# You know what bothers me?



## Big (Sep 26, 2009)

You know what bothers me? No this has nothing to do with TPF as some others have complained on here before...  I find it very frustrating knowing that most of the pictures that are good are mostly done with editing. I could be wrong but I am looking at some shots from the weekly email I receive from DPS and it's obvious that there is editing. It seems like the only way to get a good shot today is by editing it. It's a buzz kill to think that the majority of the shots I take will only look good after being run through in photoshop with a fine tooth comb. I'm not saying I don't like editing but some pictures I've seen look like a cartoon cause the colors are so boosted or whatever. It doesn't seem like there are many true photographers anymore. Think of the people who shoot film. They had no editing programs years ago. They perfected the shot in the camera and thought more about pushing the shutter button. It's just something that I have been bothered by lately.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 26, 2009)

Their editing program was called a dark room, and they did pretty much everything we still do today.  In fact, they invented pretty much everything we do today.


----------



## Dagwood56 (Sep 26, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Their editing program was called a dark room, and they did pretty much everything we still do today. In fact, they invented pretty much everything we do today.


 
Yes, but most labs didn't do all the little tweaks to photos that get done today. The average hobbiest, dropped their film at a lab and the lab developed and printed it and when the hobbiest got it back, they had their images, end of story. They were either good or they were bad. People didn't get to sit and pick apart every little aspect of their image on the computer screen and enhance this, and tweak that and over saturate something else. The little tweaks and such that were done in the darkroom years ago were done only by\for the pros or by those hobbiests who developed their own film.


----------



## KmH (Sep 26, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Their editing program was called a dark room, and they did pretty much everything we still do today. In fact, they invented pretty much everything we do today.


At the pro level not only was there post processing in the lab (darkroom), there was pre-processing before the shutter was released.

Pre-processing took the form of film selection and lens filtering.

My Kodak Professional Photoguide (fifth edition) lists 18 color films for print, 21 films for slides and transparancies, 18 films for continuous-tone, high-contrast and special purposes, and 8 films they called Laboratory films.

Add to all that the different chemical processes and timing sequences for developing the various negatives and chromes, a wide range of paper choices that could have a big influence on contrast and color rendition and all the filters used to control contrast pre-process, a range of flash bulbs could be selected...........

Ansel Adams was more a master of the darkroom, than he was a master of the camera. For many of his images there are several different versions of print that reflect his experimentation at differnt times with darkroom technique and chemicals. 

At least at the advanced amateur and pro level the notion they perfected the shot in the camera is a romantic ideal of how it really happened.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 26, 2009)

Dagwood56 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Their editing program was called a dark room, and they did pretty much everything we still do today. In fact, they invented pretty much everything we do today.
> ...


Doesn't change the fact that "back in the day", as now, "most of the pictures that are good are mostly done with editing".  Most of the "good ones", like the stuff we saw in magazines and advertisements, came from the pros and hobbyists who were editing.

Adobe didn't invent unsharp mask ya know.  

And to KmH's point - yeah, I've still got a bunch of filters and masks and modifiers from back in the day when I had to get as much at the time of the shutter as possible.  I don't see why it should be so wrong that instead of putting a graduated sunset filter on my lens, now I do it in Photoshop.

I agree that this whole notion of how photography "back in the day" produced some kind of untouched, unspoiled, unedited perfection of reality straight out of the camera is a romanticized ideal that has little resemblance to actual reality and history.

Maybe I shouldn't have read Ansel's books and those like it from other photographers from "back in the day" regarding how to deal with the camera, the negative and the print.  Then I could buy into that dreamy, romanticized version as well, and I'm pretty sure life would be better.  :hugs:


----------



## LokiZ (Sep 26, 2009)

I tend to not link a good shot by what it looks like after post processing.  I shoot raw so I tend to judge my captures from how they come out as a raw image.  The better the shot is in raw the more potential it has for me no matter which direction I take with it.

Seems to me it's like the potter and his clay.  You don't just say, "well, the clay is good, there we go a masterpiece!"  Someone has to develop it whether it is you or someone else.  Who do you think develops an image if you do not post process when using a digital camera?  Why the camera does of course.  I myself do not think that the best move, but to each his own I suppose.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 26, 2009)

I still work in the darkroom, and I can say that I don't put anywhere near that much work into my prints in there as people seem to do with their digital images these days. That said, I think that the essence of the issue at hand in this thread is not (thankfully) another generic approach to the tired arguments of film v. digital, but rather _how much _processing goes into an image these days, and why.

Marshal McLuhan once stated that "the medium is the message", and I think that that is part of what is being discussed here. While these effects were indeed first done in the darkroom - we can look at the work of people like William Mortensen (who was a Master craftsman when it comes to editing in the darkroom as well as editing negatives) and see that. Rather it is the _level_ of manipulation that is the issue. Software makes it far, far easier and faster to do this now than it was before (Mortensen would sometimes work for _weeks_ on a single negative). This is part of the medium and therefore often becomes part of, or in many cases _all_ of, the message, but is that necessarily a good thing? Can we not make powerful and/or meaningful images with this new technology without the need for that level of post-processing?

I think that it certainly can be  (and already is by some), but the ubiquity of this new technology and the ease of its use has altered the message in much of what is being created with it. Is it an improvement when the technique overrides the subject, and often the message as well, sometimes to the point of entirely supplanting the message with the technique? The point of many images seems to be no more than 'look what I can do!' rather than being an attempt to send a more complex message to the viewer. Even Mortensen, who I am an unashamed fan of, used the techniques he used to very heavily manipulate his prints to _further_ their message, not replace it.

I could be completely off base here, but this is, I think, something that should be discussed rather than clumped immediately into a film v. digital category, for it is more complex than that...

- Randy


----------



## Buckster (Sep 26, 2009)

A very thoughtful and relevant post Randy.  Makes one wonder what the darkroom magicians of yesteryear would have done with Photoshop to simplify and expand their workflow...?


----------



## epp_b (Sep 26, 2009)

Post-processing is half of what makes a good photo.  Don't fall into the rockwellian myth that "pros get it right in the camera".  It's baloney.  I have only _one_ photo in recent memory (as in, within the last several months) where the _only_ adjustment I made was a 10% increase in contrast.



> They had no editing programs years ago.


ORLY?

Post-processing has been around for as long as photography itself has. Instead of changing the water temperature and the development chemicals, we adjust the the gamma and tone balance.

This is one reason I don't often shoot film: I can't afford a darkroom, chemicals and the tons of other equipment and materials required to do the same sort of processing techniques that are a lot cheaper to do with a computer and software.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 26, 2009)

Dagwood56 said:


> Yes, but most labs didn't do all the little tweaks to photos that get done today. The average hobbiest, dropped their film at a lab and the lab developed and printed it and when the hobbiest got it back, they had their images, end of story.



That depends entirely on the lab and a level of service. Hobbiest is also not what I assume a "real photographer" is in the terms of the OP's post. At the very least this photographer would drop his prints off at a prolab (of which there are plenty around). I once dropped a roll of Kodak HIE off at a lab, and asked me if I wanted to come in and guide them on any developing I wanted done.

Also even mom and pop labs quite typically please the consumer by cranking the brightness and the contrast of the picture. The only difference is it's all computerised these days, and the adjustments are all done on the way to the printer rather than at the printer.



Big said:


> Think of the people who shoot film. They had no editing programs years ago. They perfected the shot in the camera and thought more about pushing the shutter button. It's just something that I have been bothered by lately.



Go to the library and get a book called "The Darkroom Handbook by Michael Langford" Don't need to hire it, just look through it. You'll be amazed to find that some of the most detailed and advanced editing you will see in photoshop was done in the darkroom too. 

Unsharp mask, dodge, burn, all dark room terms. The blended soft overlay effect used a lot by wedding photographers was the result of duplicating the slides, one out of focus, layering them and then exposing a photo through both slides at once. That LOMO effect that is popular now with the washed out blues and magentas and low contrast, that's nothing more than using C41 chemicals in an E10 film process.

It was the real photographers like Ansel Adams who spent days in the darkroom working on a single picture, probably more so than you do now in photoshop. The only thing that has changed is that there are many more mediocre photographers with cheap digicams now. The best work still comes out of a carefully planned, and edited image.


----------



## Dao (Sep 26, 2009)

I just started my photography hobby last year. So I do not know too much about film.  However, I went to a studio in the past with my wife and took some photos there.  I do not know what kind of camera they use at that time.  I believe it is a medium format now. (And he used film as I saw him put a film in and took it out)

Anyway, the studio ask me do I want some of the photos looked a little bit different and showed me some samples.  And I do like them so I say yes.  And now, I know those are "Cross-processing". And that was before the session.

After I went through the whole session, and I came back a week or 2 later to see the sample.  At that time, we selected the one we want (part of the package that we can select certain number of photos out of the whole stack without paying extra).  Once we decided which one we want and which one we want it as poster size, 8x11s 5x7s then we were told we need to wait for few weeks to a month.

I ask the staff why and she told me that the photographer need to Post processes the photos that we want.  He would not just gave us the print with process them first.  

So based on that experience, I know film photographer do a lot of PP as well.  But I will say it is so much easier with digital now.

By the way, I remembered one technique the photographer used was, we stood in front of a screen (forgot what color the screen is).  And I saw the photographer picked a slide from the stack and put it inside a device (maybe right below the camera).  Then he took a shot and replaced it with a different slide and took another shot again.

When I came back to see the sample, I saw the result is pretty neat.  It seemed that the equipment projected a image on the screen and took the photo.  So we were standing in front of some high tech buildings, a bed of rose and ...  very interesting.  I do not know what that called.


----------



## Big (Sep 26, 2009)

Ok, maybe I slipped, mostly because I know crap about film but it just made sense since no one had computers 30 years ago like we do now. I just got frustrated that's all. It's like taking a completely crappy singer and running their voice through a vocalizer or whatever they use and make them sound like a pro...


----------



## epp_b (Sep 26, 2009)

I'm wondering if, perhaps, if confusing "processing" for "overprocessing".  Processing is simply a normal part of making any good photo.  Overprocessing is usually done as an attempt to make a crappy photo look good (and consistently fails at doing so).


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

I think part of the problem is today with digital, some photographers don't take the time that we did back in the film days before releasing the shutter. Some are too quick to get the image and unfortunately it shows in their finished work.


----------



## Plato (Sep 26, 2009)

Many of the finest pics to have ever existed were done with Kodachrome, where PP was a physical impossibility.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 26, 2009)

Plato said:


> Many of the finest pics to have ever existed were done with Kodachrome, where PP was a physical impossibility.


Do tell.  I didn't know that.

So, can you explain how any photos made on Kodachrome would get into a magazine or onto a poster?  Or were they only seen at the photographer's house on a slide projector?

I'm interested to know the technique involved that prevented anyone from doing any PP in that process; no possibility for introducing filters, masks, sandwiching, vignetting, drawing, dying or painting on the slide itself before projecting, etc.  Explain how and why it was physically impossible to place anything at all between the slide and the paper while making a print, and how it was impossible to use dyes and paint and so on directly on the print for touch ups and so on, because I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around how that would be "impossible".

This will no doubt be fascinating!  I love to learn new stuff!


----------



## epp_b (Sep 26, 2009)

> Many of the finest pics to have ever existed were done with Kodachrome, where PP was a physical impossibility.


As mentioned, much work with film involves _pre_-processing: selecting filters, multiple exposures, lighting techniques, etc.

Colour slide film could also be considered pre-processed itself for it's typical high levels contrast and saturation.

EDIT: OK, Buckster has a much better retort than I


----------



## Garbz (Sep 26, 2009)

Big said:


> Ok, maybe I slipped, mostly because I know crap about film but it just made sense since no one had computers 30 years ago like we do now..



Nah you did kinda have a point. The only issue is that the anger is misdirected. The ability to take a 1000 ready to burn to CDs photos in about an hour has bred a world of people who don't take care anymore. They make errors in the camera photography and then dedicate photoshop to fixing them. This is a mistake a lot of amateurs and happy snappers fall into. I think the real seasoned pro is the one who dedicates the time in the original image and then uses post processing as PART of his process rather than a bandaid.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 26, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Big said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, maybe I slipped, mostly because I know crap about film but it just made sense since no one had computers 30 years ago like we do now..
> ...


 
Exactly, photoshop is used to tweak, not save an image.


----------



## Big (Sep 26, 2009)

Garbz said:


> I think the real seasoned pro is the one who dedicates the time in the original image and then uses post processing as PART of his process rather than a bandaid.


Well said Garbz!! :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Battou (Sep 27, 2009)

Big said:


> Ok, maybe I slipped, mostly because I know crap about film but it just made sense since no one had computers 30 years ago like we do now. I just got frustrated that's all. It's like taking a completely crappy singer and running their voice through a vocalizer or whatever they use and make them sound like a pro...




Your anology is so far off base it's almost funny. I'm suprisesd no one has said it yet....It does not matter how much processing one does to a photo, a shitty photo will be shit regardless of the persons photoshop ability. One simply can not make a bad photo an award winner with photoshop, it must be an award winner from the time the shutter is released. Something modern beginners can not phathom.

A more appropriate anology for what you are reffering to would be cutting and polishing a peice of quartz and trying to sell it as a dimond.... No matter how fine and beautifully the rock is cut, it's still just a peice of quatrz.


I do know your frustration though....but that is a different rant all together


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Big said:


> Ok, maybe I slipped, mostly because I know crap about film but it just made sense since no one had computers 30 years ago like we do now. I just got frustrated that's all. It's like taking a completely crappy singer and running their voice through a vocalizer or whatever they use and make them sound like a pro...


 

We did have a type of photoshop, it was very expensive and was only used by the biggest magazines.

What I can't get over is all of these people that are new to photography thinking that they invented it, we did the same things with film it was just different and most of the time better because we took our time and didn't take 1000 images to get one good shot.


----------



## Torus34 (Sep 27, 2009)

Oh, my!  I thought that this type of discussion had been put to bed many years ago when someone discovered how to tweak a tintype.  Apparently, this is not the case.

So ... let's get it over with.

Consider, for a moment, oil painting.  It's art, right?  [OK, OK.  It's art in the hands of a talented practitioner.  I'll concede that point.  Let's not nitpick.  We've more important fish to fry here.]

But what is oil painting?  It's ALL process.  The entire thing is individual, manipulated brush [or sponge or palette knife] strokes.  The artist decides every single 'pixel' which appears on the canvas, one way or another.  And s/he twists and tweaks and changes and modifies until s/he is satisfied -- that is, as satisfied as any artist ever is with an individual work.

Anyone care to put down oil painters for doing what they do?  Processing?

'Nuff said.


----------



## Plato (Sep 27, 2009)

epp_b said:


> > Many of the finest pics to have ever existed were done with Kodachrome, where PP was a physical impossibility.
> 
> 
> As mentioned, much work with film involves _pre_-processing: selecting filters, multiple exposures, lighting techniques, etc.
> ...



My error. I thought that the discussion involved _post_-processing, i.e. after exposing the film.

Regarding filters, etc., for printing.  Again, my error.  I thought that the discussion involved _improving_ the photo.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 27, 2009)

Plato said:


> Regarding filters, etc., for printing.  Again, my error.  I thought that the discussion involved _improving_ the photo.


Whether it's an "improvement" is highly subjective, but we might note that an entire industry dedicated to PP, especially in fashion, glamor and advertising, has been a part of the professional photographic world for a long time, going back at least to the early days of Hollywood, so someone certainly thinks they're improvements.

For at least most of the last century, entire studios and workshops of expert re-touchers who didn't necessarily shoot any photos themselves have worked on photos by the top photographers of their day and made a good living at it.  No blemish or pimple or wrinkle survived, unless by artistic choice.  Legs were lengthened, hair was colored, faces and bodies were thinned, things were erased and other things cloned in, and all the rest of it.

Those techniques for PP started being invented at the birth of photography, and continue to this day.  It's nothing new to the world with the invention of Photoshop.  Photoshop was made to intentionally emulate what was already being done in those studios so that it could be done digitally instead.

Still looking forward to your demonstration of how that was all "impossible" with Kodachrome.


----------



## Big (Sep 27, 2009)

You people get too feisty! It was just a statement. Now that I know more from what you all said it's not a big deal I guess. It's just that I feel like I need to spend more time practicing my photoshop skills rather than my camera skills... I'd rather have it the other way around. Please do get mad at each other or me because I brought the subject up again.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Still looking forward to your demonstration of how that was all "impossible" with Kodachrome.


 
I'm interested in seeing that as well.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 27, 2009)

Big said:


> You people get too feisty! It was just a statement. Now that I know more from what you all said it's not a big deal I guess. It's just that I feel like I need to spend more time practicing my photoshop skills rather than my camera skills... I'd rather have it the other way around. Please do get mad at each other or me because I brought the subject up again.


I don't think anyone's mad at each other here.  I know I'm not.  It's just a discussion.  It can sometimes be difficult to 'read' a person's feelings from just their printed words, unless they're pretty obviously worked up or something.  I try not to read much emotion into posts.

You should absolutely work on your camera and composition skills most of all (IMHO).  As others have stated, you can't make a crappy photo into a masterpiece with PP.  You have to start with something that works already.  PP is best used the way a wash and wax is used on a vehicle.  If you start with an old rusty piece of junk that's falling apart, you're not going to get much out of a wash and wax of it.  If you use it on something that's already pretty but has some mud and fingerprints on it, the polish just brings out the real beauty of it.

On the other hand, read Ansel's "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print", and you'll find that each step of the photographic process is important.  It's never ever been about getting it all done at the time of the shutter press.  That's always just been step one towards a great photo.

Whether those final two steps are done chemically and with hard objects and materials you can hold in your hand like in the "old days", or whether they're done digitally here in the present - they need to get done, so you should learn them as well.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Big said:
> 
> 
> > You people get too feisty! It was just a statement. Now that I know more from what you all said it's not a big deal I guess. It's just that I feel like I need to spend more time practicing my photoshop skills rather than my camera skills... I'd rather have it the other way around. Please do get mad at each other or me because I brought the subject up again.
> ...


 
I couldn't agree more. An image can live without (so to speak) post processing but you can't live without the image. Work on your photography first then work on the other stuff. And nobody is mad that I know of. Just having a discussion.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


> I don't think anyone's mad at each other here.  I know I'm not.  It's just a discussion.  It can sometimes be difficult to 'read' a person's feelings from just their printed words, unless they're pretty obviously worked up or something.  I try not to read much emotion into posts.



Well stated. The lack of interpersonal cues that we normally have when conversing in person makes holding a discussion online somewhat difficult, at least for me. This has been, for the most part, a very interesting discussion so far. Lots of well considered points have been made and no one has resorted to ad hominem attacks that I can recall.

I also agree with the rest of your post, I just didn't include it for clarity 

- Randy


----------



## Big (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


> On the other hand, read Ansel's "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print", and you'll find that each step of the photographic process is important.  It's never ever been about getting it all done at the time of the shutter press.  That's always just been step one towards a great photo.


Do you also know of any books or sites to look at for composition? This seems to be a problem of mine. (yes I know about rule of thirds but people say it's a habit to break, so I'm confused).


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Big, you have a good eye but it seems that you try too hard sometimes. Just photograph, use your instinct, don't over think it.

The Ansel Adams books, The Camera, The Negative and The Print are invaluable. I would also suggest Photography by London and Upton, it covers everything from film to digital to lighting and composition.

Just keep shooting, you are on the right track.


----------



## Plato (Sep 27, 2009)

Buckster said:


> Still looking forward to your demonstration of how that was all "impossible" with Kodachrome.



I'm waiting to hear how printing a Kodachrome slide through a colored filter improves the image.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 27, 2009)

Plato said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Still looking forward to your demonstration of how that was all "impossible" with Kodachrome.
> ...



As stated by someone else "improvement" is subjective.

It does not change the fact that PP of Kodachrome was not neither impossible nor rare. Even if not done by the photographer, a lot of PP was done by the art departments of clients. Whether magazines or others.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Plato said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Still looking forward to your demonstration of how that was all "impossible" with Kodachrome.
> ...


 
No one has said that. 

But it actually could. If the image had been photographed under tungsten lighting your image on the slide would be yellow red, you would add to the filter pack blue cyan to cancel out the yellow red and it would improve the image on the print. It would be color corrected, just like we do in PS today.


----------



## Plato (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Touche!


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Plato said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Plato said:
> ...


 
Where is your demonstration of how that was all "impossible" with Kodachrome?


----------



## Plato (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Plato said:
> 
> 
> > CSR Studio said:
> ...



Your dear friend Buckster made the following statement in post #2:
_"Their editing program was called a dark room, and they did pretty much everything we still do today. In fact, they invented pretty much everything we do today."_
Unfortunately, he was unable to maintain continuity of thought within the thread.

According to his original definition, it IS impossible with Kodachrome.  The darkroom equipment sold for somewhere around a quarter million dollars in 1960s dollars!  That's several million dollars in today's money.  Now, of course, nothing's truly "impossible" and I'm sure that someone can allege that there were photographers that did purchase the equipment but I certainly won't believe it.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

What does that^ have to do with the following:



Plato said:


> Many of the finest pics to have ever existed were done with Kodachrome, where PP was a physical impossibility.


 
You can't really believe that statement.


----------



## Plato (Sep 27, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> What does that^ have to do with the following:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Clearly, you're not familiar with Kodachrome.  I'm outta here.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

Plato said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > What does that^ have to do with the following:
> ...


 
I'm very familiar with it. You obviously can't come up with anything but then again you couldn't with the improving a slide to a print either and I did.


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 27, 2009)

If you guys would stick around and not get your egos bruised you might learn something, if you can admit it that is.


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

Plato said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Plato said:
> ...


Semantics as a defense is silly.  PP was done throughout the industry, especially in glamor, fashion and advertising, even when shot with Kodachrome.  It wasn't "impossible".

Sorry you seem to have taken it so personal.


----------



## joeywpc (Sep 28, 2009)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  It's a bit like makeup on women, some prefer a natural look, some prefer artistic application.  Some viewers appreciate post processing, some photographers over use it.  The simple fact is that a lot of factors go into making a great photo and over processing can take away the effect of getting all of the basic factors right and can ruin an otherwise great photo.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 28, 2009)

Big said:


> Do you also know of any books or sites to look at for composition? This seems to be a problem of mine. (yes I know about rule of thirds but people say it's a habit to break, so I'm confused).



I strongly suggest _non_-photography books for this because photography specific books tend to focus (pardon please the pun) primarily on technology rather than the core concepts of line, form, shape, value, etc. 

For learning design and composition I would suggest books like Pictorial Composition (ISBN: 0486233588) or A painter's guide to design and composition (ISBN: 1581806434). Also consider taking a design course at the local community college. There is precious little taught in  Design I and II that does not _directly_ apply to photography, yet few people with cameras appear to have any idea of how important these concepts are. 

The only people who should break composition rules are those who already have an ingrained understanding of a) why those rules are considered rules in the first place (and no, being able to recite them has nothing to do with understanding them) and b) why, specifically, breaking them will add impact, rather than reduce or eliminate it. These rules did not rise to the level of rule over night - they got that status because they really do work, very well, as proven by hundreds and hundreds of years of still powerful art, and until you understand _why_, you should not be concerned about arbitrarily breaking them. You'll never be more than lucky every once in a great while ignoring these rules, but if you learn them, and more to the point, _understand_ them, fundamentally, you will be able to know _exactly_ when they should be used and when they should be broken for maximum effect and your work will improve dramatically...

- Randy


----------



## Buckster (Sep 28, 2009)

Absolutely on target advice Randy!


----------



## jbylake (Sep 28, 2009)

epp_b said:


> I'm wondering if, perhaps, if confusing "processing" for "overprocessing". Processing is simply a normal part of making any good photo. Overprocessing is usually done as an attempt to make a crappy photo look good (and consistently fails at doing so).


 
I tend to agree here. I still shoot a lot more film than I do digital. "back in the day" I had access to a full blown darkroom. Don't have that luxury today. I shoot film, and use a scanner to convert it to digital. I've used GIMP and Photoshop Elements.

I try not to "over process" (what ever an individual deems that point to be), but I do enhance, on the computer, just like I did in the darkroom.
(caveat: I was never a pro in the darkroom, just learned a trick or two from the experts).

I think that probably the majority of people shooting today, film or digital, fall into this category. By that I mean doing about the same thing that film processors or people in the darkroom did (and still do).

I think there is another group that fall into a completely different category, and those are the ones that tend to do extremely creative abstract photo's. Photoshop has just allowed them to do just about anything they want. You know, not so long ago, I would have been typing this on an IBM selectric typewriter. The computer has made my life , during my years as an engineer, much better, more productive, and the ability to create many acutaliztions of the same concept, many times faster. Think CAD programs, etc.

There are a few, I guess that use PS or some other preferred software, to make an otherwise crappy photo look decent, but I'd say that they are in the minority. Still, with today's technology, it's possible.

If you look at the very beginning of photography, those guy's probably would have snubbed their noses at the notion of a color/B&W high tech darkroom.

In summary, I think PS has allowed people to advance thier skills as photographers, much more than it has allowed people who shoot crap, don't know their camera and use PP software as a crutch. I truly think they are in the minority.

It's all relative I guess...but ususally the people who "photoshop to death" photo's are easily recognized by poor composition etc. Not prudent use of a computer program to enhance their work.

I try like hell, to use PP software as little as possible, much like I would have PP'd in a darkroom. But I also end up printing, maybe one or two pics from a roll of film, too. The rest goes in the trash.

I think it's all a matter of perspective.

J.:mrgreen:


----------



## bhop (Sep 28, 2009)

Big said:


> Do you also know of any books or sites to look at for composition? This seems to be a problem of mine. (yes I know about rule of thirds but people say it's a habit to break, so I'm confused).



non-photography/art books are good, but I also found and like this one

Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 28, 2009)

Randall Ellis said:


> I strongly suggest _non_-photography books for this because photography specific books tend to focus (pardon please the pun) primarily on technology rather than the core concepts of line, form, shape, value, etc.
> 
> For learning design and composition I would suggest books like Pictorial Composition (ISBN: 0486233588) or A painter's guide to design and composition (ISBN: 1581806434). Also consider taking a design course at the local community college. There is precious little taught in  Design I and II that does not _directly_ apply to photography, yet few people with cameras appear to have any idea of how important these concepts are.
> 
> ...



Very nicely said. And I'm glad you have titles as I have been looking for such books for my students. Descriptions of books on the internet are unfortunately not enough for me to judge of their value. So thank you for this post.

Also, I totally agree with you. I took Design I and II in Art School and have never regretted it. Also agree that photo books are kinda light on the subject.


----------



## Sachphotography (Sep 28, 2009)

epp_b said:


> Post-processing is half of what makes a good photo.  Don't fall into the rockwellian myth that "pros get it right in the camera".  It's baloney.  I have only _one_ photo in recent memory (as in, within the last several months) where the _only_ adjustment I made was a 10% increase in contrast.



I have to disagree. I think that the good photographers know how to take the shot and need less processing. I take all my shots with the intention of being able to do as little processing as possible. A good photographer should be able to take the picture desired without doing a ton of processing. Photoshop can fix a lot of mistakes. Unfortunately people rely on this convenience and do not take the time develop the knowledge they should to be able to take better pictures from camera without 5hrs of post processing. People have gotten lazy and do not take the time to do things right. If they did, they would be taking even better pictures.


----------



## Randall Ellis (Sep 28, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Very nicely said. And I'm glad you have titles as I have been looking for such books for my students. Descriptions of books on the internet are unfortunately not enough for me to judge of their value. So thank you for this post.
> 
> Also, I totally agree with you. I took Design I and II in Art School and have never regretted it. Also agree that photo books are kinda light on the subject.



Another one that you may be interested in is Design Principles and Practices (ISBN:0030511666). This is the one that I got back to over and over. That said, I have not read every design book out there, but this one is particularly useful. I couldn't recall the title in my other post (plus, I was at work ) but there's the info...

- Randy


----------



## taracor (Sep 29, 2009)

I..agree with the original poster by 100%.  Post processing has it's place, but I stay far, far away from anything heavier than levels, curves, and cloning out a seagull or two.  I think it looks very nice when people do more advanced things, and I am not going to make any ridiculous claims about photographic merit, but it's just not my thing.  I do what I deem as the basics in PP, and not more, but it's just my personal preference I guess.

It's one of those "stick to what you're good at" things for me.  I can spend time taking photos, or I could spend time learning how to post process.  I would LOVE to know how to do the unbelievable things some people (on this forum and in general) can do with post processing, it's one of those things I really want to learn to do, but I honestly don't know if it's going to happen.  I'm good (adequate) at what I consider the basics, and stick to those.  So far I have been nothing but pleased with this.


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 29, 2009)

I personally don't care how an image is achieved, but if you're a purist then you may want to pick up a film camera and head on over to www.apug.org.


----------



## Big (Sep 29, 2009)

taracor said:


> I..agree with the original poster by 100%.  Post processing has it's place, but I stay far, far away from anything heavier than levels, curves, and cloning out a seagull or two.  I think it looks very nice when people do more advanced things, and I am not going to make any ridiculous claims about photographic merit, but it's just not my thing.  I do what I deem as the basics in PP, and not more, but it's just my personal preference I guess.
> 
> It's one of those "stick to what you're good at" things for me.  I can spend time taking photos, or I could spend time learning how to post process.  I would LOVE to know how to do the unbelievable things some people (on this forum and in general) can do with post processing, it's one of those things I really want to learn to do, but I honestly don't know if it's going to happen.  I'm good (adequate) at what I consider the basics, and stick to those.  So far I have been nothing but pleased with this.


Thanks! BTW many of the things I learned in photoshop have been by pushing buttons and watching youtube tutorials.


----------



## Antithesis (Oct 5, 2009)

I generally think that a film print with less processing will tend to look better than an image on a computer screen, regardless of the film used. They do look different. But, times have changed. Pro's process their photos too, and often the processing will turn mediocre photos into works of art. I don't think any photographer would give that up purely out of principle, because RAWs basically look like rubbish straight off the camera. It's just the way it is and I recommend you just accept it and learn to utilize it. There are a lot of very powerful tools that Ansel Adams would kill for that can be had with very little effort or expense.


----------



## yogibear (Oct 5, 2009)

Sure some photos look great because of the proccessing, but you have to take a look at an images other areas before writing it off as just good because of post processing.   Perspective, Composition, use of natural textures, shadows and lines are all things that happen before you post proccess.  The best images start with.... WHOA great images   Post processing can help a bad photo, but the fundamentals of the image will still be bad.  PP is a tool that helps polish up those photos and make them really shine.   

Take a look around at all your favorite photos,  Guaranteed they all had some work done to them beyond going down to local print shop and getting them developed.  

Its admirable and ecouraged to aim for a shot that doesnt need to be touched up at all, but the majority of clients just want a great image and could care less about what went into it.

Anyway like I said earlier, a great image starts with a great photograph.  Its pretty easy to tell when something is made 'good' or started off that way to begin with, however it shouldn't keep you from enjoying a quality final product. 

Unless you never want to be happy or satisfied by anything... haha!


----------

