my photos. Makes them 100x better.

You forgot tilt shift and textures. I aim for 120x better

I'll do more tilt shift once they come out with an action for it. Too lazy to figure it out for myself.

yeah, exactly...


how about red-eye removal?