To Post or not to Post - Your thoughts

[Badgood]

True! I was doing ok with time until kid number two came along this year, but things can only get better from now and there are definitely no plans for three of the little rascals.

Tim
Congratulations on kiddy No 2, but don’t expect things to get much better for at least the first 35 years….
Trust me on this

 

[Photofarmer]

try 5 should used a condom ...... nah not really all grown adults youngest on the farm coming 21

 

[Badgood]

try 5 should used a condom ...... nah not really all grown adults youngest on the farm coming 21

 

[Copterdoc]

There is room for all in this discipline of photography. What and how you choose to capture and process your images depends on your personal vision and approach.

I applaud those who are "purists in the direct from-camera" group. It is very true that you must check a large number of items off your list before pressing that shutter button. This only comes from a very disciplined approach to often "self-limitation" and not the limits of the tools. This approach is not for everybody, however, but is a great approach to learning all the issues that need to be considered when capturing the image. A good foundation. We should remember though that many of these purists often "dogged and burned" the images when printing them to achieve what could not be captured in-camera.

This approach is however very limiting for others with different visions and tasks to accomplish. For those who would capture an image as true to the human eye as possible to "document a moment in time, a documentarian, " it is often necessary to replicate as close as possible the actual dynamic range of the human eye which often requires both multiple shots from the camera and software to replicate that range (HDR). Their approach and tasks are just as valid as many others.

When shooting images of the Milkyway that are compelling, the capture is only the information that must be enhanced to actually bring out the dynamic range and the majesty of the image as seen by the photographer and those they see as their audience. Tools for tracking stars and things like lens correction profiles are necessary tools to achieve this vision. Often it is the limitation of the capture tool that necessitates the additional software manipulation of the captured image data to represent reality as we perceive it.

Photo stacking in macros and landscapes provides an image that to most of us represents what we perceive. We often view the world as a combination of higher-resolution glimpses of a landscape that cameras cannot often capture in a single focused image. When we look at an insect in a macro photo, we perceive it often in complete detail and the very narrow depth of field we see in a single capture is in many ways surreal.

For those who use the camera tool and the software to achieve an artistic vision, the capture is often just a starting point for the final image, and it is often the manipulation of that base image that is in the eye of the photographer when the image is snapped. Also remember there are very few modern digital cameras shooting raw black & white images, so most of what we see is a software derivative of the original raw image.

JMHO

 

[Copterdoc]

I read many articles on post processing and it amazes me how far we have come from the “good old days” when we chucked in a roll of 36 shot 200 iso film either colour or Black & White and made as many decisions as we could before clicking the shutter button.
It is quite the topic of conversation between myself and fellow snappers.
Some like to process their images almost to death, but others think post is sacrilege and what comes out of the camera shows the image and skill of the person pressing the shutter release.
So I thought I would throw it open to the forum and see what larger audiences think.
Personally I shoot mainly jpeg and this limits me to what I can and can’t do and only allows me to push so far in post processing.
How about you ?
Remember, no one is right or wrong, we all have our likes and dislikes.
Your thoughts…..

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

 

[Badgood]

Very informed, in depth and informative view.

 

[Bear]

This was shot with absolutely no post processing whatsoever.
Does it need tweaking ?

Nope. Photo looks great!

 

[Chris Summers]

I think you have to decide for yourself if photography is in of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science. I am in a photography club that hold an annual show where selected judges chose winners in 8 or 9 categories, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as well as an honorable mention. I am on the rules committee for next year's show and we are discussing what to do about all the advanced AI editing that is now fairly common as well as the new topic getting all the buzz, AI image generation. We have a category for Creative Digital Manipulation which pretty much allows everything in advanced editing but we are discussing the later AI image generation I mentioned and have not decided yet if we will allow that. Anyway, our rules stipulate in the other categories for entries only basic post processing can be done and exclude sky replacement, stitched panoramas and a few other things. But we are reconsidering these because they used to actually be challenging to do in programs like Photoshop. Now swapping a sky is a click of a button, the masking is usually near perfect and the programs even adjust the lighting to the direction of the new sky.

I personally see photography as an art in of itself just like painting or sculpture. So I feel that post process editing is part of the creation of art and I don't like overly constrictive limits. I shoot RAW only, last time I shot JPEG was with my first Nikon CoolPix 20 some years ago. I see RAW as my digital negative that can be processed in so many different ways. I shot professionally for 35 years but am now retired and unless I was shooting slide film like Kodachrome I did my post editing in the darkroom and I now see editing software as my digital darkroom. Asking a photographer to show "out of the camera" images is like asking a painter to paint with the colors that come out of the paint tubes and not mix them with each other. Now that doesn't mean I'm against showing off an image that does not have much if any processing. Sometimes all the parameters are met when we click the shutter and the image looks great without doing anything. But I don't set that as my goal.

So much has changed as far as technology when it comes to photography. Our cameras now are basically computers with a lens attached.

 

[Bear]

I think you have to decide for yourself if photography is in of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science. I am in a photography club that hold an annual show where selected judges chose winners in 8 or 9 categories, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as well as an honorable mention. I am on the rules committee for next year's show and we are discussing what to do about all the advanced AI editing that is now fairly common as well as the new topic getting all the buzz, AI image generation. We have a category for Creative Digital Manipulation which pretty much allows everything in advanced editing but we are discussing the later AI image generation I mentioned and have not decided yet if we will allow that. Anyway, our rules stipulate in the other categories for entries only basic post processing can be done and exclude sky replacement, stitched panoramas and a few other things. But we are reconsidering these because they used to actually be challenging to do in programs like Photoshop. Now swapping a sky is a click of a button, the masking is usually near perfect and the programs even adjust the lighting to the direction of the new sky.

I personally see photography as an art in of itself just like painting or sculpture. So I feel that post process editing is part of the creation of art and I don't like overly constrictive limits. I shoot RAW only, last time I shot JPEG was with my first Nikon CoolPix 20 some years ago. I see RAW as my digital negative that can be processed in so many different ways. I shot professionally for 35 years but am now retired and unless I was shooting slide film like Kodachrome I did my post editing in the darkroom and I now see editing software as my digital darkroom. Asking a photographer to show "out of the camera" images is like asking a painter to paint with the colors that come out of the paint tubes and not mix them with each other. Now that doesn't mean I'm against showing off an image that does not have much if any processing. Sometimes all the parameters are met when we click the shutter and the image looks great without doing anything. But I don't set that as my goal.

So much has changed as far as technology when it comes to photography. Our cameras now are basically computers with a lens attached.

I have to agree with everything you've said, and guess I need to clarify my initial post (when all of this started). I have nothing against processing. Technology has changed how people view photography. My pet peeve is with those that use PS and LR to over process their photo. People replace the sky (as mentioned) or add a full moon that's larger than the empire State building and pass it off as their own photo (I've seen it done on FaceBook). Processing to that extend is now "photo art". Well stated Chris.

 

[Copterdoc]

I think you have to decide for yourself if photography is in of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science. I am in a photography club that hold an annual show where selected judges chose winners in 8 or 9 categories, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as well as an honorable mention. I am on the rules committee for next year's show and we are discussing what to do about all the advanced AI editing that is now fairly common as well as the new topic getting all the buzz, AI image generation. We have a category for Creative Digital Manipulation which pretty much allows everything in advanced editing but we are discussing the later AI image generation I mentioned and have not decided yet if we will allow that. Anyway, our rules stipulate in the other categories for entries only basic post processing can be done and exclude sky replacement, stitched panoramas and a few other things. But we are reconsidering these because they used to actually be challenging to do in programs like Photoshop. Now swapping a sky is a click of a button, the masking is usually near perfect and the programs even adjust the lighting to the direction of the new sky.

I personally see photography as an art in of itself just like painting or sculpture. So I feel that post process editing is part of the creation of art and I don't like overly constrictive limits. I shoot RAW only, last time I shot JPEG was with my first Nikon CoolPix 20 some years ago. I see RAW as my digital negative that can be processed in so many different ways. I shot professionally for 35 years but am now retired and unless I was shooting slide film like Kodachrome I did my post editing in the darkroom and I now see editing software as my digital darkroom. Asking a photographer to show "out of the camera" images is like asking a painter to paint with the colors that come out of the paint tubes and not mix them with each other. Now that doesn't mean I'm against showing off an image that does not have much if any processing. Sometimes all the parameters are met when we click the shutter and the image looks great without doing anything. But I don't set that as my goal.

So much has changed as far as technology when it comes to photography. Our cameras now are basically computers with a lens attached.

I think you have concluded that " photography is in and of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science" is in fact an amalgamation of all these things. One thing humans have been exceedingly good at is improving the tools used to create civilization and within this "art". The sculptor does not just use the chisel to shape the art but selects other tools and techniques to smooth its surface.

As for competitive classes, the demonstration of the artist's skills and knowledge can be tested in many ways. One might be choosing the limits on the tools that can be used either through cost limits or sensor size/lens selections, etc. Another might be to have these same "equipment limitations" apply to various types of photography such as architectural, macro, flash, portraits (with its own equipment limitation), landscape, etc.

Lastly have two additional categories. An "Open Class" with virtually no restrictions other than maybe "total cost to present" the results. And an open class covering all the specified disciplines to show the artist's depth and breadth of skills and knowledge (a high over all).

Each of these classes can be designed to make access to the competition more widely available to all who wish to compete. Just some musings.