# Processing vs Photography Skill



## stapo49 (Dec 31, 2019)

I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer?  Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 31, 2019)

I think you can make a good photo great or make a great photo incredible with some good processing skills.  But the bones have to be there with composition, lighting, dof, focus, shutter speed...

Processing skills can also “save” a photo and make something bad into something decent.   

But processing can’t make a poor photo into an incredible one.


----------



## Designer (Dec 31, 2019)

stapo49 said:


> Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?


For me, no.  

I can accept some digital editing, and I'm o.k. with that, but if I see it has had too much manipulation, then I tend to discount the photograph in my mind.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 31, 2019)

To answer your question, I think it’s 70/30 photo/processing.  Those really amazing photos are usually focus stacked, composites, stitched panos or heavily processed.


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 31, 2019)

Eye of the behonlder


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 31, 2019)

You're sort of opening a can of worms, which really doesn't have an answer, as it depends on what you wish to accomplish with a final image. Obviously for those more interested in being behind the camera, rather then in front of a computer, the closer to SOOC you can get the better. For them the idiom "Garbage in, garbage out", has significant meaning,  as a good exposure can be tweaked to move an image from good to great. Bad images can be recovered (to a point),  things like correcting color, cloning out objects, replacing objects, etc. are all possible, but it takes time. Time that takes away from being behind the camera.

Then you have a subset of photographers, who create images of something outside the abilities of the camera. An individual exposure isn't as much an issue as you're pulling together bits and pieces to create a composite of multiple images. Its a given going in that you'll be spending more time at the computer then behind the camera. I watched a video of a car shoot the other day, it took roughly 4 hours to shoot, but the photographer spent in excess of 30 hours on processing.

Nothing wrong with either approach, just different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Original katomi (Dec 31, 2019)

Each to their own, if photoshop helps you achieve your dream then why not but one still has to see the image or the potential  in the first place


----------



## Braineack (Dec 31, 2019)

stapo49 said:


> I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer?  Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?




Some of the "best" work out there today is complete sh*t simply because of good digital editing.

The photographer in eu who takes pictures of her kids with dogs/chickens comes to mind.


----------



## zulu42 (Dec 31, 2019)

What's more important is people's viewing skills.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 31, 2019)

stapo49 said:


> I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer?  Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?



Back in the day before digital I spent more time in the darkroom making a print than I did behind the camera making the negative.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2019)

Skill in the field or studio is really important in my view. I am not that into editing photos, and my skill is more as a photographer than as a digital editor. I spent my first 25 years in photography mostly concerned about framing and composition and timing, and I began to edit my photos somewhat in 2010.

If I have to spend more than about 10 minutes on any one image, I think that I did something quite wrong. Normally I spend about 3 minutes or less deciding what should be done with a particular frame. Oftentimes I will work diligently on one photo and then select the similar frames, and paste those changes onto up to 15 frames. I learned quite a few years ago that consistency in exposure was a real time-saver in Photoshop or in Lightroom.

Of course there are situations where you need to spend quite a while to either save a blown exposure or to make complicated pixel level edits, such as when cloning out unwanted items, or when working with hair, Etc..

I think the above estimation of 70% photography and 30% processing is about right.


----------



## ac12 (Jan 1, 2020)

As was said, the basic GOOD image has to be shot by the photographer.  
You can't fix lousey composition by editing.​You can "fix" stuff in post, to make it better, like removing unwanted objects.

So you DO need some post processing skills.

On the other hand, do you want to spend several hours on a single image?
Maybe for an IMPORTANT shot, but not for most of the stuff that I shoot.


----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 1, 2020)

For me, 65% of the fun is getting the image but the processing is fun too.....


----------



## stapo49 (Jan 1, 2020)

Thanks for the responses folks. Personally I don't have a problem with images being enhanced in Lightroom, Photoshop etc to your, or if you are a pro, to your clients liking
Though I do have an issue with substituting skies in an image. If the sky is no good at the time go back when it is. The only caveat with this is if the photographer is selling images to be used in advertising, marketing as this is all based on smoke and mirrors anyway.
Also some really nice images there Derrel.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

@stapo49 the ability to digitally manipulate an image has expanded beyond anything capable of capturing in camera. You mention sky replacement, but is that really bad? Say one day you capture a gorgeous sky at the beach, but the water isn't right, and another day you get a tremendous rolling surf but the sky is bland, they're still both your images, so why wouldn't you combine them into your vision? I have a file of nothing but sky shots, various textures and other scenes for backgrounds. Personally I  see nothing wrong with using them when needed, but that's me. Photography is first an foremost an artististic expression of the photographer, so visions, opinions and tastes are going to differ. I do believe that digital editing can lead to a photographer not taking enough time on setting up the shot, thinking they can always fix it post. To me that mind set is creating unnecessary work.

When it comes to marketing, digital manipulation has gotten so bad that ongoing  discussions have/are taking place,  and even laws  are being  put in place for "Truth in Photography". Where do you stop with editing, is it okay to, smooth the skin, change eye color, slim the waist and thighs, what about extending the neck, basically dissecting and reassembling the model in a "perfect", alibiet unrealistic form. Me personally, when I look at a photograph in a magazine I see and comprehend the editing done to the model, and it's not likely that I'd "envision" myself looking that way even if I used the product being sold, nor would I  have any negative feelings about myself for not conforming to the "perfect" model, but there is a fear that some might. Really truth in advertising is not something new, it's been tossed around, cussed and discussed, since the beginning of time, gullibility isn't something new. As P.T. Barnum is quoted saying, "There's a sucker born every minute"


----------



## Braineack (Jan 1, 2020)

this is the girl i was thinking about.  her stuff is *HEAVILY *photoshopped.

Russian Mother Takes Magical Pictures of Her Two Kids With Animals On Her Farm

her style is now really popular and copied very often. Like this guy: Little Kids And Their Big Dogs

Las Vegas Family Photographer | LJHolloway Photography

Is another photographer I was thinking of. Same shots over and over, using the same lens,  same pose, same composition, and over processing the images in post (especially the eyes).  She's very popular online, and posts over at FM.

Now I'm not saying they are bad photographers, however, the photography in some/lots of the shots aren't all that great, and it's the same composition over and over.   But without PS, you'd never hear of them.

As opposed to @gnagel here, who is obviously a VERY talented photographer who uses a maybe a more meticulous approach to his post-processing.  

My Favorite 10 Pictures of the Year


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 1, 2020)

Re post 14.
Changing the sky.... nice thought, but please when you make these statements consider that some of are disabled and 
Will not have the option  of going back, sometime that moment is all you get.
I have shots that are no so good and yes I would love to have the ability to be able to walk to the same place and retake them but it is not possible.
This not a personal attack on the op just me sitting here in a lot of pain waving a hand
Hello, and saying not all can do what others can.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 1, 2020)

For me, all that matters in photography is the final result.  How you got there -no  post process, faked golden hour light, substituted sky, composited moon, focus stacking, image stitching, Nd filters, presets, noise reduction, film... none of that, to me, lessens your photo’s legitimacy.  As long as the photo isn’t claimed to be sotc or part of a news story or documentary, then anything goes if I like the end result.

It’s Art.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

@Braineack Not sure where you're going with your comment, as the ones you referenced above represent a different style or approach to a finished product. Obviously there are those that like the product if they're attracting a following, and imitation. IMO establishing a marketable style that sets you apart from others in a highly competitive field is the key to success for a professional. I can think of one wedding photographer who posts here occasionally, that has a distinctive look. He's been very vocal that he doesn't deviate from that look. There's another fellow who just posted a head shot recently in his typical, dramatic, gritty style, of Dragan processing. From a business standpoint I learned early on that you can't be all things for all people.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 1, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> @Braineack Not sure where you're going with your comment, as the ones you referenced above represent a different style or approach to a finished product. Obviously there are those that like the product if they're attracting a following, and imitation. IMO establishing a marketable style that sets you apart from others in a highly competitive field is the key to success for a professional. I can think of one wedding photographer who posts here occasionally, that has a distinctive look. He's been very vocal that he doesn't deviate from that look. There's another fellow who just posted a head shot recently in his typical, dramatic, gritty style, of Dragan processing. From a business standpoint I learned early on that you can't be all things for all people.



My point that there are tons of photographers that are much stronger at post-processing than actual photography and it works spades for them.

Take away the instagram filters and composited backgrounds, and you're left with average photography at best.

Sure, the masses love it, doesn't mean I do.  Success isn't necessarily a good judge.

It's the same way people like Jason Lanier, he took fairly average images, processed the ever-living-daylights out of the images, and now people throw money at him.  The one image that comes to mind is the bride lifting her dress in the desert with a camaro in the background driving by.  He used a wide-angle and placed them in the bottom corner so they are warped and distorted, it's trashy as hell, then processed poorly in his "unique" style.   

I actually think he can take decent photos, but used these parlor tricks to get clients in the door.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

Braineack said:


> I actually think he can take decent photos, but used these parlor tricks to get clients in the door.



Let's just say I'd be highly p***** if my daughter had chosen this as one of her wedding photos. Still your talking about professionals, marketing a product. That's why many highly qualified photographers choose to remain amateur, because of the freedom to choose.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 1, 2020)

I get into pretty annoying debates with my wife about what is good photography.  

 All she cares about is if the people in the photo look good. The end. Hard stop.

She couldn't care less about any of the foundations of art.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

@Braineack don't get me started LOL I have a DIL who equates quality with high price in all things including photographers. I've had to bite my tongue on many occasions at her choices.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 1, 2020)

But her viewpoint is exactly why bad photographers with HDR software can accel in the biz.


The original question was about our thoughts on photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill.

I'm not against processing, and good processing can without a doubt make for great photography -- think of Dan O here.

Or fashion photographer Lindsay Adler.  She heavily processes her images, but she is highly skilled in photography behind it.


I was helping a friend find a local photographer for her family, and she asked about this person: http://ridgeandramble.com/galleries/

perfect example of how processing can ruin images.  Her photos are decent enough, but it looks like she bought a $10 LR preset package and clicks the "green" one and applies it throughout all her images and that's that.

With good processing, a lot of these shots could be stellar,  but as displayed, imho, they are all hard to look at.  cold and dark processing for what is supposed to be happy/brighter emotion.


My day job is front-end development.  Often I interview developers who claim to be full-stack, or work with other designers/developers who want to become full-stack.  Most of the times, when I see their portfolios, the UX/UI is completely rubbish, or they don't actually know how to do things I'd expect a front-end developer to be able to do/know, like common accessibility or even systematic HTML standards.    Sure they can set up their own DB and be the sole developer on project, but that comes with a lot of compromises.

I often tell my team, while I would like to be able to do it,  I have no desire to learn back-end development -- beyond SQL queries.  There's so much to learn do in my niche, that I'm more impactful to our team/projects being an expert at the view layer.  Sometimes you get a Dan O who is skilled at it all, but there's so much to learn and do in my focus area, that I'm plenty busy and can crank out really cool "gold-plated" work.


----------



## stapo49 (Jan 1, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> For me, all that matters in photography is the final result.  How you got there -no  post process, faked golden hour light, substituted sky, composited moon, focus stacking, image stitching, Nd filters, presets, noise reduction, film... none of that, to me, lessens your photo’s legitimacy.  As long as the photo isn’t claimed to be sotc or part of a news story or documentary, then anything goes if I like the end result.
> 
> It’s Art.



 There are some schools of thought that insist everything should be done  "in camera" with little or no processing at all and then you have the other way of thinking in which anything goes. I agree that photography is  "art" and that focus stacking, ND filters, presets etc are legitimate techniques/processors that allow you to create this art but I still have an issue with composite moons, fake golden hours and substituted skies. That of course is just my personal opinion and everyone comes at their art differently.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 1, 2020)

Some people like to do photography other people are more interested in digital imaging.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 1, 2020)

FWIW, when film was the only medium used to capture images, photography was viewed by the masses(and many art directors I worked with) as a Black Art. It wasn't easy to know what manipulations the settings would have until you had a few rolls under your belt, meaning film LOL. So as a working professional I found that although there was competition, many of the pro shooters actually knew what they were doing if they managed to stay in business after a couple of years. Aesthetics aside, competency of the mechanics was a do or die prerequisite.

With the advent of digital and the ability to see within seconds the actual image, competency started to decline. If you doubt my words, I suggest you talk with art directors and designers who's job it is to buy photography on a daily basis. So much can be manipulated in post today that the quality standards of 'in camera' capture have declined to the point of ridiculous. Of those who are actually competent at the craft, have been forced to address the post processing workflow in order to separate themselves from the now exponential number of so called photographers. This aspect has led many to develop very distinctive processing styles and I would venture to suggest that the content of the images toady are less of a 'style' than the processing approach.

Traditionalists will likely minimize this skill and suggest that the 'only' approach would be to get it right in camera and there is something to be said for that, quality of the file does matter. However, I would also argue that if we only accepted what came out of the camera as a legitimate exercise in photographing something, how boring would the craft become, I'd say dull, tedious and dreary. As with any creative process the artist should IMO, use all the tools at their disposal in order to create the result they visualized. The creative process is much wider today than it has ever been and post processing can be and for many 'is' the reason they enjoy the craft.

Let's not forget, that the instant you press the shutter there are many factors that influence the final image, post processed or not. There is a bit of hypocracy if one proclaims to only accept what comes out of a camera when it has been post processed in the camera from the Raw file, Picture Controls applied, contrast, film simulations and highlight and shadow details enhanced etc.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 1, 2020)

stapo49 said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> > For me, all that matters in photography is the final result.  How you got there -no  post process, faked golden hour light, substituted sky, composited moon, focus stacking, image stitching, Nd filters, presets, noise reduction, film... none of that, to me, lessens your photo’s legitimacy.  As long as the photo isn’t claimed to be sotc or part of a news story or documentary, then anything goes if I like the end result.
> ...



This way of thinking has so many holes in it.   Cameras manipulate the digital image in camera in so many ways already. Fuji has conversions to multiple film simulations and changes to wb, exposure, saturation etc after the photo is taken but before it’s uploaded.   What if composites could be done in camera or skies could be swapped?  Would that make it ok?  

Leaving 30-40% of the tools in the shed is pretty short sighted IMO.  

As to your own acceptance of some manipulations and rejection of others - each person has their own ideas of what is acceptable to them, what they think of as “too far” and what they like and don’t like for a final result. As they say - you do you.


----------



## stapo49 (Jan 1, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> each person has their own ideas of what is acceptable to them, what they think of as “too far” and what they like and don’t like for a final result. As they say - you do you.



Totally agree.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

Actually I have the capability on both the K3II and the K1MII to composite in camera, from HDR, Pixelshift, Highlight correction, Shadow correction, multiple images (additive and average), profiles, etc.,  which I sometimes find useful. So technically I could easily claim that a multiple composite image was SOOC, but I prefer to "see" what is taking place in the composite, to exert my influence on the process rather then allow the camera to do it for me. For me it is as much a part of the creative process as the part behind the camera, but that's me, and not to everyone's taste. 

@JBPhotog _"competency started to decline"_   I think I've already said somewhat the same, thing earlier, but yes I agree with you on the decline. Maybe not so much competency but laziness in their approach behind the camera. As to the SOOC film purist, I still remember the hours spent in the darkroom "post processing" film and prints to get what the camera didn't quite produce.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 2, 2020)

@smoke665  Some are lazy, they typically shoot is auto modes and don’t care about the process. But I mention competency since a large number of people don’t understand the basics, like the exposure triangle, WB, ISO and it’s relationship to DR, when and where to apply shutter speed vs DOF etc., etc. And here’s the rub, many of those same people claim they will only accept SOOC imagery. Anyone can pick up a camera today and fiddle with a few buttons to generate an image but to truly understand the parameters at play that capture it requires deeper understanding of the entire process.

I agree the darkroom was/is a place of post processing, the many thousands of rolls of Kodachrome I shot however were baked into the capture.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 2, 2020)

@JBPhotog The laziness I was referring to was more on the order of composition, not being aware of surroundings, getting a good exposure, but I agree some of the other likely comes into play. Modern DSLRs are pretty awesome in thier ability to produce a snapshot JPEG SOOC in most shooting situations. Only when you try to move past that snapshot does the knowledge you mention become an essential requirement.



JBPhotog said:


> many thousands of rolls of Kodachrome I shot however were baked into the capture.



I primarily shot Tri-X 400, bought it in 100' bulk rolls, over the course of my stint with the papers I went through a lot of film. Back then "rolling you own" was cheap compared to today.  As to the exposure being "baked" I was shooting/developing B&W, pushing, pulling, changing developers, etc, were all post processing used to "unbake" that exposure when necessary.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 2, 2020)

Smoke you are bringing back some memories here.
Bulk rolls of film.
I used to buy fp4 b&w film @5mtrs a time and roll my own.
A dark room in parents loft, pulling the film from 125 asa to 100
When I went out with the k1000 I used to have a cross body belt that held firm cans got the idea from watching the old westerns. Where the cowboys had belts with extra bullets, decided to make same for 35 mm film cans
Now I just carry loads of batts and sd cards lol


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 2, 2020)

@Original katomi LOL I used the screw top metal canisters, and an old hunting vest designed to hold shotgun shells. Game pouch in the back was handy storage.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 2, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> @JBPhotog The laziness I was referring to was more on the order of composition, not being aware of surroundings, getting a good exposure, but I agree some of the other likely comes into play. Modern DSLRs are pretty awesome in thier ability to produce a snapshot JPEG SOOC in most shooting situations. Only when you try to move past that snapshot does the knowledge you mention become an essential requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We agree on pretty much all of this, modern cameras do an excellent job of capturing images without user input. That is a deeper discussion from a perspective of working pros today and how technology has eroded the industry.

I did plenty of that too, in fact I had two bulk loaders, one for Plus-X the other for Tri-X. I even did sheet film deep tank developing for a number of years and only sold all that off about 6 years ago.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 2, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> That is a deeper discussion from a perspective of working pros today and how technology has eroded the industry.


This could be argued in almost any industry today.  There's not many barriers for anyone to enter any industry and plenty of resources to master it.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 2, 2020)

Braineack said:


> This could be argued in almost any industry today. There's not many barriers for anyone to enter any industry and plenty of resources to master it.



But what if you need better the Okay?


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 2, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > This could be argued in almost any industry today. There's not many barriers for anyone to enter any industry and plenty of resources to master it.
> ...






 

Joe


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 2, 2020)

Ysarex said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


Have you seen the prices of brain surgery lately?? They're higher than a root canal!!
Just get references from his patients! If the patient is still  alive, you're good to go!!! LoL
SS


----------



## Braineack (Jan 2, 2020)

Learn to code.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 2, 2020)

Braineack said:


> Learn to code.



I did in college......they still using FORTRAN???


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 2, 2020)

There's quite a jump between doing something (photography, brain surgery, whatever...) and actually getting good at it and mastering it.

I think if someone is going to do a significant amount of editing, such as putting in a different background/sky or removing objects or adding/using special effects, etc., then that needs to be made clear - label it as a composite, or photo illustration, or something. Otherwise it seems like being less than honest about what was done if what was photographed wasn't what was actually there.

I don't think skill is less important. Using a particular technique itself doesn't make art, it's a matter of how it's used. It's still necessary to develop skills in framing and composing images, and adjusting vantage points and perspective, and taking backgrounds and subject placement into consideration, etc. It's still necessary to learn how to get proper exposures. If those things aren't done then there could be a good idea without good implementation or a good end result in a photograph.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 2, 2020)

vintagesnaps said:


> Otherwise it seems like being less than honest about what was done if what was photographed wasn't what was actually there.



Not that I'm disagreeing as much as questioning your limits. So would you consider replacing child #3's head in the family photo with one from another shot where he's actually smiling and not shoving his finger up his nose to the first joint as being dishonest??? What about smoothing and correcting the blemish marked skin of your subject? What about shaving a couple pound off the midriff or thighs of the otherwise attractive young lady in your photo, or shrinking a turkey neck on your matronly subject? How about smoothing a few of the wrinkles around the eyes, or whitening the teeth on a heavy smoker? While most of these are directed toward portrait, you could say the same about other subjects as well. IMO once you start down the path of "labeling" an image as a composite because it may not be an exact replica of the actual scene, just about every image out there would be composites, where do you draw the line between?


----------



## JBPhotog (Jan 2, 2020)

vintagesnaps said:


> I think if someone is going to do a significant amount of editing, such as putting in a different background/sky or removing objects or adding/using special effects, etc., then that needs to be made clear - label it as a composite, or photo illustration, or something. Otherwise it seems like being less than honest about what was done if what was photographed wasn't what was actually there.



I find this kind of argument somewhat curious since we don't require landscape painters to only use the actual colours of the original scene. I guess if you are only attempting to 'document' the scene rather than add an artistic impression then okay but be aware there are many restrictions to this approach.

It really depends on the discipline as well, photojournalists are required by the ethics they aspire to, to not alter the image. There have been a few instances of late where PJ's have gotten into trouble by doing too much editing. However, the genre's of advertising, artistic expression, portraiture etc. do not ascribe to these limitations and are free to create the imagery that suits their purpose.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2020)

There are quite a few working professionals today who have fairly weak technical understanding of the old time fundamentals of photography, but they can do their job because they shoot everything in color positive on a new digital camera with Incredible dynamic range and super wide exposure adjustment capability as long as they have an ISO invariant sensor.

Photography has never been easier to do. No need to develop film, no real need to learn dozens of technical issues. If you make a mistake you can see it within seconds now.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 2, 2020)

I guess next time I go out I’ll have to carry a sign saying I’ve lightened my hair color, covered up some freckles and padded my bra.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 2, 2020)

@SquarePeg only if there are edited enhanced selfies out there. LOL


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 2, 2020)

SquarePeg said:


> I guess next time I go out I’ll have to carry a sign saying I’ve lightened my hair color, covered up some freckles and padded my bra.



Plsase Sharon...., say it ain’t so!!!!


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 4, 2020)

My mantra, since my background is in photojournalism, is "Get The Shot!". When you get the shot you want, there are often fixable problems due to the circumstances at the time. People or items in the shot, backgrounds that are not good or dark/bright areas that just couldn't be worked around at the time of the shot, most can be fixed in post-processing. Always want to get the shot 100% right but the world often has other ideas...........................................


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 6, 2020)

dennybeall said:


> My mantra, since my background is in photojournalism, is "Get The Shot!". When you get the shot you want, there are often fixable problems due to the circumstances at the time. People or items in the shot, backgrounds that are not good or dark/bright areas that just couldn't be worked around at the time of the shot, most can be fixed in post-processing. Always want to get the shot 100% right but the world often has other ideas...........................................



For those of us who want to get a shot that won't exist in another instant, there isn't the luxury to wait and come back.  Mother Nature absolutely doesn't care what the photographer wants to say.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Jan 6, 2020)

Unless you go from camera to print, almost all photographs are "enhanced". I am a fan of "as shot", but I still crop, adjust contrast, and brightness.

It all comes down to what you enjoy when it comes to massaging your photo. 

In the art world I have seen people swoon over impressionist blobs. What ever float your boat.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2020)

One is not much use without the other. In this day and age if you are shooting digitally you must be at least basically conversant with post-processing.


----------



## MVPernula (Jan 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Some people like to do photography other people are more interested in digital imaging.


THIS! Everyone has their own opinion of what's "allowed" or what even counts as photography. Does it stop counting as photography after a certain amount of post proccesing? At which point is the photograph converted into digital art? Is it ever? 

To me it's alot about 'feeling'. I won't say that a heavily edited photo isn't photography, but it -to me- wont feel very genuine. The russian lady @Braineack shared is a good example. It is photography, no doubt, and I can see why it would look attractive to the masses and some people, but to me it lacks feeling. I think I mean "genuinity" by 'feeling', not quite sure myself really. However another example from @Braineack was http://ridgeandramble.com/galleries/ , as her editing don't really appeal to me I wouldn't say that her way of processing images ruins the shot. Her shots, personally, feel much better than the Russian lady's. It's more like I'm looking at an actual photo rather than... Something else.

To my earlier point I'd say that the russian lady's work is more in the direction of digital art rather than photography and Kelsey Rae's work is more photography than digital art, but both are 'photography' either way. At least that's what I think!


----------



## 407370 (Jan 7, 2020)

I love discussions like this.

My avatar is a fine example of something that cannot be done in camera. It cant even be done in Photoshop / Lightroom.

Take my avatar....

This is the end result I was looking for. I cannot achieve this with a camera so I used the following workflow:

get photo of water. Loch Lomond will do nicely
Create 3D Scene
Create a model of 3D Head
Add objects as necessary
Create textures
Add Camera Object



 



No matter what I do to the photo of Loch Lomond it is still a photo of Loch Lomond.  Is it still photography?. It is to me.


----------



## MVPernula (Jan 7, 2020)

407370 said:


> I love discussions like this.
> 
> My avatar is a fine example of something that cannot be done in camera. It cant even be done in Photoshop / Lightroom.
> 
> ...


Now this is a good one!

This even had me looking up the definition of photography out of curiosity. Depending on where you look you get more or less specific explanations on what 'photography' is. You get simple definitions such as:

-"The science which relates to the action of light on sensitive bodies in the production of pictures, the fixation of images, and the like." -_Webster Dictionary
_
and

-"The art and technology of producing images on photosensitive surfaces, and its digital counterpart." _-Wiktionary.
_
Along with other, more explanatory and in-depth, definitions.

One thing I saw coming up repetitively on the more in-depth ones was that you needed to capture light chemically, by film or its digital counterpart such as image sensors. So from what I could find you are not, _by definition_, taking photos. You are indeed making a photograph, but it's a tricky one! Did you take the photo of Loch Lomond? In that case we're talking about something else, then you've snapped a shot and edited it. If you've downloaded the photo and placed that 3D model on top I'd say it's digital art.

Conclusion:
It depends


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 7, 2020)

@407370 thanks for the backstory, this is way beyond cool for an old tech junkie like me, though admittedly I was mostly lost after "get photo of water". LOL



MVPernula said:


> Did you take the photo of Loch Lomond? In that case we're talking about something else, then you've snapped a shot and edited it. If you've downloaded the photo and placed that 3D model on top I'd say it's digital art.



This is a question I've struggled with finding a definitive answer for as well. If a musician plays a piece composed by someone else, are they any less a musician? If an actor plays a part from a script written by another are they any less an artist? As with the person who compiles a totally new composition from the bits and pieces of photos, each contribute their artistic influence.

Part of the issue might lie in the fact that "digital photography" and the ease of manipulation is relatively new. Unlike the musician and actor example, the understanding and acceptance, of who does what in the digital world is still struggling for a definition. Maybe it's time for Webster's to reevaluate thier definition?


----------



## MVPernula (Jan 7, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> This is a question I've struggled with finding a definitive answer for as well. If a musician plays a piece composed by someone else, are they any less a musician? If an actor plays a part from a script written by another are they any less an artist? As with the person who compiles a totally new composition from the bits and pieces of photos, each contribute their artistic influence.
> 
> Part of the issue might lie in the fact that "digital photography" and the ease of manipulation is relatively new. Unlike the musician and actor example, the understanding and acceptance, of who does what in the digital world is still struggling for a definition. Maybe it's time for Webster's to reevaluate thier definition?


If a musician plays a piece composed by someone else, they're still playing the composition. The person in question is a musician.
If an actor plays a part from a script written by another are they are still acting.
My point is that they're _doing _it. They _are _acting, and they _are _playing the instrument.
I'm not a photographer if I download someone elses photo. I _would _ be a photographer if I snapped any shot, or in this case a photo of Loch Lomond. Should I have taken this photo and edited it, sure yeah! Downloaded it? No not really.

But like you said with: _"As with the person who compiles a totally new composition from the bits and pieces of photos, each contribute their artistic influence."_
This, to me, still wouldn't be photography. If the process didn't include some for of, well.. Camera usage or similar, is it _really _photography? If a person complies a totally new composition from bits and pieces of photos _they haven't shot _It'd be digital art to me. Have you shot one/some/all of the pictures in said composition? Then we're back to some for of photography.

I'd compare it to someone saying "I'm a videographer", but the person in question only downloads finished footage online to slap it into a video editing software. Said person in question didn't shoot video at all, is he/she a videographer?
Am I making sense?


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 7, 2020)

@MVPernula how a musician plays a piece usually includes thier artistic adaptation in some manner, as with an actor they aren't just reading the words in monotone. I would agree that someone who merely copies something verbatim falls within the realm of reproduction.

As to the digital image world, we are entering a new world where IMO labels of the past may be outdated. Look at the digital images in today's movies, where they create images from nothing but an idea? Using your Wikipedia definition above, "*Photography* is the art, application and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film", I'd say an alien being created on a digital drive would fall within the realm of the definition.


----------



## munecito (Jan 7, 2020)

Processing isn't a digital thing. 

Have a little browse here:

Marked Up Photographs Show How Iconic Prints Were Edited in the Darkroom

Dennis Stock (magnum photographer) marked up his photos with heaps of instructions on how they were to be processed.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2020)

MVPernula said:


> However another example from @Braineack was http://ridgeandramble.com/galleries/ , as her editing don't really appeal to me I wouldn't say that her way of processing images ruins the shot. Her shots, personally, feel much better than the Russian lady's.



The shots are fine, but the styling is awful.

If i'm paying for engagement photos or wedding photos,  that last thing I want is dark, dreary, GREEN images that don't match the mood/emotion.  They look like an Instagram filter was applied to them willy nilly -- look at all the black clipping. I just personally, very much dislike this look  but granted I'm more keen on "true-to-scene" photography.

This was really just an example of decent photos, that IMHO were ruined by inability to process correctly/well.  It's fine to have a style, and obviously people are hiring her, but I wouldn't.

I'd rather hire @Vtec44 here if I wanted a similar style.  James Tang Photography - Southern California forest wedding photographer serving Los Angeles, Orange County, Temecula, San Diego, Big Bear Lake, Lake Arrowhead Pine Rose Cabins , San Moritz Lodge in Crestline, and other So Cal cities.  I'm a hybrid (film and digital) wedding photographer specialize in rustic mountain and forest weddings in Southern California. I also own a beautiful row boat.. He has a light and airy style, and even a slightly green hue to his images still.

The point I was trying to express with the Russian photographer, and that she's more into digital art/manipulation; which is totally fine. But the photography base isn't all that strong, and again, in my opinion the photoshopping isn't that strong. People go ga-ga over her work, and all i see i fake snowflakes, poorly photoshopped flowers, fake light flares, and artificially blurred backgrounds.  I also don't really find her compositions all that compelling, and rarely like the dark look and color cast she adds.

Ultimately what I'm getting at is both photography skills *AND *processing skills are both very important.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 7, 2020)

Smoke, just as a fun not really serious re  your post 58
How would Star Trek style beam me up tech fit in it records an image pattern.....

Joking a side post 58
I agree, with the coming of digital and other technologies the labels we use are changing and or will have to change
Someone said that slide film was the closest we could get to straight out of camera.
Ok yes, but having shot slides, what was not mentioned was all the pre shoot processing
Storing film correctly, having it at the right temp at the time of the shoot, filters to correct light colour casts
Choosing which slide film you wanted for the shoot as #at the time 1970s....1990s each film had its own quirks 
Yes we make adjustments depending on final output, web,print,projected display. And so on
I am a hobbyists photographer, but I own kit that 20 years ago a pro would have given their right hand to own
I produce photos that are better than those in books from about the same age..because the tech has improved so much
I can shoot vid on my I phone#very badly#
I have had photographs on display for over the last 4 years. 
10 years ago looking at my kit, of today #most of which is used# I would have been classed a a rich git with more money than brains. Today my kit would be classed as dated

But I think I am still a hobbyist photographer I am definitely not a videographer 
Labels they are changing, you can see it even on this site. 
We are all photographers yes?
But the we or someone else will  label/ sub label to clarify 
Film, digital, med format or larger, digital med format, pro, high end enthusiasts, enters level user, 
Point and shoot, bridge. Phone.
I am a canon user, and I make a point sometimes of saying when I reply to a post I only speak canon
It used to be pro, hobbyist and pos the bloke with more money than brains who did not know his asa/iso from his
Ass
If you take a photograph, regardless of equipment use are you not a photographer 
If you use others work to make an image# copyright a side# are you not a compiler 
My g kids call me a fossil because even though I can and do things like use the web I still can and do things the old way
In photography I am a fossil because I bracket manually rather that set the camera to do it and because I use tricks from my film days to workaround limitations I encounter
So guess that makes me canon  (1.6 crop  digital sensor ) speaking fossil


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2020)

Saying someone is not a photographer, albeit hobbyist, for using a cell phone to take pictures, is like saying someone who replaces the shocks/springs on his car is not a mechanic because he used hand tools to loosen tighten bolts and not an impact wrench.

I can take crummy pictures on a D5 just as well as i can on my Pixel3.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 7, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> Smoke, just as a fun not really serious re your post 58
> How would Star Trek style beam me up tech fit in it records an image pattern.....



I can only hope that they develop the technology during my lifetime, and that the process will reconstruct me minus the sagging muscles, extra weight, thinning/white hair, etc., into something more resembling my youth.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 7, 2020)

Yep I,ll have some of that, get the kenaf knees sorted lol


----------



## 407370 (Jan 7, 2020)

MVPernula said:


> Did you take the photo of Loch Lomond?


Yes I did, Its my photo.

I still dont see the difference between a camera in your hand and a camera inside an artificial 3D rendered scene. The same controls have to be adjusted to suit and the lighting has to be controlled to the same extent as a physical camera.

You should see what I do with sunrises in a 3D scene.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> Original katomi said:
> 
> 
> > Smoke, just as a fun not really serious re your post 58
> ...



Why do you think Facebook is doing 10-year challenges and developing deep fake software?


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 8, 2020)

I think good, solid photography is all about skill and vision, and editing comes second. For me, it's 80% photography skill/vision, and 20% editing/vision.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 9, 2020)

DanOstergren said:


> I think good, solid photography is all about skill and vision, and editing comes second. For me, it's 80% photography skill/vision, and 20% editing/vision.



I find it interesting that you see vision, photography and editing as separate skills. To me they are part of the same thing.

I do tend towards project photographs that will take days / weeks  to achieve. For example I wanted to get a photo of a particular purple flower at my local park. Multiple visits were required before I got the shot because of weather / lighting / bloom conditions etc. I like flowers with a sprinkle of HDR / Tone Mapping and was very happy with the result. The vision, photography and editing were all parts of the same project from the very start.


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 9, 2020)

407370 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I think good, solid photography is all about skill and vision, and editing comes second. For me, it's 80% photography skill/vision, and 20% editing/vision.
> ...



Interesting perspective.  I sometimes have very specific processing in mind before or during the shoot.  Not always though.   But, if you’re going to be focus stacking, stitching panos, compositing, blending multiple exposures - that all needs to be planned out in advance so would all be part of the process as a whole. 

Most of those are landscape or macro techniques.  Dan is a portrait artist and that may be why he sees editing as a separate thing.


----------



## Original katomi (Jan 9, 2020)

Just spent all afternoon mounting and framing photos... does that count as post processing


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 9, 2020)

407370 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I think good, solid photography is all about skill and vision, and editing comes second. For me, it's 80% photography skill/vision, and 20% editing/vision.
> ...


Yes they were all a part of the same project, but I don't think that automatically makes them all the same skill. A photographer can attain technical perfection without vision or editing skill. A retoucher can attain great editing skills while lacking technical photography skill or vision. An artist can have a great vision with no technical skill or editing knowledge or skill. These skills can certainly come together in a single project, sure, but like any skill they each require a different set of knowledge, teaching and experience. Knowing one of these skills doesn't make someone skilled in the other, nor are any of them the same thing.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 10, 2020)

I got a notification that @Braineack mentioned my name.  I'm not sure if that's a good thing


----------



## Braineack (Jan 10, 2020)

It's the best thing


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 10, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> Just spent all afternoon mounting and framing photos... does that count as post processing


Was it done AFTER you took the photo??? LoL
SS


----------



## stapo49 (Jan 10, 2020)

I was watching a video where a guy replaced a sky and added reflections in the water using Luminar 4. The result was impressive but now it's got me looking at landscape images trying to figure out if the sky is a replacement or the original.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## weepete (Jan 11, 2020)

stapo49 said:


> I was watching a video where a guy replaced a sky and added reflections in the water using Luminar 4. The result was impressive but now it's got me looking at landscape images trying to figure out if the sky is a replacement or the original.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk



I see a lot of fake glow over mountains in milky way shots or it's setting sun combined with night. Always looks off to me and puts me off those shots.


----------



## beddingfield (Jan 11, 2020)

You cant even trust the photos shown on the websites for the company that make our cameras and lenses. Way to much digital editing.

It was once considered an accomplishment for a photographer to be able to do a double exposure shot correctly. 

Now you can superimpose the persons face onto a penny in 5 minutes with digital software.

Or you can take the photo of your friend standing in front of a white wall and import them into a photo taken during the d day landings.


----------



## Sharpshooterr (Jan 12, 2020)

beddingfield said:


> You cant even trust the photos shown on the websites for the company that make our cameras and lenses. Way to much digital editing.
> 
> It was once considered an accomplishment for a photographer to be able to do a double exposure shot correctly.
> 
> ...



Jeezzz, that means I can put myself right in front of Neil Armstrong and be the first one on the moon!! 
Now if I could only find myself a real spacesuit!?! I don't imagine a Halloween costume would cut it!!!? LoL
SS


----------



## malling (Jan 12, 2020)

I’m defiantly in line with Dan on this one,  it’s distinctively different skills that belongs to different trades. 

All are necessary components in allot of projects, in some case a single individual might posses all the necessary skills and knowledge to make the end product, but that is not always the case. Sometimes the different aspect is taken care of by different individuals, dos it make any of the involved lesser photographers, artists etc. I don’t think so, I have been hired by digital artist because they did not have the necessary skills or technical understanding for a specific project, but I had no hand on in the final product, dos it make any of the involved lesser skilled. I would hire someone who has better editing skills if it is required, dos in means I’m a lesser photographer.  

It just happens to be that allot of skilled photographers are also skilled artist and editors, but that doesn’t mean all parts belong to the same trade. 

And for what I have seen over the years, those with great editing skills isn’t necessary the best photographers nor are the best photographers the best editors. Both require allot of time spend in each fields and one who spend most of the time in one field would typically be better equipped in that field then one who spend 50/50.

I have seen allot of creative digital editing/creation but where the basic phots used where somewhat lacking. Just like I have seen the opposite, there are great examples of both in this thread, there are few like Lindsay Adler but even she draw from other people.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 12, 2020)

malling said:


> a single individual might posses all the necessary skills and knowledge to make the end product, but that is not always the case.


The vast majority of hobby photographers (like me) use what they have. I dont hire a better photographer / editor / nor do I hire lighting equipment  / studio to get the best possible end result. I make do with what I have in terms of skills and equipment.
This is a fundamental difference between hobby and pro photographers. I would not dream of handing any part of my work to anyone. I own 100% of the success or failure of a particular photo project.

Its the sum of all the parts that makes a photo. If a photographer is deficient of skills or equipment in one or more parts of the workflow it does not stop a photo being produced. Its the sum of the parts of the individual photographer that add up to their individual style. Personally I am not a fan of outsourcing any of my  work but I can understand why other people do it.


----------



## TWX (Jan 12, 2020)

weepete said:


> I see a lot of fake glow over mountains in milky way shots or it's setting sun combined with night. Always looks off to me and puts me off those shots.


You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?


----------



## weepete (Jan 13, 2020)

TWX said:


> You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?



If it's light pollution I don't think you'd see the milky way.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 13, 2020)

weepete said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> > You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?
> ...



or badly done HDR


----------



## SquarePeg (Jan 13, 2020)

weepete said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> > You sure that isn't light-pollution from a city in that direction because the photographer didn't feel like going far enough out of town for the shot?
> ...



You can definitely still see the MW with distant light pollution.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 24, 2020)

I spent some time debating the merits and faults of post processing but in recent months I decided I was on a fools errand. Who am I to say what constitute fun and statifaction for others.

If you are a professional photographer you need to develop the skill set and use every trick available to create what the public or your sponsor wants and will buy. As individuals we have absolutely no control over what fad the public will support next, be it music, art, dress and yes, digital images.  However, if you make your living at it, you had better know and produce what will sell.

As a hobbyist, well things are different; after readings comments that some people post about someone's  picture, I find some have merit and some, to me, are simply knit picking. I am far less concerned about the technical aspects of a photo, then what it conveys to the viewer. I like my photos to tell a story of sorts and will often comment on the circumstances.

I guess you might say, I shoot photos trying to capture the viewers interest in the subject, which usually means minimal or no post processing. 

I would think that others find pleasure tweaking their photos, just as a painter does with that last touch of color on the canvas; hoping to create the perfect photo.


----------



## Indrajeet (Feb 28, 2020)

stapo49 said:


> I was wondering on what you guys thought about photography being less about pure photography skill and more about processing skill? I have noticed some beautiful images on various forums I visit and have wondered how much of this beauty is due to the processing ability of the photographer?  Plus there are countless Photoshop, Lightroom image adjustment tutorials online.Obviously you still need a good composition, exposure etc to make it work but is it less important in the digital age?



You raise a very relevant point, one I have often pondered, a good number of photographer friends of mine rely on their skills on the computer rather than with the camera. Being from days of film when I started out in this hobby when every shot counted and you had to wait a few days before you saw the results, one learned to get it right "in camera". Modern cameras permit one to see the images right away, alongside the spray and pray ability of these cameras may have made photographers lazy. For me, minimal PP and the less  time spent in front of a computer is better spent in the woods, where I enjoy my hobby.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 28, 2020)

I am working my way through the Ansel  Adams  trilogy. In his first book on the Camera he clearly states that though people classify him as a realistic photographer, he clearly is not.

Ansel's approach to the scene is not to capture it as is, but rather to portray it as he envisions it in his mind. He discusses how he uses his camera, filters, depth of field, light, shutter speed and the multiple adjustment of his view camera to to produce an image on the film, that he will chemically manipulate through his knowledge of developer properties, then visually manipulate through his mastery of the printing process.

Basically, this years of dark room experience allowed him to know, before he pushed the shutter button, what needed to be done in the taking, developing, and printing processing, to get the image he visioned in his mind. 

Digital folks have it easier because they get real time feedback of their ideas but they are doing the same thing. They are trying to capture the scene as their mind sees it. Painters do this all the time. Digital does not make you lazy, digital allow you to experiment with ideas you could not afford to wasted a shot of film on.  So yes, you can see what if it is possible to get a better angle if your buddy hold you upside down by your ankles. 

Adams makes it clear that he teaches his methods, not so you can duplicate his work but so you can use his technique to create your own interpretation of the scene.


----------



## flyingPhoto (May 30, 2021)

i find it easier to use a CPL to deal with reflections and to prevent them and to use a lens hood to deal with light flares then it is to purchase photo shop and try to figure out how to remove them


----------



## smoke665 (May 30, 2021)

Grandpa Ron said:


> Basically, this years of dark room experience allowed him to know, before he pushed the shutter button, what needed to be done in the taking, developing, and printing processing, to get the image he visioned in his mind.


Digital is no different than film in the creative aspects. Thinking through the backend process  before you snap the shutter is still the most important part of the process


----------

