To Post or not to Post - Your thoughts

[Hali]

Sorry but for me this pic was largely overprocessed....

Sorry you think that, Chris. What do you think is over processed about it? To me it's not. The color is good, there is adequate sharpness, it's not over sharpened, the eyes are in focus (although the left eye of the hippo could be a touch sharper). There seems to be a little brush stroke in the water on the upper left, I'm guessing that's an artifact of some sort. The water is a good color and not over blurred. Those are my thoughts when I look at the image.

And remember- you don't know what the RAW file looked like, so it's hard (for me) to make a judgement.

But here's the point - he didn't process it for you, he did it for him. And to me that's where discussions like this become icky.

 

[Grahamk]

I’m with Hali on the hippo photo. RedCobra’s aim is stated in the first sentence of his post “…to produce the photo I want.” – others may well have processed the original differently to achieve the photo that they desired. On the general issue of post processing, I don’t seem to have the time to process the number of digital images that I take – hence I mainly shoot jpg. Perhaps life is too busy or maybe I should take less photos!

 

[Bear]

I’m with Hali on the hippo photo. RedCobra’s aim is stated in the first sentence of his post “…to produce the photo I want.” – others may well have processed the original differently to achieve the photo that they desired. On the general issue of post processing, I don’t seem to have the time to process the number of digital images that I take – hence I mainly shoot jpg. Perhaps life is too busy or maybe I should take less photos!

Great answer. I’ve just started dabbling in post processing and yes, it does take a lot of time. I got back into photography to learn about the new “digital” process and to stay out of the wife’s way (recently retired). Part of this new way of photography may include post processing, but I’m always concerned about over processing (photo just looks wrong). Finding the balance between “photo straight out of the camera” and “post processing” is not easy to achieve, but it seems to be the direction photography is taking. Keep shooting and do it your way!

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Editing takes time.
Post-processing doesn't.
I post-process everything I want to share.
I edit everything I want to save. And some things I would never present as a photograph.

 

[Bear]

Editing takes time.
Post-processing doesn't.
I post-process everything I want to share.
I edit everything I want to save. And some things I would never present as a photograph.

I guess I need to understand the difference between editing a photo and post processing a photo. To me they’re one and the same, but I may be wrong. More learning required. PS I like that you “would never present as a photograph” comment. Sadly, too many out there try doing just that.

 

[RedCobra]

Thanks guys for the comments on the hippo shot. Here's the original.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I guess I need to understand the difference between editing a photo and post processing a photo. To me they’re one and the same, but I may be wrong. More learning required. PS I like that you “would never present as a photograph” comment. Sadly, too many out there try doing just that.

I wanted to put something in an analogy like...

Post-process : Print :: Edit : xyz

...but I couldn't come up with an analogous film term that spoke to the scope of what I would refer to as "editing" for digital. There's "airbrush", there's "composite", and likely others that I can't think of. Maybe "Manipulate" would cover it?!

 

[Hali]

I wanted to put something in an analogy like...

Post-process : Print :: Edit : xyz

...but I couldn't come up with an analogous film term that spoke to the scope of what I would refer to as "editing" for digital. There's "airbrush", there's "composite", and likely others that I can't think of. Maybe "Manipulate" would cover it?!

I think Manipulate works well. I look at it that Post-process (develop) to me has an end goal, whilst editing is just mucking around to see what I might find. In full disclosure, I do both, but spend much more concentrated time on things I develop for an end production.

 

[Hali]

Thanks guys for the comments on the hippo shot. Here's the original.View attachment 12339

Wow! That came far. I would have been disturbed if you had been *that* close to a hippo. They aren't known for their soft and kind dispositions.

 

[Copterdoc]

Great answer. I’ve just started dabbling in post processing and yes, it does take a lot of time. I got back into photography to learn about the new “digital” process and to stay out of the wife’s way (recently retired). Part of this new way of photography may include post processing, but I’m always concerned about over processing (photo just looks wrong). Finding the balance between “photo straight out of the camera” and “post processing” is not easy to achieve, but it seems to be the direction photography is taking. Keep shooting and do it your way!

One of the analogies I think is apt here is that with film there is always a post-process before one can present an image, I consider the RAW as analogous to a negative as I do not see the manufacturer's processing in-camera as a choice I can make over and above what they choose to include in the firmware. In that vein, enhancing the RAW (negative analogy) is similar to the analog "darkroom" but digital in nature. Also more environmentally sound possible?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I think Manipulate works well. I look at it that Post-process (develop) to me has an end goal, whilst editing is just mucking around to see what I might find. In full disclosure, I do both, but spend much more concentrated time on things I develop for an end production.

"Mucking around"? I've done enough of that. If I go down that road it's about creating something from the capture that either looks nothing like a photograph, or is an altered reality from what the capture shows. Composites, changed backgrounds, removal of major objects, etc.

 

[RedCobra]

Is this processing or manipulation?

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Is this processing or manipulation?

Just a crop and developing. For me this is simply processing, particularly since I see no manipulation with all background twigs and grass are still present. Side note, I'd be OK if you removed them, but many contests would.

 

[RedCobra]

Just a crop and developing. For me this is simply processing, particularly since I see no manipulation with all background twigs and grass are still present. Side note, I'd be OK if you removed them, but many contests would.

NR, Crop, Sharpen, PS Neural Background filter, Faded BG and changed tint, and then Gigapixel.

 

[Hali]

Is this processing or manipulation?View attachment 12401View attachment 12402

That's just processing. Beautiful work.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

NR, Crop, Sharpen, PS Neural Background filter, Faded BG and changed tint, and then Gigapixel.

Everything but "crop" there is "developing" to me.

 

[DanH]

Being a huge fan of Panoramas, certainly puts me in the "manipulation" camp. That said, I am definitely wanting & trying to lear to "get-it-right" in camera. Skills like understanding hyperfocal distance, and natural lighting are huge. Then there's stormchasing... now we're talking about learning to go with what's in front of you & making the best of it. On one side of this you can plan to your heart's content and on the other... you just gotta go with what shows up! ( Please excuse the "non-R" examples - I'll be sharing new ones just as soon as I catch them )

 

[Hali]

Being a huge fan of Panoramas, certainly puts me in the "manipulation" camp. That said, I am definitely wanting & trying to lear to "get-it-right" in camera. Skills like understanding hyperfocal distance, and natural lighting are huge. Then there's stormchasing... now we're talking about learning to go with what's in front of you & making the best of it. On one side of this you can plan to your heart's content and on the other... you just gotta go with what shows up! ( Please excuse the "non-R" examples - I'll be sharing new ones just as soon as I catch them )

Those are both great shots, Dan! With your storm chasing photos, how much developing do you do after the capture?

 

[DanH]

Those are both great shots, Dan! With your storm chasing photos, how much developing do you do after the capture?

The amount of developing varies with the spontaneity & intensity of the storm. If you get into your position relative to the storm and it doesn't move unexpectedly, then you can plan & execute your photo so very little is left to do outside of stitching the pano together. If on the other hand the storm makes an unexpected turn or changes too rapidly, then more recovery work might be needed to make up for inadequate exposure settings. The storm photo above was one that required very little post production.

 

[Ed Cordes]

I believe that a certain amount of developing is OK. I don't mean compositing images and presenting them as "as seen". However, dodging, burning, removing unwanted stuff etc., to me, is OK. Adjusting tonal range, local color etc. is nothing we couldn't do and have done in the old darkroom. Yes, I am old enough to have had a darkroom.
Ansel Adams, an avid classical music fan, compared his photographic process to music by saying “the negative is the score and the print is the performance”. This is how I approach my photography. Look up Adams’ "Moonrise Hernandes”. I have read that it took him many prints to get the total tonal range in the final product. I have also read a theory that the “Moon”, and possibly the sky, was added from another negative. Look at Adams’ moody Yosemite prints with the wonderfully detailed clouds coupled with the detail in the rocks and foreground. This did not come from one exposure. The negative certainly contained the details but significant dodging and burning brought balance to the final presentations.

 

[Bryan Conner]

Great conversation starter. One thing many people forget though is that the film was a one-shot capture of light. Nowadays modern digital cameras provide much post-processing of that light capture within the camera itself to include len correction, chromatic aberration, color shifting options, and other focus, and capture attributes not previously available in a "film camera". We need to remember that all our attempts to capture a moment in time are both influenced and enhanced by the tools used. A perfect example is the freedom and opportunities open up to even the purists with the advent and continuing improvement of the auto-focus capabilities of the new cameras. It is the advance of this technology, and the only way to capture true purist nostalgia is by shooting film. This is both challenging and informative. JMHO

I agree with what you have said, but I would take it a step further concerning film. Shooting positive film, slides, is a one shot capture of light as long as you are projecting the slide onto a screen. Negative film photography is a "two shot" process because the second shot is either the capture of the negative onto paper by either scanning and printing or a traditional, non digital printing process. The scanning or traditional chemical process printing are both post processing in a sense.

Having said the above, I think it is ok to do whatever you wish in terms of processing your image. If it pleases you then have at it, except in journalism or science etc. where integrity and honesty are of utmost importance. So it comes down to the question of "is the photograph art?"

 

[DanH]

”... So it comes down to the question of "is the photograph art?"

I agree, this is a great discussion. For me, Photography is Art, or at least it can be.

 

[Dave Williams]

My passion is wildlife photography and to be honest post processing is a necessity for me. I'd prefer not to because the fun for me is witnessing an event and capturing it in camera not sitting at my computer altering the image but I rarely have one I can't improve with a few subtle changes wether it be lighting adjustment to removing the odd twig or improving the catchlight in the eye. Just try and get your subject in the right position without cropping the image, it's not always easy!
To be honest I'm not sure what all the fuss is about anyway. Getting creative isn't just about using the camera, it can be a whole host of things from artificial lighting to setting up a shot by creating the right environment in the hope your subject is attracted to it.

 

[DanH]

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, I think the difference between a great photo and a fantastic photo is a judicious amount of post production. It is often the skill in post demonstrated that catches my eye... if that makes any sense. I know when a photo ha s been massaged, but its how well its been massaged that impresses me. If anyone could demonstrate that same result straight-off-camera, I's be flabergasted. This where it becomes ART in my view. YMMV

 

[Bryan Conner]

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, I think the difference between a great photo and a fantastic photo is a judicious amount of post production. It is often the skill in post demonstrated that catches my eye... if that makes any sense. I know when a photo ha s been massaged, but its how well its been massaged that impresses me. If anyone could demonstrate that same result straight-off-camera, I's be flabergasted. This where it becomes ART in my view. YMMV

I think the most important word in your post is "judicious". I can remember the over processed HDR photos from several years ago. They made me think I was having some sort of flashback from the 1980's....boy those were fun times.

 

[Copterdoc]

I think the most important word in your post is "judicious". I can remember the over processed HDR photos from several years ago. They made me think I was having some sort of flashback from the 1980's....boy those were fun times.

With the advance in technology, HDR images are far more realistic and have a much better dynamic range than those of a few years ago. JMHO

 

[Dave Williams]

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one!
The Fox came early last night, so early I missed it at around 9.00pm.It returned at 11.30 when I had already fallen asleep in bed when the security light kicked in so it was a dash downstairs to grab the camera. 30 minutes later I had 3000 shots. Ridiculous but needed to try and get some worthwhile images. The challenges are low light using just the security lighting, shooting through double glazed windows that have Georgian bars built in so you have to shoot close to the glass and then there's the gear. My only suitable lens nowadays is my EF85mm f1.8 as my 70-200f2.8 was stolen, as was my 24-105mm f4. F4 though would not have allowed sufficient light so I'm stuck with the 85mm. Having had a previous session, this time I decided to push the boundaries using ISO8000 and above for some shots. This at least allows a slightly higher shutter speed and a slightly narrower aperture for better depth of field. The best light is closest to the window which is where the Fox is stood. It's a full frame image so the composition can't be altered...and neither could the position of the camera because of the window bars. It is what it is and I have to say I'm quite pleased. This particular lens is by far the cheapest one I have ever bought too!
The above was posted on my Flickr page. I attach three images.
1)The original as shot but converted to Jpeg in Photoshop
2)The original raw having been ran through Topaz de-noise and tweaked in Photoshop and converted to jpeg
3) No 2 above being substantially changed in PS to add better composition

I am by no means any more than an extreme amateur at post processing having only learnt the very basics.

 

[Bear]

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one!
The Fox came early last night, so early I missed it at around 9.00pm.It returned at 11.30 when I had already fallen asleep in bed when the security light kicked in so it was a dash downstairs to grab the camera. 30 minutes later I had 3000 shots. Ridiculous but needed to try and get some worthwhile images. The challenges are low light using just the security lighting, shooting through double glazed windows that have Georgian bars built in so you have to shoot close to the glass and then there's the gear. My only suitable lens nowadays is my EF85mm f1.8 as my 70-200f2.8 was stolen, as was my 24-105mm f4. F4 though would not have allowed sufficient light so I'm stuck with the 85mm. Having had a previous session, this time I decided to push the boundaries using ISO8000 and above for some shots. This at least allows a slightly higher shutter speed and a slightly narrower aperture for better depth of field. The best light is closest to the window which is where the Fox is stood. It's a full frame image so the composition can't be altered...and neither could the position of the camera because of the window bars. It is what it is and I have to say I'm quite pleased. This particular lens is by far the cheapest one I have ever bought too!
The above was posted on my Flickr page. I attach three images.
1)The original as shot but converted to Jpeg in Photoshop
2)The original raw having been ran through Topaz de-noise and tweaked in Photoshop and converted to jpeg
3) No 2 above being substantially changed in PS to add better composition

I am by no means any more than an extreme amateur at post processing having only learnt the very basics.

A case where minor edits are perfectly acceptable. Very nice capture and thanks for not posting the 3000 shots. LOL

 

[Dave Williams]

A case where minor edits are perfectly acceptable. Very nice capture and thanks for not posting the 3000 shots. LOL

I have only just started
I notice that Topaz changed the colour which I wasn't too impressed with. If you didn't know I'd changed the composition would you notice?

 

[Bear]

I have only just started
I notice that Topaz changed the colour which I wasn't too impressed with. If you didn't know I'd changed the composition would you notice?

Not having too many foxes in my backyard, I wouldn’t have noticed the colour change. If your fox were, let’s say pink, I’m thinking I would have noticed. have a great day!