# Am I the only one that refuses?



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Am I not the only one here who refuses to post process images?  It seems like everything that everyone posts is post process... most of which certainly do improve the quality of the images and make them more appealing to comercial customers... but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.

Certainly no disrespect to the post processors out ther, and I certainly see the value of it.... but I just can't bring myself to do it.   As a hobbiest that dosen't have a care in the world if anyone would ever want to buy a photo or not... I just feel like I'm cheating myself and my photography if I post process an image.

Someone else must share my sentiment?


----------



## pmsnel (Jun 29, 2010)

Well I not so much refuse, than not be able to. I don't have any PP programs other than the Canon software. But I don't use that much either.
I actually refuse to do Raw images. I really don't like the hassle of always having to do something to my images.
I have job at a local newspaper. The pictures I take for them have to be quick and easy. Their computers don't have ANY image software either so you get what you shoot.

I always try to improve my white balance and exposure on the spot. My dad has become lazy and just shoots and edits. I DON'T WANT TO BECOME LIKE HIM!


----------



## tirediron (Jun 29, 2010)

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Almost never is an image right out of the camera as good as it can be. Granted, there is a point where post-processing does overtake the original photography, but I think in almost all cases some is needed, even if it's only a level and crop or minor curves adjustment.  I don't know if your photographic history goes back to film and wet darkrooms, but if it does, you will remember dodging and burning, cropping, and tweaking exposure.   You don't have to get carried away, but in almost all cases a little bit helps a lot.


----------



## pmsnel (Jun 29, 2010)

I actually have a terrible tilt when I'm taking pictures, so yes I often have to straighten my horizon. But really hate doing it and thus I am paying close attention to my horizon when I shoot.

I have to agree that pictures seldom are perfect, but I find it a challenge to try and do so first time around.(so improving my skills with the camera and not the computer!)


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

tirediron said:


> I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Almost never is an image right out of the camera as good as it can be.


 
I certainly don't disagree... but that dosen't change my view that I want to be happy with my photography, not my processing.  If it is going to make it to print, then I'll do some tweaking... but that is it.  

I guess this whole post comes from my frustration in seeing some of the images that are posted for crituque.... When I critiqute, I do so because I am trying to look at an image and see what that person did wrong with the camera.  Doing so has greatly improved my own ability to see what I do wrong in MY camera.  Then I see these absoltuly georgous photographs and it leaves an empty feeling inside knowing that I've never, nor do I think I'll ever be able to capture the colors, highlights, shadows and overall 'feel' of the image.  Only to come to the realization, that the person who posted it got all of that post processing.  Now, that photo really has no value to me as a photographer.... it certainly raises some question as to how I could also acheive similar looks PP, but as a beginner photographer, it does nothing to teach me about proper exposure, proper flash usage, and proper compesation values.


----------



## AlexL (Jun 29, 2010)

I would at least do some cropping and noise reduction (if any) before posting.


----------



## pmsnel (Jun 29, 2010)

AlexL said:


> I would at least do some cropping and noise reduction (if any) before posting.



There is the difference. I always try to search for a good composition while taking the picture to prevent any cropping. I shoot the object with several compositions so I can find the best.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Am I not the only one here who refuses to post process images? It seems like everything that everyone posts is post process... most of which certainly do improve the quality of the images and make them more appealing to comercial customers... but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.
> 
> Certainly no disrespect to the post processors out ther, and I certainly see the value of it.... but I just can't bring myself to do it. As a hobbiest that dosen't have a care in the world if anyone would ever want to buy a photo or not... I just feel like I'm cheating myself and my photography if I post process an image.
> 
> Someone else must share my sentiment?


 
Well, I guess it's ok since this is the first time I've seen this topic this month. Usually we're on thread number 5 this late in the month.

You don't know the first thing about film do you? Those actions in PhotoShop such as dodging and burning are techniques taken from the dark room. 

It's like shooting a negative, taking it to walmart, and having them run it through the machine without touching it. Not doing any processing to your images that is. And if you're shooting JPG files, processing is being done in the camera, so you are having PP work done to your photo. And if you're shooting RAW and not touching your photos afterwards, you're just being stupid. Even some of the camera manufactures websites state that RAW images should be sharpened by so much, iirc.

I mean, a RAW file is a digital negative. If I had a darkroom and shot film, I'd still be doing processing and I'd still have creative lighting that helped me get the best image possible.

And the other point here is that certain clients request a certain style to their images. I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't want to do any processing afterwards.

Not to mention, there are certain shooting and processing techniques that can help you pull more dynamic range out of a scene, like shooting to the right.

Without doing any processing at all, photos like this would be nearly impossible. Granted, I need to go back and touch up, but this was done in less than 1/2 an hour.




My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 29, 2010)

Photos have almost always required some form of post processing.  

Film must be developed and there are any number of options for doing so.  So what was done (or not done) was the post processing and certainly affects the image.  A few decades ago, many photographers spent their time in the darkroom 'post processing' their images to get the most out of them.  

I think that color negative film has altered many people's view on processing.  All they did was drop the film off at the lab and pick up the prints later.  What they don't realize, is that their photos were often tweaked in the process.  Fixing minor exposure problems, adding saturation & contrast etc.  

Now in the digital era, those tweaks are built into many cameras.  Heck, any digital camera that outputs JPEG files, does some sort of post processing on the photos.  Many P&S digi-cams do the same things the labs did, adding saturation & contrast etc.  
On most cameras, you can control many of these settings, but it's usually just a few options, and only a few notches on a scale, that you have to choose from.

So when people talk about 'getting it right, in-camera'...they are relying on the camera to do their processing, and that's fine, if they are OK with that.  But many of us know that we can do a better job ourselves, or at least, we know what we want, beyond what a few settings on the camera can do.  

There are many things that should be taken care of, with or before the exposure.  Things like lighting, composition, posing, exposure etc.  Those are the things that I think should be done 'in-camera' so to speak...and those are mostly the type of things that can't be 'fixed in post'.


----------



## Arch (Jun 29, 2010)

Much as Village says, Post Processing is as much a part of photography as its always been, whether using a darkroom or a digital darkroom. I doubt you will find many that agree with your first statement to be honest.

It can certainly not be described as graphic design... as a graphic designer i find that part very odd indeed. Thats not to say that after so much heavy processesing the image could be regarded as graphic design, but for your average photo editor, it is just part of photography.


----------



## Glycerol Sound (Jun 29, 2010)

There are certain things that A) I cant do in camera and B) Nobody can do in camera. For A, I go back and correct it, then learn to do it in camera, for B, obviously I have to do this in Post. Keep in mind that a lot of things we can do in Photoshop could be done in darkrooms as well. Cross processing, adjusting contrast, cropping, etc.


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

Personally, I think this is just silly. 

You may have heard of a gentleman named Ansel Adams that would also find the OP amusing.


----------



## DerekSalem (Jun 29, 2010)

OP...I'm not trying to be rude in this...but you're 16. You don't understand how photography as a whole really works.

Not to say you shouldn't try to make your photography straight from the camera as great as possible...but PP is still part of the process. You don't necessarily have to do it if you don't want to, but it can definitely make your photographs better for a variety of reasons.


----------



## KmH (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> I want to be happy with my photography, not my processing.


Photography *IS* processing.

The camera does not record what your eye see's. It processes the scene you framed and shot.


----------



## subscuck (Jun 29, 2010)

As an example, a few years before I bought my first DSLR, I was on vacation and wanted a roll of 35mm developed before I got home. I took it to a local 1 hour developer and was asked if I wanted "just the basic" developing. I failed to ask what "basic" meant, so I said, "sure, that'll be fine". The prints I got back had pure white highlights, black as black can be shadows, zero contrast, etc. If I had known basic meant no PPing, I would have kicked in the extra couple bucks to have it done right. People never saw their print film being developed, so they assumed there was no PPing.

I scoff at people who tell me they "get it right in the camera". With a dynamic range less than print film, and print film having less dynamic range than transparency film, I'm not sure how this is possible. When I've "got it right in the camera", it means _minimal_ tweaks on color, WB, contrast, maybe a little straightening and cropping and some sharpening. I shoot RAW because I prefer to have total control over the process. In short, I'm not doing anything in PS that color labs don't do with film. The better your gear, the smaller the tweaks, but at the very least, a little sharpening is always called for, especially with RAW, since there is no sharpening applied in cam.

As far as newspapers go, newsprint sucks so much color and detail out of pics, there really is no point in PPing. Magazines are a different story.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Well, I guess it's ok since this is the first time I've seen this topic this month. Usually we're on thread number 5 this late in the month.


 
Well thanks for taking a few mintues out of your busy schedule to reply



Village Idiot said:


> You don't know the first thing about film do you?


Depends on what your definition of "first thing" is, but considering your obvious distaste in being forced to answer yet another newb's question, my best guess woud be, "No, I don't"



Village Idiot said:


> Those actions in PhotoShop such as dodging and burning are techniques taken from the dark room.
> 
> It's like shooting a negative, taking it to walmart, and having them run it through the machine without touching it. Not doing any processing to your images that is.


Yes, I'm aware.  Which is my point.... Being the burdon on society in my newbieness.... When trying to learn to "take" better pictures.... dodgin and burning for the time being is irrelevant to me.... I don't even want to TRY and do that because I'm not there yet... "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" comes to mind.  I'm not going to try and swallow pp techniques until I feel I have an advanced level of "pre-processing" techniques.  Put the horse before the cart.



Village Idiot said:


> And if you're shooting JPG files, processing is being done in the camera, so you are having PP work done to your photo. And if you're shooting RAW and not touching your photos afterwards, you're just being stupid. Even some of the camera manufactures websites state that RAW images should be sharpened by so much, iirc.
> 
> I mean, a RAW file is a digital negative. If I had a darkroom and shot film, I'd still be doing processing and I'd still have creative lighting that helped me get the best image possible.


 
Thank you Mr. Gates.  However, you should know, I am a computer programmer... I know a few things about data processing.



Village Idiot said:


> And the other point here is that certain clients request a certain style to their images. I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't want to do any processing afterwards.


 
Please refer back to my original quote... I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't have paying clients.



Village Idiot said:


> Without doing any processing at all, photos like this would be nearly impossible. Granted, I need to go back and touch up, but this was done in less than 1/2 an hour.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/cokronk/4528955783/
There are a slew of processed images floating around on the web... most commonly refered to as being "photo shopped".  Would you say a photograph of George Bush and Dick Cheney being morphed into images of Beavis and Butt head be considered "photography"?  At what point does processing stop being photography and start becoming graphic deign?



Village Idiot said:


> My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?


  Since about April.   Does that offend you?  Is there an "extra extra beginners" forum I can post to so that my ignorance isn't a bother for you anymore?


----------



## ababysean (Jun 29, 2010)

Digital Photography IMO is also learning how to alter/enhance images on the computer, which is why it is DIGITAL!
If you want to, learn film, that also have post processing.


----------



## R.D. (Jun 29, 2010)

I think the issue is more of the over saturated photographer world.. there are photographers who are better graphic artists.. they take lazy shots with little consideration and then jazz it up with photoshop.. not to say anyone here or anyone you know is guilty but that is more reasonable than saying no PP'ing your shots..

i married into a family of nothing but photographers and anyone of them will tell you what people like Village are saying.. its a neccesity.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

DerekSalem said:


> OP...I'm not trying to be rude in this...but you're 16.



You're half way there buddy...



DerekSalem said:


> You don't understand how photography as a whole really works.


 
Which is why I'm in the beginners forum.

Why is it when a beginner posts in a beginner forum, so many advance people feel the need to jump in, point fingers, and belittle people by calling them beginners?

I've got an idea.... there's an elementary school a few blocks from my work... why don't we all head over there and tell the students how they don't know the first thing Physics. Who's with me?


----------



## KenC (Jun 29, 2010)

pmsnel said:


> AlexL said:
> 
> 
> > I would at least do some cropping and noise reduction (if any) before posting.
> ...


 

My objection to people who refuse to crop, like the ones who used to file out their negative holders so there would be a black strip around the image to show that the whole negative was there, is that many images do not work best at the 3:2 ratio of film negatives or DSLR sensors.  What happens to those images is that the photographer either prints them at a non-optimal aspect ratio, or simply discards them.  Why would anyone want to do either?  Keep in mind that in the darkroom we would do certain adjustments without even thinking about it.  Using the easel we could not only crop, but adjust perspective by tilting.  We would also adjust brightness and contrast via exposure time/aperture and choice of paper contrast grade, respectively.  No post-processing would be the equivalent of printing everything full-frame at the same standard time/aperture regardless of whether this would give acceptable results.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I guess it's ok since this is the first time I've seen this topic this month. Usually we're on thread number 5 this late in the month.
> ...


 
I work for the government, I'm not busy. I usually do see this topic 4-5 times a month.



Boomn4x4 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know the first thing about film do you?
> ...


 
That's exactly what I thought. If you want to be a good photographer, you should read up on the history of photography. 



Boomn4x4 said:


> Yes, I'm aware. Which is my point.... Being the burdon on society in my newbieness.... When trying to learn to "take" better pictures.... dodgin and burning for the time being is irrelevant to me.... I don't even want to TRY and do that because I'm not there yet... "Jack of all Trades, Master of None" comes to mind. I'm not going to try and swallow pp techniques until I feel I have an advanced level of "pre-processing" techniques. Put the horse before the cart.


 
But in the original post you state that you flat out refuse to do post and those that do post work are doing it commercially and that work that does have processing done to it is not photography. That's garbage.




Boomn4x4 said:


> Thank you Mr. Gates. However, you should know, I am a computer programmer... I know a few things about data processing.


 
No, Thank you Mr. Torvalds (ooooooo, clever computery name!). Being a computer programmer doesn't mean you know about photographic techniques like shooting to the right. It may mean you have some understanding of the concept of why it happens and why you can't do it with a JPG image. I do a bit of programming too. Like at my job. Like where I'm at now. Like, the reason why I'm on the computer so much during the day.





Boomn4x4 said:


> Please refer back to my original quote... I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't have paying clients.


 
You make it sound like you would. Please refer to me paraphrasing your OP saying that photos that have processing done to them are not photography.



Boomn4x4 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Without doing any processing at all, photos like this would be nearly impossible. Granted, I need to go back and touch up, but this was done in less than 1/2 an hour.
> ...


 
You're on a photography forum where probably 95% of the images posted are not photos of two people morphed into one. You're bringing this issue up but then going on to point out graphic designers all over the web. 

The image I posted I photoshopped out the light stand and flash head, did a bit of skin smoothing, adjusted the curves, sharpened it, and maybe touched the WB a bit. Does that make me a graphic designer and that image not a photograph? 

I have a friend that does flyers and business cards for me. He's a graphic designer. I suck at stuff like that.



Boomn4x4 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?
> ...


 
And this is exactly what I though. It doesn't offend me, it just shows me that you're a noob and that one day you'll either learn that processing is essential, or you'll be putting out photos that just aren't as good as they truly could be.

And not that there should be an "extra extra beginners" forum, but maybe a few more giant search boxes.


----------



## subscuck (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Why is it when a beginner posts in a beginner forum, so many advance people feel the need to jump in, point fingers, and belittle people by calling them beginners?


 
Because if people had to make public their real name, address, phone # and a current pic of themselves before joining a forum, they would have to be nice to people. The anonimity of the internet allows them to say what they want and not get the s--t kicked out of them like they did in high school. I lurked here for a few weeks before joining, and trust me, people here are _much_ better than some other forums. That's why I'm here. Some people are so lacking in their lives that they feel the need to show their self assumed superiority and the internet gives them that in spades. Best just to ignore them.


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Oh Jesus... so much drama.



Seems like this forum is a magnet for it recently.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 29, 2010)

I :heart: this topic!


----------



## KmH (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> ... but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.


 How about pre-processing? Is that "photography"?


----------



## kundalini (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Why is it when a beginner posts in a beginner forum, so many advance people feel the need to jump in, point fingers, and belittle people by calling them beginners?


 Same reason your mother yelled at you for playing in the street.  You're ignorant and need the coaching.  I use the word ignorant purposely, not to be offensive.

I too did not want to spend the investment of time in post processing. I still don't and my approach to PP is minimal.  However without it and particularly if you shoot RAW, it just cannot be avoided if you want to produce pleasing results, even at a hobbiest level.  Soon enough you'll learn this on your own.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 29, 2010)

You shouldn't shoot in RAW. Shoot in Jpeg, and let the camera apply contrast, saturation, noise, and sharpening adjustments...

Oh, wait...that's post proccessing too!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 29, 2010)

I would recommend to the OP to dip your toes in post processing and see how you like it.  You don't have to spend a lot of time on a shot to get some great improvements and you don't have to spend a lot of money on editing software.  If you shoot Canon, their supplied software, DPP, is great for all the basics and is all I use.    

I think your focus on taking the picture itself is good, because you have to have a good shot to start with.  I assume you don't just take random shots and just click away, you walk around your subject looking for the right angle.  Perhaps you move some stuff out of the way if your shooting a still life and you might even try to manipulate your light source to better suit the shot you have in mind.  So that means you're doing pre processing.  And then you're taking the time to get everything right in camera before you take the shot.  You're only missing the last step.  Take control of your art and finish the process.  Don't let your camera have the final say of what your art becomes.  Get the shot you had in your head before you took it, not the shot some programmer on the other side of the world thinks you want.  

It doesn't take a lot of time to do some minimal editing.  After you get the hang of it you can do a shot in less than 30 seconds (Fight Club taught me this).  If nothing else do some sharpening after resizing so that it is optimized for the new size.  Anything less and you're actually doing a disservice to your work in my opinion.  And don't worry about being a noob, I'm a noob too.  I got my dslr in December.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

So you're taking the approach that "post processing an image does not make genuine photography, it's graphic design". And then you go on to say that you don't post process an image because you don't feel like you've learned the basics of photography well enough yet. So which are you going to choose? High and mighty photography elitist, or inexperienced high school kid with an attitude problem? Your argument has more holes than a 10lb block of swiss.


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

The others have raised many good points (as well as a bit of unneeded drama....) However I'm going to pull out this bit from what you said:



Boomn4x4 said:


> Then I see these absoltuly georgous photographs and it leaves an empty feeling inside knowing that I've never, nor do I think I'll ever be able to capture the colors, highlights, shadows and overall 'feel' of the image.  Only to come to the realization, that the person who posted it got all of that post processing.  Now, that photo really has no value to me as a photographer.... it certainly raises some question as to how I could also acheive similar looks PP, but as a beginner photographer, it does nothing to teach me about proper exposure, proper flash usage, and proper compesation values.



Post processing for many photographers is not about creating something that wasn't there with the editing tools; its about using the light that the camera captured in a correct exposure and using that data to unlock the full potential of the photo. Sometimes this might be something minor like a little contrast boost, saturation decrease and a bit more brightness - othertimes it might be processing the shot twice to pull the most detail out of dark and bright areas at once. 
Your argument stems more I suspect not from a hatred of incorrect photography, but the fact that you have not yourself learnt how to use editing software - whilst also having some doubt over your own photographic skill - mixed in with that is the sound feeling and desire to do your best with photography as well. All mixed in together it creates a mess and a mindset where you want to "pass" as a photographer before you try approaching the editing. This is a problem because the editing (however major or minor) is part of being the photographer.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

I figured this would get a lot of Internet jockey's panties bunched up...

You guys are so overly self righeteous to understand what I'm talking about....  This has nothing to do with the value of post processing.  As I said in my very first post, I fully respect and understand the value of post processing.... Okay, now slow down and let that sink in for a mintue.


Panties still comfy?  Okay good.... 


Back to my original question....but rephrased.  Is anyone else posting pictures for crituque that have not been processed (off camera)?


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

But its like we said you - technically - can't do it. 
The closest you can get is if you process a RAW with all the sliders set to 0 - even then you have to process and set the white balance of the shot at some point. That is it at least technically speaking. 

IF you mean are there people posting photos with minimal or simply in camera auto settings on their shots then yes, of course there are. Who these people are is up for debate as its hard to tell from a photo alone - as said sometimes a shot looks fantastic out of camera and needs little to nothing changed in processing. I suspect many of them are beginners (at least as far as digital editing is concerned - maybe also, but not always, also as far as photography at the camera end is concerned as well)


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 29, 2010)

Many people have posted images and state they have done no editing. You can tell, because these images are typically flat and lack any impact whatsoever.


----------



## Arch (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> I figured this would get a lot of Internet jockey's panties bunched up...
> 
> You guys are so overly self righeteous to understand what I'm talking about....  This has nothing to do with the value of post processing.  As I said in my very first post, I fully respect and understand the value of post processing.... Okay, now slow down and let that sink in for a mintue.
> 
> ...




Yea the mistake you made was the question, if you word it like you did it sounds like you already have a good understanding of the process of photography, yet you see it in another way (which is maybe why people got heated)..... where as what you are really saying (as you have now explained) is that your still quite new to the game and you would like to continue to do as much as possible in camera.

You can't really blame people for how they reacted tho, as stating.. 'but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.'... in your opening post is really a million miles away from your new revised question.

Lets just say, the question is now rephrased, and start from scratch eh?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Okay, OP. Here's the deal. You're wrong. Okay? I went to school for graphic design. They're not the same thing. Graphic design is visual communication involving text and pictures. You're supposed to make something visually appealing that is specifically designed to attract attention to it. Or to give a certain vibe to a piece of media. There's a design aspect that is distinct. Superimposing an image on another does not a graphic designer make. It means that someone's had a little bit of practice with photoshop. You don't even DO graphic design in photoshop (I suppose you can, but it's more cumbersome). You would use InDesign or Quark for serious graphic design, which doesn't even have the same abilities as photoshop. It shares similar traits, but they're very different. 

Anyways, back to the real matter. You're still wrong, and you're conceited. A double whammy. 

Sha-wing!


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> Sha-wing!


 
Did you REALLY just say 'Sha-wing'?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Sha-wing!
> ...



Did you just quote it?


----------



## LaFoto (Jun 29, 2010)

I do see that you mean to say that particularly a beginner should set him/herself the goal to first of all get everything as right in camera as can possibly be, and you are right. That should be everyone's goal at first, for only through that kind of trial and error you can learn what the settings do, when to best apply which, how to frame right and and and. 

Once you are mastering those things, there is nothing wrong in making a good photo even better by making it more YOURS and not "the camera's". 

I do see, why you don't want to follow the path: let me just click ... whatever goes wrong will be made right in post. There ARE things that will NEVER be put right in post. Missed focus, camera shake. When that's there, then it's there and any attempt to "cover up that flaw" in post will SHOW to the trained eye.

So yes, why not try to first of all master the camera?
But that should not make you alienate all those who openly admit that after the click the work on the photo only just begins. For a photo is NOT a photo through the click alone, no matter how well you did set your camera. In the end, it is YOUR way of processing your picture that will make it YOURS. 

Don't think of processed photos as "deliberately changed" or "enhanced" or whatever, but as "So-and-so's photo", created in his/her style.

And if your style (for the moment) is the SOOC-style, as you think that's the best way to learn the technicality of things, then why not?


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> Boomn4x4 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


 
Does it look like I just quoted it?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Boomn4x4 said:
> ...



Then I probably typed it. Use some common sense for once.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> Then I probably typed it. Use some common sense for once.


 
Says the guy who just tried to insult me by using the word "Sha-wing"...

You might just as well have called me a "poopy face".


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 29, 2010)

DerekSalem said:


> but you're 16. You don't understand how photography as a whole really works.


I'm 16 and I know how photography as a whole really works.

Post-processing is necessary the majority of the time and refusing to believe that will just make you more stressed out.


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> You would use InDesign or Quark for serious graphic design, which doesn't even have the same abilities as photoshop.



I use PageMaker.

Oh, ya, goin back to the old school.


----------



## Rrr3319 (Jun 29, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> I do see that you mean to say that particularly a beginner should set him/herself the goal to first of all get everything as right in camera as can possibly be, and you are right. That should be everyone's goal at first, for only through that kind of trial and error you can learn what the settings do, when to best apply which, how to frame right and and and.
> 
> Once you are mastering those things, there is nothing wrong in making a good photo even better by making it more YOURS and not "the camera's".
> 
> ...


 
Well said.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Then I probably typed it. Use some common sense for once.
> ...



I already informed you that you're wrong; coming from someone that has direct Graphic Design experience. What else do you want? I can tell you again if you want. 

Post Processing a photo =/= Graphic Design


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > You would use InDesign or Quark for serious graphic design, which doesn't even have the same abilities as photoshop.
> ...



Ghetto desktop publishing love. Using Quark 4.1 currently. Still manages to run... on OS9 only.


----------



## Arch (Jun 29, 2010)

ok guys calm it down a notch of this will end up locked... maybe it already should be...


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

LaFoto said:


> But that should not make you alienate all those who openly admit that after the click the work on the photo only just begins. For a photo is NOT a photo through the click alone, no matter how well you did set your camera. In the end, it is YOUR way of processing your picture that will make it YOURS.


 
I am certainly not alienating those who openly admit that after the click the work on the photo only just begins... In fact, I've full acknowledged my respect for those that do.... 

I would also submit that people should not alineate those who openly admit that their current focus is on in camera work while ignoring off camera work.  In the few short months I have been here, I have seen dozens of people post pictures of what I would consider garbage shots, and then ask 'what can I do to make this picture better'... then see just as many people take the time out of their day to post process the garbage into more garbage.  In a "beginners" forum, I don't see how 'post processing' should even be in the vocabulary.  It would be like handing a scalpal to a premed student and having him do a vasectomy.... Yes surgery is apart of being a doctor... but why would you start out doing it... .Just like post processing, whether in camera or out, certainly has its place.... for many reading this shouldn't even be thought about.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> but why would you start out doing it...


Because learning how to use the camera simultaneously with learning what to do after the picture is out of the camera is important. It's always useful and it can be done at the same time. I can't find any fancy metaphor, though...


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

I think I'm getting more confused with this thread - your starting point and your point now are greatly different stances - you're now saying that those looking to learn should not be encouraged to process poorer shots until they are able to take better photographs. I don't think anyone posting in this thread thus far would disagree with you - however it is a far cry from you starting post.

The thing is even if it is polishing poorer photography learning editing is still something that can be done - and poorer shots can sometimes show up how to edit better than well taken shots. Its about skill building - maybe some learn to edit before they learn to take photos - in the same way some learn to expose before they learn to compose


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> Boomn4x4 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


 
You forgot the "Sha-wing" :lmao:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> LaFoto said:
> 
> 
> > But that should not make you alienate all those who openly admit that after the click the work on the photo only just begins. For a photo is NOT a photo through the click alone, no matter how well you did set your camera. In the end, it is YOUR way of processing your picture that will make it YOURS.
> ...


 
So to equate this to film, a beginner should just take the pictures and drop them off at Walmart's one hour instead of learning how to develop them theirselves? I mean, it is part of the process, like at least adding sharpening, and a bit of bump to the curves, contrast, or levels.

And like everyone has said quite a few times in this thread already, if you're shooting in JPG format, your camera is already doing this for you. It's like dropping off a roll of film at a one hour developer. Sure it gets processed, but you have no control what-so-ever over how it turns out.


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

When I took a basic photography course in high school, they taught me to develop film and print photos. 

Should they have avoided teaching me to do any post processing in the darkroom?


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> So to equate this to film, a beginner should just take the pictures and drop them off at Walmart's one hour instead of learning how to develop them theirselves? I mean, it is part of the process, like at least adding sharpening, and a bit of bump to the curves, contrast, or levels.
> 
> And like everyone has said quite a few times in this thread already, if you're shooting in JPG format, your camera is already doing this for you. It's like dropping off a roll of film at a one hour developer. Sure it gets processed, but you have no control what-so-ever over how it turns out.


 
Why are you trying to equate this to film??? This has nothing to do with film... or even digital for that matter.  This has to do with crituquing unprocessed photos for the benefit of learning how to take photos.  Its about capturing a moment in time, and using that momement to analyze what the photographer did to capture that particular moment and then using those techniques to find what they did wrong, so as not to make the same mistake yourself.  If you post a poorly exposed and composed image that was cropped and processed, you can't do that.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 29, 2010)

Post processing is okay as long as a certain "effect" you're trying to get from it, is not the whole point of the photo.

I see a lot of redundant photos lately that have no significance of any kind that someone can go PP and make it have pretty colors and everyone looks at it like its art or something.  Wrong.  The most important thing of all is what is there in your shot that you're trying to emphasize (object, person, whatever).  Then, the way you took the shot, does it add to the idea behind the object, does it reinforce what you're trying to show with that picture?  And only then PP, does it add to the previous two.

Not the other way around when people take a garbage shot and PP it just so it looks cool.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> When I took a basic photography course in high school, they taught me to develop film and print photos.
> 
> Should they have avoided teaching me to do any post processing in the darkroom?


 
Did they teach you how do do post processing the first day?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jun 29, 2010)

At what point would you suggest one to undertake the daunting task of adding the complication of post processing to their work?  I'd be leary of waiting too long because once you are familiar with what you can do in post it changes the way you shoot.  Take shooting at high ISO for example.  Trying to get it right in camera will result in more noise than exposing slightly to the right and bringing it back down.  Why learn things like that twice?


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Why are you trying to equate this to film??? This has nothing to do with film... or even digital for that matter.  This has to do with crituquing unprocessed photos for the benefit of learning how to take photos.  Its about capturing a moment in time, and using that momement to analyze what the photographer did to capture that particular moment and then using those techniques to find what they did wrong, so as not to make the same mistake yourself.  If you post a poorly exposed and composed image that was cropped and processed, you can't do that.



You should have said this 4 pages ago - your augment has changed again as has the focus. This has nothing to do with refusing or using editing but is not a commentary on the critique others get in the forum - considering that forum interactions are without structure, without guidelines and totally voluntary you are going to be getting various responses from different groups. If you want to control of modify those responses you have three basic options:

1) Move to have an enforced and structured critique area created with the exisiting forum structure - probably not going to happen on TFF (the closests would possibly be the mentor scheme)

2) Make your own site/group with a critique focus

3) Give the critique yourself - or within a group of dedicated members of the site


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > When I took a basic photography course in high school, they taught me to develop film and print photos.
> ...



Yes, because there's a relationship between light, the film, the developer, the paper and such.

It's the same way with digital. There is no way to do one without the other.


----------



## nchips1 (Jun 29, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> There is no way to do one without the other.


:thumbup:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > When I took a basic photography course in high school, they taught me to develop film and print photos.
> ...


 
But you've been serious about photography since april.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Boomn4x4 said:
> 
> 
> > benlonghair said:
> ...


 
I'm pretty sure we already established that.


----------



## j-digg (Jun 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Many people have posted images and state they have done no editing. You can tell, because these images are typically flat and lack any impact whatsoever.


 

Has anyone created a "Theme" / "Assignment" thread for this yet?  Thatd be sortve interesting... Untouched RAWs... could see what the OP and the like could turn out.


----------



## white (Jun 29, 2010)

I understand the value of trying to do it right the first time, but if you can make your images more powerful by cropping or some burning and dodging, why handcuff yourself (and your art) to some purist ideal of 'getting it right in-camera'?


----------



## crimbfighter (Jun 29, 2010)

Though I think this thread has gotten way out of control, I do have to respectfully disagree with the OP.  

As a fellow noob, one thing I have learned, is how the camera doesn't see what the eye sees. As a result, I, and I'm guessing many others, use PP as a means to bring the photo back to the glory of how it was observed by the human eye. Though, I too, try to force myself to learn the basics, I also have learned the value of PPing a photo to make it the best it can be.

And yes, I have posted unedited jpeg's, but to me, what would be the value in posting a photo that wasn't how I envisioned it?  Also, if I am having a specific problem, such as exposure, noise, ect. I would post both a pre-processed photo and the PP'd photo to get the perspective of both what I did wrong in the actual photo taking process, aaaaand what I could have done (or done better) in PP.

Just my few pennies for consideration...


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

j-digg said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Many people have posted images and state they have done no editing. You can tell, because these images are typically flat and lack any impact whatsoever.
> ...



People have done this in the past to good effect often. The problem is hosting the RAW online as you can't upload it as an image like you can a JPEG


----------



## erinag99 (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Then I probably typed it. Use some common sense for once.
> ...


 
From one Noob to another, take a chill pill, put the ego away, breath, and take a moment to really read and understand what people are trying to tell you. I've seen some darn good information posted on why you want to PP and that it doesn't negate learning how to take better photos on the front end.


----------



## TJ K (Jun 29, 2010)

Wait am i the only one who noticed after looking through the OPs threads the one with the hunter? The OP specifically says the brightness and contrast were changed intentionally. Kind of strange for someone so Anti-Post processing wouldn't you say?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

erinag99 said:


> Boomn4x4 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



Wait, who are you?


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

erinag99 said:


> [
> From one Noob to another, take a chill pill, put the ego away, breath, and take a moment to really read and understand what people are trying to tell you.


 
Once the insults start flying I typically deviate from trying to take anything in and start antagonizing.

There has been some very good and respectfull comments, and that infomration has been noted.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

TJ K said:


> Wait am i the only one who noticed after looking through the OPs threads the one with the hunter? The OP specifically says the brightness and contrast were changed intentionally. Kind of strange for someone so Anti-Post processing wouldn't you say?


 
Probably, considering you are also the only one who DIDN'T notice that I said that I will make adjustments if I plan on printing it.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 29, 2010)

nchips1 said:


> Boomn4x4 said:
> 
> 
> > but why would you start out doing it...
> ...


 
Stop thinking about it as fixing bad images, and think of it as making good images really pop. Even if you are starting out and not taking "good" images, why not learn on those?


It's been said that nearly all digital images need some degree of sharpening. Something about the anti-aliasing filter on the sensor that smooths lines....


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Stop thinking about it as fixing bad images, and think of it as making good images really pop. Even if you are starting out and not taking "good" images, why not learn on those?


 
My first thought would be that I don't have a strong enough understanding of the technology inside my camera... and I am interested in learning it. The are many ways to process in camera that can just as well be done out of camera... but I'm more interested in learning it in camera.... exposure compensation, white balance, color saturation, color modes.... I want to learn how to do that in camera... I want to be able to look at a scene and know what settings I can set to make the shot pop in the first place.

Or am I wrong into wanting to do that in camera... should I just take the shot in RAW and dick with it later on?

Honestly, I work on computers all day... the last thing I want to do is go out to do some relaxing photography, and have to come back and work a on computer a little longer.


----------



## erinag99 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> erinag99 said:
> 
> 
> > Boomn4x4 said:
> ...


 
My intro, posted on 6/3: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/205483-howdy.html


----------



## mommy22 (Jun 29, 2010)

I rarely do, only because 1) I would rather "take" a good, well exposed, well composed pic and 2) I don't have time.


----------



## sarasphotos (Jun 29, 2010)

hmm I have to disagree..... pp images is just another way for a photographer to add their touch!  Plus when I take a picture I see it in a totally different way than the camera does.  I see potential and with a little bit of time I can get my photos looking like I want them to.


----------



## Artrina (Jun 29, 2010)

Art has many forms and within those forms are variations. Maybe the OP thinks beginners should get better at trying to catch with their camera their vision of what their eyes are looking at. I'm not at the point of posting pix for critique yet. I spend time reading on sites like this and I DO however spend a lot of time taking pix trying to capture with the camera what I WANT to capture with the camera. Example: I took at least 30 pix of some flowers and a lighthouse decoration in my yard and I STILL don't have the pix I want. I want to get the angle and the other things in the pix better and not have to crop or cut them out. Right now I want to work on THAT part of MY art form. Do I think when I take the time to process the pix I can improve them? Yes, but I'm not at that point yet. I think there IS a place in the world for pix with minimal touch ups and if the OP wants to go that road, more power to him. There is a place for people who want to post process their pix to all different levels depending on what they want to do with them.

Now I have a question for the OP. What DO you want to see in a beginners section on a forum like this? I'm not trying to be a smart tush, just curious as I can see from this thread what you DON'T want in a beginners section.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Stop thinking about it as fixing bad images, and think of it as making good images really pop. Even if you are starting out and not taking "good" images, why not learn on those?
> ...



First of all, the first bold things that you mentioned are used in post processing. And like Bitter said, when you shoot JPG and change the sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc IN CAMERA, it's just like post processing an image. It's the cameras software livening up an image. It's not going to do all the things that lightroom could do, and you'd be stupid to discredit photo editing workhorses like that.  

Second of all, you can't always make images pop in camera. You can get all the dynamic range that you can if you were to process the image. You also will have a lot of trouble making a photo "pop" to it's full potential in camera unless you have a butt load of flashes or studio lights.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

erinag99 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > erinag99 said:
> ...



Oh neat, too bad I don't care in the least.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Artrina said:


> Now I have a question for the OP. What DO you want to see in a beginners section on a forum like this? I'm not trying to be a smart tush, just curious as I can see from this thread what you DON'T want in a beginners section.


 
Getting back to my original question... I want to see what other beginners are doing pre-lightroom so that I can learn from it.

Its disheartening to me to see an absolutly stunning photograph only to learn that its only absolutly stunning because it was processed outside of the camera.  Its tought to compare and contrast my own photography when the photographs I have to baseline them from have additional processing done to them.  I'm sure someday down the line as my skill are more in tune to put more focus on my work, but until then... post processing simply isn't in my approach.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> and you'd be stupid to discredit photo editing workhorses like that.


 
Well then, great!!! I can keep my IQ right where its at. I have never discredited photo editing work horsers... I've simply stated that using them is not in my current game plan.


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

Welcome aboard the rollercoaster erinag99! 

You might find the following two threads of interest;
This presents a good idea of a situation where the shot out of the camera could not work perfectly - but through editing was able to be enhanced by working with what the camera was able to capture.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...o-gallery/197325-full-photoshop-workflow.html

Think of it like making a clay pot - you have to get both the molding and the firing and the glazing to work all together. Sure you can glaze a poor mold of a pot to make it look better, but the key to the final good product is that each stage is understood and refined from start to finish.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Stop thinking about it as fixing bad images, and think of it as making good images really pop. Even if you are starting out and not taking "good" images, why not learn on those?
> ...


 
Well, then shoot jpeg, and do your post processing in camera. That's fine.
It's limiting. It's global. 

But it becomes fussier if you have to go through your menus to tweak contrast and saturation for many shots. It's pretty easy to tweak that stuff globally with the software that came with your camera. The benefit is you can immidiately see the result of your choice and back it down or bump it up more. With in camera settings, you have to retake the picture, look at the poor image quality of the LCD screen and decide.



> Or am I wrong into wanting to do that in camera... should I just take the shot in RAW and dick with it later on?


 
Nearly everyone would suggest you shoot in RAW. There are situations you don't want to, but that is still up to the photographer.



> Honestly, I work on computers all day... the last thing I want to do is go out to do some relaxing photography, and have to come back and work a on computer a little longer.


 
Well, then that's your answer, right there.
But you STILL need to get them of the camera and do something with them anyways, sooooooooooooooooooooooooo...


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Getting back to my original question... I want to see what other beginners are doing pre-lightroom so that I can learn from it.


Maybe you should be beyond the beginners to see what you should be learning?



> Its disheartening to me to see an absolutly stunning photograph only to learn that its only absolutly stunning because it was processed outside of the camera.


 Ansel Adams.



> Its tought to compare and contrast my own photography when the photographs I have to baseline them from have additional processing done to them. I'm sure someday down the line as my skill are more in tune to put more focus on my work, but until then... post processing simply isn't in my approach.


 
Do you think none of the Masters of Photography did any post work?
That's the thing. I would bet that 97% of all awesome photographs have had some post work done to them. Be it film, or digital.


You keep saying post work isn't your approach, yet want to learn how to adjust the saturation, contrast sliders IN your camera, which is post work.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 29, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Nearly everyone would suggest you shoot in RAW. *There are situations you don't want to, but that is still up to the photographer*.


 
Probably suited for a different thread... but its my thread so I guess I can do what I want...

Could you go a little further into that?


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

Is it that school's out now that we've got such an influx of nastiness recently? 



Boomn4x4 said:


> Its disheartening to me to see an absolutly stunning photograph only to learn that its only absolutly stunning because it was processed outside of the camera. Its tought to compare and contrast my own photography when the photographs I have to baseline them from have additional processing done to them. I'm sure someday down the line as my skill are more in tune to put more focus on my work, but until then... post processing simply isn't in my approach.



So what would you have us do? Set the RAW converter to straight zeros and then post the result? I don't understand what you want.

If you draw something with a pencil, you can post a scan of the original as is. But with photography a good portion of the info in the image doesn't show until you process it.


----------



## erinag99 (Jun 29, 2010)

o hey tyler said:


> erinag99 said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...


 
Then, seriously, why did you ask? My original post was to the OP, not you.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > and you'd be stupid to discredit photo editing workhorses like that.
> ...



Good job not reading what else I posted. 

You know, that part where you contradicted yourself by saying you want to post process an image, just while it's in your camera? That's what I am referring to. And by editing an image (unless you do a piss poor job at it) will not decrease your image quality. Are you just refusing to retain information or is something else afoot?


----------



## erinag99 (Jun 29, 2010)

Overread said:


> Welcome aboard the rollercoaster erinag99!
> 
> You might find the following two threads of interest;


 
Overread, thanks! I appreciate it. I'm signed up for a photoshop class in a couple of weeks and I'm really looking forward to it.


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Nearly everyone would suggest you shoot in RAW. *There are situations you don't want to, but that is still up to the photographer*.
> ...



Generally speaking when you don't want to or don't have time to edit the results and when the final product is most likley not intended to be artistic. Eg sports photographers will use JPEG to shoot in because the shots have to be off the pitch and to the printers straight after the match (heck with the net sometimes even before the match is over). The photographer has no time to edit the results and also makes use of the large buffer that JPEGs have over RAWs (smaller file size so you get more in a burst).

Another example is holiday snaps - they are simple snaps we all take, but many might not want to process nor have any creative ideas - its just a quick memory shot so they simply make their life easier in JEPG.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 29, 2010)

Okay, this thread has had so many twists and turns by the OP, I really don't know what he/she wants. However, I'm a visual person and can grasp concepts easier by examples. Since no one has been willing so far, I'll lay the sacrificial lamb on the alter.

One thing I read earlier is getting C&C from unprocessed images. WHY? Don't you want to show your best effort? The cameras dynamic range is limited and much more so than our own eyes. Unless there is a technical or instructional reason, I will never post an image that hasn't been processed to some extent. Here's the instructional part.


Straight Out Of Camera (SOOC) RAW file. No editing whatsoever. Only converted to jpeg and resized for web.



 

But this is what I wanted to post for comments. Editing involved obviously.


 



Oh no, you say, that's much to much and denegrates the integrity of the original image.



SOOC


 


Edited


 


You have to choose one way or the other. SOOC is not your friend because you will be inudated with C&C about cropping, tilt, over/under exposure, blah, blah, blah. Why not at least try to mitigate that with some editing?​ 
Just my 2¢.​ 
Oh yeah, if you go back and read my previous post, I really don't do a whole lot of editing. The car (notice under the hood and grille for instance) and a portrait I posted some time within the last two weeks are my most processing to date with specific area edits. I'm usually a wholesale change and let it fly.​ 
One final word, check the attitude. Nobody is going to go out of their way to help and arrogant (fill in the blank).​


----------



## KmH (Jun 29, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> but its my thread so I guess I can do what I want...


 Hardly.    :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?


 
i see ****ing wings, man...I SEE EM!!! ****ING WINGS!
ya see em?!?!?! ****!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jun 29, 2010)

SrBiscuit said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?
> ...


 
Yer gunna make me cry.


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

Let's look at why we PP.

This is a shot that I probably wouldn't have gotten if I'd been fiddling with my WB and such. It was ugly straight out of the camera, but I think it came out OK.

The part on the left is totally untouched. Everything in the RAW converter set to zero. Which do you think is worth showing off?


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 29, 2010)

Wouldn't it be pig Latin?

And beyond what I said about which would be worth showing off, why would I post something that 100% of the comments are going to be "The white balance is way off"? I'm going to do what I can to fix it, and get critique on things that I can't fix while PPing.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 29, 2010)

subscuck said:


> I scoff at people who tell me they "get it right in the camera". With a dynamic range less than print film, and print film having less dynamic range than transparency film, I'm not sure how this is possible. When I've "got it right in the camera", it means _minimal_ tweaks on color, WB, contrast, maybe a little straightening and cropping and some sharpening.



This is kind of funny since I do "get it right in camera." Lol

It doesn't not however mean, as you point out further in the quote, that no tweaking happens at all. Even when I do contact prints, there is some tweaking. Usually either some burning or dodging.

All it means is that a SOOC image is decent in all the important aspects of photography. Composition, exposure, framing, etc.

But when you mention transparencies I can't help and wonder how much you've worked with film. There is no tweaking of transparencies unless you are printing them which was not often the case for commercial photogs. The transparency photo had to be "get it right in camera." Any tweaking that was done was done by the editor/buyer of the image as part of the pre-press process.



That said, and to get back to the OP's idea... do you like to look at negatives?

It may not be quite the same as looking at a RAW but the idea is the same. A  RAW file is today's negative and most of us don't want to look at that. A JPEG is, as pointed out by others, the equivalent of a MalWart print. Not that exciting either when you compare them to prints coming from a good lab.

Nobody will ever force you to do any PP but if you ever do, you'll wonder why you didn't start earlier. And nothing says you have to PP your shots into cartoon like images.


----------



## subscuck (Jun 29, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > I scoff at people who tell me they "get it right in the camera". With a dynamic range less than print film, and print film having less dynamic range than transparency film, I'm not sure how this is possible. When I've "got it right in the camera", it means _minimal_ tweaks on color, WB, contrast, maybe a little straightening and cropping and some sharpening.
> ...


 
We seem to be in agreement over what getting it right in the camera means: very small tweaks. You aren't who I was reffering to. I've run into people on forums who have magical DSLR's that have the dynamic range of transparency film and don't do any tweaking at all and will tell you that there's never any reason to PP if you know what you're doing. I disagree.

As far as my referring to transparency film, it was used as a reference point, along with print film, to illustrate to the OP the limitations of dynamic range in the digital medium that makes at least some PPing necessary. I never meant to imply tweaking was done. You are very correct that with it's fantastic dynamic range, you truly can get it right in the camera.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 29, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> SrBiscuit said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


 
lol hold me?:hugs:


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jun 29, 2010)

subscuck said:


> We seem to be in agreement over what getting it right in the camera means: very small tweaks. You aren't who I was reffering to. I've run into people on forums who have magical DSLR's that have the dynamic range of transparency film and don't do any tweaking at all and will tell you that there's never any reason to PP if you know what you're doing. I disagree.
> 
> As far as my referring to transparency film, it was used as a reference point, along with print film, to illustrate to the OP the limitations of dynamic range in the digital medium that makes at least some PPing necessary. I never meant to imply tweaking was done. You are very correct that with it's fantastic dynamic range, you truly can get it right in the camera.



I absolutely believe we are in agreement but I wasn't sure your way of saying it was quite right so I tried to rephrase it so that it would be understood more easily.

And I didn't feel like you were pointing a finger at me. I know the people you are talking about and, tbh,  I laugh at them too.

As far as transparencies are concerned, there were always things that could have been improved but there was really no way to do it so, SOOC. But that is exactly why learning how to get the shot SOOC is so important.

In today's photo world, if anything else, it will save you a lot of time in PP.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 29, 2010)

OP...I think your original premise about the distinction between photography and graphic arts is a good one. A good case in point was the winning entry in this year's Popular Photography magazine contest--one of the the winning images was a very involved composite image, shot over two days. Other contest winners have been criticized for being composite images made mostly at the computer. Plain old straight photography has fallen out of popular favor in many circles. The line between photography and computer-generated illustrations is one a lot of people today seem to not care much about. I think the original post needed a bit more definition or expansion of the term "post processing", which a number of people have seemingly over-interpreted to mean routine, global image adjustments like brightness, contrast adjustment, curves, and so on. Those types of adjustments are typically not considered under the umbrella of image manipulation, but higher-level,targeted image manipulation/pixel-rearrangement/compositing are pretty major types of image manipulation.


----------



## vtf (Jun 29, 2010)




----------



## skieur (Jun 29, 2010)

crimbfighter said:


> Though I think this thread has gotten way out of control, I do have to respectfully disagree with the OP.
> 
> As a fellow noob, one thing I have learned, is how the camera doesn't see what the eye sees. As a result, I, and I'm guessing many others, use PP as a means to bring the photo back to the glory of how it was observed by the human eye. Though, I too, try to force myself to learn the basics, I also have learned the value of PPing a photo to make it the best it can be.
> 
> ...


 
That one thing that you have learned will put you further ahead of many other new and a few not so new photographers, in improving your work. :thumbup:

skieur


----------



## Fedaykin (Jun 29, 2010)

Now this is great troll/flamewar topic if I ever saw one.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jun 29, 2010)

Just get a UV filter.


----------



## Skyclad (Jun 29, 2010)

I think there actually needs to be a certain balance of PP to make a picture look as good as you envisioned the shoot. The question is though, how much PP being used turns into "graphic design".  I think thats a very tough call and the answer will obviously vary from person to person.

In my mind, using Photoshop (or similar) in pp to remove a shadow, or a fence, or phone lines and etc., I think thats where I would draw the line because you are taking away the facts from the photo. Now in no way am I saying that lessens the picture at all. In fact, it can make the picture better. But again it's taking away the facts from the actual photo.

As contradictory as it sounds, I consider pp in being: adjusting white balance, hue, saturation, B&W, cropping, tilting, rotating and things of the such. Anything more (in my personal taste), becomes a bit of a graphic design process.

But I believe that in truth, at the end of all thats said and done, there is no right or wrong here. It's all a matter of what we personally want our end result to be. One should not shun the other just because. For it is that, that gives us each our own signature style of photo's.


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Jun 29, 2010)

What is the point of your ramblings? To proclaim that you are hobbyist and loathe post processing? Thats fine, some people don't like PP. ( whether they are a little misguided or not, thats up to debate ). But I just don't get what you are going for here. If you are pissed about people post processing pictures then stop looking at pictures on the site. As stated by everyone else, post processing goes hand in hand with photography whether its film, or digital. If you like to have your pictures to look as low-fi as possible, thats fine, some people are into that. As for someone buying your photos, PP isn't only for people selling photos. If you want to color correct your picture you need to PP, or adjust brightness. Do you not like hanging pictures on the wall or displaying them? 

If you are just a hobbyist that doesn't care about what his pics look like, then WTF are you on this forum for?


----------



## Skyclad (Jun 29, 2010)

burstintoflame81 said:


> What is the point of your ramblings? To proclaim that you are hobbyist and loathe post processing? Thats fine, some people don't like PP. ( whether they are a little misguided or not, thats up to debate ). But I just don't get what you are going for here. If you are pissed about people post processing pictures then stop looking at pictures on the site. As stated by everyone else, post processing goes hand in hand with photography whether its film, or digital. If you like to have your pictures to look as low-fi as possible, thats fine, some people are into that. As for someone buying your photos, PP isn't only for people selling photos. If you want to color correct your picture you need to PP, or adjust brightness. Do you not like hanging pictures on the wall or displaying them?
> 
> If you are just a hobbyist that doesn't care about what his pics look like, then WTF are you on this forum for?




Forgive me here, but isnt your words being a bit touchy and harsh for a post thats in the beginners forum? Especially after 8 pages on this debate. Or are you just an abrasive type by nature and to be taken with a grain of salt?

I apologize ahead of time as I am a noob here, as that isnt an insult any way. But often times words without the physical being, being seen and heard can often times be misinterpreted.


----------



## Fedaykin (Jun 29, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Fedaykin said:
> 
> 
> > Now this is great troll/flamewar topic if I ever saw one.
> ...



Nah, just enjoying the pointless rabble


----------



## kundalini (Jun 29, 2010)

Skyclad said:


> But often times words without the physical being, being seen and heard can often times be misinterpreted.


I think you misinterpreted what was being said. That was meant in the conjunctive, not the noun. 



Ohhh, what the hell. The term "isn't" refers to a singular. I think you meant *"aren't"* when you stated 'but isnt your words being a bit touchy ' when words is a plural. another 



_sometimes I like to click the link in my signature.  helps me forget the BS_


----------



## Skyclad (Jun 29, 2010)

kundalini said:


> Skyclad said:
> 
> 
> > But often times words without the physical being, being seen and heard can often times be misinterpreted.
> ...





Sorry there. Grammar isn't always my stronghold (even with spell check). lol


----------



## white (Jun 29, 2010)

Skyclad said:


> In my mind, using Photoshop (or similar) in pp to remove a shadow, or a fence, or phone lines and etc., I think thats where I would draw the line because you are taking away the facts from the photo. Now in no way am I saying that lessens the picture at all. In fact, it can make the picture better. But again it's taking away the facts from the actual photo.


Underexposing a foreground so it becomes a silhouette is changing the facts.

Unless you are a photojournalist and your job is to tell the story as accurate as possible, why limit your art? Is there a super-secret badge of honor photo-purists get for making "truthful photographs"? Is there also one for only shooting in manual, and for doing everything "in-camera?" :lmao:


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Jun 30, 2010)

I don't think its too abrasive, I am not here to pat people on the head and boost their self esteem. I am being blunt and honest. Its ok to be a NOOB, but its also ok to know when you post a comment thats going to stir up crap. Now if the OP asked "Why does someone PP" then I would take the post a little more seriously.


----------



## Boomn4x4 (Jun 30, 2010)

burstintoflame81 said:


> I don't think its too abrasive, I am not here to pat people on the head and boost their self esteem. I am being blunt and honest. Its ok to be a NOOB, but its also ok to know when you post a comment thats going to stir up crap. Now if the OP asked "Why does someone PP" then I would take the post a little more seriously.


 
I already know WHY people PP... My question was who dosen't post pp???  My assumption, being as this IS a beginners forum, that there were more out there... The conclusion I have come to however, is that I'm the only one.

Thus far, the best post on here was #94 by kundalini.... and he posted exactly what I have been going at.  I like seeing SOOC shots... THAT is what helps me become a better photographer.  Take a look at the original... then take a look at his PP...  I can look at the originaland see things that I can use to make my photography better.... That shot tells me, "make sure nothing in the background distracts from the foreground", "pay attention to objects in the foreground blocking other points of the shot", "don't center your subject in the middle of the shot"  "You don't always need to blur out a back ground if it is interesting."

In his PP shot... all of those points are missed.  I learn nothing from it other than, "that's a pretty neat shot.


----------



## Raizels (Jun 30, 2010)




----------



## dslrdave (Jun 30, 2010)

Hey everyone!  I'm new on this forum, but this is a really cool thread!!  I've recently been messing around with my new Fader HD Neutral Density  Filter that I bought from FaderFilters.com, and I love it!! I'd like to  get some pics up soon.  Does anyone know anything about Faders or HD  NDFs?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 30, 2010)

Boomn4x4 said:


> burstintoflame81 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think its too abrasive, I am not here to pat people on the head and boost their self esteem. I am being blunt and honest. Its ok to be a NOOB, but its also ok to know when you post a comment thats going to stir up crap. Now if the OP asked "Why does someone PP" then I would take the post a little more seriously.
> ...


There have been tons of recent posts that the OP's state they have done no editing. 



> Thus far, the best post on here was #94 by kundalini.... and he posted exactly what I have been going at. I like seeing SOOC shots... THAT is what helps me become a better photographer. Take a look at the original... then take a look at his PP... I can look at the originaland see things that I can use to make my photography better.... *That shot tells me, "make sure nothing in the background distracts from the foreground", "pay attention to objects in the foreground blocking other points of the shot", "don't center your subject in the middle of the shot" "You don't always need to blur out a back ground if it is interesting."*
> 
> In his PP shot... all of those points are missed. I learn nothing from it other than, "that's a pretty neat shot.


 
Umm, that can be learned from any image Processed or not.
It seems you need everyone to post both images for you to learn from.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 30, 2010)

dslrdave said:


> Hey everyone! I'm new on this forum, but this is a really cool thread!! I've recently been messing around with my new Fader HD Neutral Density Filter that I bought from FaderFilters.com, and I love it!! I'd like to get some pics up soon. Does anyone know anything about Faders or HD NDFs?


 
****ing spammer.


----------



## dslrdave (Jun 30, 2010)

SrBiscuit said:


> ****ing spammer.



Thanks for your help, man! This seems to be a pretty friendly forum.  I was just asking if anyone had experience with these filters... I'm new to photography and to the forum.  I apologize if I wasn't using "proper forum etiquette"...


----------



## SrBiscuit (Jun 30, 2010)

well it's good to see you're a real person and not a bot! :thumbup:

sorry if i was harsh, it just seemed like you were trying to drive traffic to the filters site, and this thread doesnt have much to do with filters...sooooo i chalked it up to bots and spamming and the like.

please accept my sincere apology, and welcome to the forum!

:hug::


----------



## dslrdave (Jun 30, 2010)

Thanks   would you be able to direct me to a thread that maybe would be more pertinent to my question? Maybe I could get a few answers?


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 30, 2010)

Here's another Before & After.

You can see that I didn't really do a whole lot, but it made a big difference.







The original was pretty flat and had minor WB issues.  I also cloned out a couple reflections that were bothering me.  (I _could_ have done that in camera by shooting it in a light tent.)

I shoot RAW, so processing is _required_.  If I had shot this as a JPG, the in camera processing would have made it look closer to my final result, but probably not exactly the same.


----------



## benlonghair (Jun 30, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> I shoot RAW, so processing is _required_.  If I had shot this as a JPG, the in camera processing would have made it look closer to my final result, but probably not exactly the same.



Has anyone ever told you your username looks like the front end of an old jeep? Or is that the point?


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 30, 2010)

OMG!  It does!  


  Yup, it is.  Most people don't notice right away.  You must be cool.

:thumbup:


----------



## Darkhunter139 (Jun 30, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> OMG!  It does!
> 
> 
> Yup, it is.  Most people don't notice right away.  You must be cool.
> ...



Now I feel stupid for never noticing that until now


----------



## burstintoflame81 (Jun 30, 2010)

But you didn,t ask for comparisons, you asked who agreed with you. Being that you stated that everyones pics on here are PP'd ( haha i just said peepee'd) which kinda answers your question for you. Anyway, no harm, i will post some comprisons later. On phone now at work.


----------



## Warren Peace (Jun 30, 2010)

I may be out of line joining this thread, but I would consider myself new to photography, and one of the reasons I joined this forum was to learn more.  I was shooting with a Canon A530 (yes a point and shoot) for the longest time, until I was able to get enough money to purchase a Canon Xti.  
  When I was shooting with my A530, I was just taking my memory card to a local photo lab and having my photos printed, so I could see what they looked like.  Isnt that a form of post processing?  It might not have been done by me, but wouldn't the lab have to do something. Does that mean the image I took is not really what I saw when I captured it? :er:


----------



## Skyclad (Jun 30, 2010)

burstintoflame81 said:


> I don't think its too abrasive, I am not here to pat people on the head and boost their self esteem. I am being blunt and honest. Its ok to be a NOOB, but its also ok to know when you post a comment thats going to stir up crap. Now if the OP asked "Why does someone PP" then I would take the post a little more seriously.



Thats fair enough. I understand where you're coming from and I can respect that.

True, the OP could have stated a his question a little better, but it happens. The main thing is that us noob's here learn and become better acquainted with the boards.


----------



## Overread (Jun 30, 2010)

Another before and after editing:
Mostly me playing around with a lighting setup, didn't quite get the effect I was after sadly, but I was chancing it with a halfmade setup. Not even sure I like the editing (esp with the darkening around the eye and the way it brings up the highlights). 
Still didn't do anything that I would consider major to this work:

Before:




http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4750150864_42b48dfc54_o.jpg

After:




http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4076/4750151452_3b547879e9_o.jpg

What I did:
Not normal for me, but I left all RAW settings to 0 barring setting the whitebalance and adjusting the exposure to get more light to work with in editing (the shot was underexposed a bit straight out of camera - nothing I could do my flash was at full power and the test required that I keep shutter speed, ISO and aperture fixed rather than adapt).

So straight out of RAW it looks like the above then we get into photoshop (elements so nothing fancy!)

Level/curves - auto
Yep for once auto curves did quite well and I didn't set my own darkpoint (mostly as I was concerned about not overdarkening the shot and losing the eye within the darkness.)

Shadows/Highlights
Lighten Shadows 2%
Darken Highlights 5%
Midtone Contrast 0%

Constrast and Brightness
Brightness -25 
Contrast 0

Use of layermask to remove effect from the main subject and also the foreground, mostly aimed at darkening the background areas surrounding the louse to lessen their distraction of the foreground and subject.

Constrast and Brightness
Brightness +10
Contrast 0

Using layermask again to limit this effect to only the foreground of the louse, all the remainder was blacked out. Also around 50% of the effect (using opacity) was removed from the middle of the subject where the hightlights from the lighting can be see. 

All layers were then flattened into one to continue on with a highpass sharpen:
Unsharpen mask 
Amount 22
Radius 250
Threshold 4

Effect was slightly reduced for the back highlights (again through a layermask) and also over the eye to avoid overdarkening it. From there standard noise reduction and regular sharpening were done as I resized (and sharpened) for the net. I also took a moment to use the heal and clone tools to remove two distracting bright blue points on the shot


----------



## Artrina (Jun 30, 2010)

Last night I went to a class a camera shop had to help people understand what some of the functions on the cameras can do. I am amazed as to what my camera can do! That said, after that class I have a reason to lean post processing a little sooner than I had planned. My old eyes can read the type in the processing programs a heck of a lot easier than the small print on my camera!


----------



## skieur (Jul 6, 2010)

Derrel said:


> OP...I think your original premise about the distinction between photography and graphic arts is a good one. A good case in point was the winning entry in this year's Popular Photography magazine contest--one of the the winning images was a very involved composite image, shot over two days. Other contest winners have been criticized for being composite images made mostly at the computer. Plain old straight photography has fallen out of popular favor in many circles. The line between photography and computer-generated illustrations is one a lot of people today seem to not care much about. I think the original post needed a bit more definition or expansion of the term "post processing", which a number of people have seemingly over-interpreted to mean routine, global image adjustments like brightness, contrast adjustment, curves, and so on. Those types of adjustments are typically not considered under the umbrella of image manipulation, but higher-level,targeted image manipulation/pixel-rearrangement/compositing are pretty major types of image manipulation.


 
Media have been merging together for quite a while and will continue to do so in future. Computer art has been around for more than 25 years and so has simulated photography done with computer software in 3D. Popular Photography was using the term: Imaging as part of its magazine title at one point. So, the purists are fighting a battle that has already been lost. Photography is now part Imaging but has no relation to graphic arts.

skieur


----------



## n781lc (Jul 10, 2010)

Well said by the "Photographers" and thank you from an 86 year old who started at 12 by building a cardboard darkroom in the garage .. wet develop & fix (watch shading), dry, print (careful with time), enlarge (whee! have a ball).

Art is just that.  All forms, seeking that which is pleasing in the eye of the beholder.  

Music is obtained in a vast variety of ways and, at times, using really weird instruments ... BUT it is MUSIC.

People of different ages see everythig in their scope of kowledge ..limited but ...

And, by the way, did the kid use a filter??  oooh!  Not very cricket, eh??

Bless you all from a new (but very old) member,

Ed


----------



## Morpheuss (Jul 10, 2010)

I'll admit it I agreed with the OP for a little bit but then i read more and more and got more educated. I think the reason I find pp not as important is because I haven't really done it before and have been afraid to edit it because I don't want to turn the photograph into something its not.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 10, 2010)

n781lc said:


> Well said by the "Photographers" and thank you from an 86 year old who started at 12 by building a cardboard darkroom in the garage .. wet develop & fix (watch shading), dry, print (careful with time), enlarge (whee! have a ball).
> 
> Art is just that.  All forms, seeking that which is pleasing in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> ...



You sir, are awesome.  Thank you for this post.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jul 10, 2010)

This thread may have run its course but I wanted to comment on a couple things anyways...



Boomn4x4 said:


> It would be like handing a scalpal to a premed student and having him do a vasectomy.... Yes surgery is apart of being a doctor... but why would you start out doing it... .Just like post processing, whether in camera or out, certainly has its place.... for many reading this shouldn't even be thought about.



That analogy is closer to describing why a beginning photographer shouldn't start off by shooting weddings.  A medical student _does_ have to learn how to use a scalpel, but they practice, practice, practice on cadavers long before they have to use that skill _when it matters_.  Learning to use post processing as a tool is the same thing; you have to practice.  A doctor that knows everything he needs to know about performing an operation but is really unskilled with a scalpel would not be a very good doctor; a photographer that knows a lot about how their camera processes a photograph but lacks the skill to do it themselves would not be a very good photographer.



Boomn4x4 said:


> The are many ways to process in camera that can just as well be done out of camera... but I'm more interested in learning it in camera.... exposure compensation, white balance, color saturation, color modes.... I want to learn how to do that in camera... I want to be able to look at a scene and know what settings I can set to make the shot pop in the first place.



You might want to think about this the other way around.  Take some pictures in RAW, and then go in to the RAW processing software of your choice and mess with the values to see what changes.  That way, you actually learn what it does to the picture, so later on if you want to do it in-camera, you have a good idea of what the effect will be.

Basically, what I'm saying is, learning post-processing techniques _will_ make you a better photographer.  Adjusting exposure compensation or white balance or anything else is pretty much the same whether you do it in-camera or by using RAW conversion software, but the big difference is that if you do it in-camera, you have less control and it's essentially permanent.  Why put yourself through the agony of ending up with a shot that _could have been_ great if only you'd changed some settings on the camera first, when you could take a shot and adjust the settings later to _make sure_ it's great?  Eventually, doing all that post-processing will help you decide what settings to use when taking shots later, and then you'll find that when you do the post-processing on _those_, that you'll really be able to make them pop.

The point is, PP is part of photography, and you can learn _from _it or you can learn _in spite of it_.  You'll be a better photographer in the end if you do the former.


----------

