The Times They Are Changin...

<p lang="en">Hello fellow photographers!<br /><br /></p>

<p lang="en">Taking cue from a conversation I had recently with friends and photographers, I would like to ask for your valuable knowledge, views, opinions, of a little "misunderstood" issue, If I may call it so. That of the technique during the shooting and not of the technique during printing or post processing.</p>

<p lang="en"> I know that the old days it was a must in order to get a decent result. But is it today, and in what degree?</p>

<p lang="en"> For many photographers, as we see here on PN as well, the “click” is only the beginning. What follows next is the creation and a final result that, in most cases, has nothing to do with the original shot. In our days with mobile phones taking the place of the compact cameras and the millions of pictures taken every day, many think that it's not a matter of technique used during the shot anymore. Instead it's the technique that follows afterwards, on PS, LR, etc...</p>

<p lang="en"> Now let me get to the bottom of this. If I take a “bad picture”, underexposed and blurry, I can fix it any time with the up to date softwares and presented like a fashionable one even. So where the technique during shooting applies? Don't get me wrong but many think so.</p>

<p lang="en"> So, what are the processes that lead to the creation of an image today? Does our focus on the “final result” weakened the practical procedure? And by practical procedure I mean the technique used before the shot.</p>

<p lang="en"> Let's try to see the techniques of photography and the actual process of shooting, despite the picture as a final result. How we photograph today? Are we interested in technique and to what extent? Is Auto, or even P Mode a good thing, or a trap for new photographers?</p>

<p lang="en"> I would love to hear you, especially if we are to assist new photographers who will read this post through. Take care!</p>

<p>This topic has been beaten to death on many occasions in most (if not all) on-line photo discussion forums...</p>

<p>Focus on the "final result" is nothing new. For example it is the key motivator in <em>The Zone System</em> (~1940).</p>

<p>Panayotis: I firmly believe that no amount of post processing can transform a poorly taken, bad, photograph into a good one. At best, it can dress up such a photograph and disguise it.</p>

<p>Having said this, when I shot film only, my total involvement was shooting and whatever planning may have gone into it. I then took the exposed rolls of film to a lab for printing. Once I jumped ship to digital, the world of post processing was opened to me. This has made a huge difference in terms of my involvement in photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry about that Geoff, I didn't try to invent the wheel again...so I guess this post will evaporate pretty soon or a moderator will take it down. See you!</p>

<p>Well, for one thing. good technique during shooting save pp time. Second, actual content (not exposure, for example) can not be fixed in post. </p>

<p>Thanks Michael,<br>

I was also shooting film. That's how I started since there was no digital at that time :) It's true also that since I was not involved with the dark room and print myself the photos I've taken, that I was paying a lot of attention before the shooting. And I must say that I had more keepers then than now with my digital SLR...</p>

<p>For me the creation of a photo is the combination of technique "in the field" (i.e. at the time of exposure) and post-processing technique. That really hasn't changed much from my pre-digital days.</p>

<p>"Time of exposure" techniques center around getting a raw image (negative, slide, or digital raw file) that contains the information necessary to create the final photo.<br /> Some examples of things I think about when I'm planning a shot:</p>

<ol>

<li>Geometric (ex. composition)</li>

<li>Exposure (ex. ETTR or zone-placement)</li>

<li>Relative locations of light source(s), the subject, and the camera.</li>

<li>Dynamics (ex. shutter-speed vs. subject motion, camera motion vs. subject motion)</li>

<li>Optical (ex. DOF)</li>

<li>Perspective (ex. lens focal-length, tilt/shift)</li>

</ol>

<p>Post-processing for me has always been about taking the raw image and creating a final photo that looks the way I thought about it before the shot. <br />In many cases it is simply about "undoing" things I did to get a good raw image (ex. exposure shifting to compensate for ETTR or choosing the right development conditions for a zone-system exposure). After that there are the plethora of manipulations ranging from simple (ex. cropping) to elaborate (localized adjustments, HDR) and simply artificial esthetic changes (ex. B&W, solarization, wild HDR tone-mapping, etc.).</p>

<p>Re: "more keepers" vs. good images</p>

<p>My "keeper ratio" dropped dramatically with the switch to digital. I don't think that's a problem.<br /> On the other hand, I create <strong>many</strong> more really good images than I did with film.<br /> Some reasons for that are:</p>

<ul>

<li>More experimentation due to the reduction in per-shot cost.<br />With digital I will regularly examine a subject from many more angles and exposure-combinations than I would with film.</li>

<li>Better feedback about the image at the time of shooting (ex. "chimping").<br />When I am in "careful mode" I chimp almost every shot. I look at the exposure ("blinkies" and histogram), relative brightness of different parts of the scene, particularly important when the light is changeable (ex. artificial) or changing (ex. sunset). In the film days I would (very occasionally) make Polaroid test shots to check things. With digital every shot is a test-shot. Sometimes a composition that looked good in the viewfinder "doesn't work" when viewed in 2D.</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>in most cases, has nothing to do with the original shot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's vastly over-stating things. <em>Most</em> final results have rather a lot to do with the original shot.</p>

<p>Matt is right. There has to be a reason you take the shot in the first place. A photographer brings his/her artistic vision to play at the moment of exposure. Hopefully, if there is to be significant post added to the process the photographer thinks about that when composing or even just deciding which direction in which to point the camera.</p>

<p>I suppose one could just shoot with a normal on a 40MP camera and then look around the image to see if there is something there.</p>

<p>One think I am noticing. I am getting considerable unsolicited push-back about "fixing" people in my shots. They are telling me stories about how they are made to look "plastic". One 70+ year old woman at an event the other day said, "don't you dare make me look 40. I don't even like young people". </p>

<p>I don't usually like heavily processed shots as a matter of personal taste and if I see one more HDR 'girl with tattoos and torn stocking standing in front of a train engine' I am going to throw up. Likewise. If you have to make her look like a vampire to make her interesting you need to work on your casting skills. And we all know that you drew the scar on her arm with a magic marker even if you do photoshop a moon and bat into the picture. </p>

<p>There may be more tendency to modification in post exposure at present than the situation when one only had a darkroom for post exposure, with its somewhat more limited techniques and several hours of experimentation on different effects and lots of rejected photographic paper to achieve post exposure creation, and that was not always successful given the unknowns encountered.</p>

<p>However, whether today or yesterday, the image visualisation, the interaction with subject and the exposure itself were never just a question of mastering the camera and lens variables, but rather a whole process that involves perceiving, imagining, experimenting, and creation of the photograph. No amount of reframing, altering of contrast, of tone or light will make a successful photo if the elements of composition, angle of view, interaction of masses, lines and color and enigma, drama or punctum are not there in the original capture and worked with prior to and during exposure by the photographer.</p>

<p>Getting to that point of relative image creation success is not a question of whether you have an automatic or manual camera, or master the selectivity process in Photoshop CS6, although manual camera operation can often benefit or stimulate the creative photographer, but rather it owes more to the psychology of personal perception of the world around us, an understanding of what contributes to art, some fortunate and punctual luck, great curiosity, and a driven mind.</p>

<p>The times they are a changing.... possibly, but I think only superficially so when it is a matter of photographic creation.</p>

<p>You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I take a “bad picture”, underexposed and blurry, I can fix it any time with the up to date softwares</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If someone has invented software that can make sharp images out of blurry captures, they're going to be a billionaire. Because as far as I know, there is absolutely no was to recapture lost sharpness. Just as there is no way to undo motion blur. Just as there is no way to undo a crop of an important detail on the edge of the frame. Just as there is no way to regenerate sharp depth of field from soft bokeh. Just as there is no way to move the plane of focus once it has been fixed in the image. Just as there is no way to recover detail that the sensor was unable to recover due to under and over exposure. Just as there is no way to redo the direction of a light source after the fact.<br /> <br /> These are examples of factors that need to be captured accurately. There are other factors that don't need to be decided at capture time. White balance? Fix it later. It makes no difference whatsoever. Contrast? You'll get a more accurate exposure if you go easy on the contrast until post processing. Black and white conversion? You'll have many more options if you wait until the post-processing stage to do this.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure what "old days" you're talking about. Perhaps you mean the old days before Ansel Adams ever walked into a darkroom. That guy made a science of image manipulation, e.g. special development techniques to achieve the contrast and the look that he visualized. Read his books to gain an appreciation for how complex his darkroom processes were. Is that what you mean by "old days"? The 1800's? Because by the beginning of the 20th Century, post-capture manipulation was a widely accepted practice.<br /> <br /> I agree that it's important "to assist new photographers". Let's assist them by debunking senseless myths about post processing.</p>

<p>It's certainly a valid post, especially as there's an unprecedented number of people spending a whole lot of money on software that would be totally unnecessary if they had just gotten the shot right in the first place. I have nothing against post processing/darkroom editing. If that gets someone the image that they want, more power to them. Even Ansel Adams mentioned that he didn't take photographs, he made them in the darkroom. It's not what works for me though, and I find the simple things like correct focus, good exposure, proper composition etc are more important and more rewarding for my work. I'll generally reshoot something (if it's possible) rather than attempt to fix it after the shot. But to each his or her own. I'm just not that good in the darkroom, and prefer to be out shooting to spending unnecessary time there. If someone excels in that or in post processing, then that is their path. It does add a little humor to my life seeing people so determined to get digital to look like certain film emulsions and paintings though.</p>

<p>Just to make things clear, this is not a debate of post processing or not. The process after the shooting was a vital part of the photography and the final result since it was invented. There's no doubt about it. <br /> When I am talking about old days Dan I mean the time when the photographer didn't have any other choice than fixing his composition, arranging the frame, take a good metering, focus accurately and then shoot. By today's standards most of these things are easy to achieve through the use of modern point & shoot cameras and not by the photographer. At this point his only worry is to get the composition right. Also, photographic software and plugins can do a lot these days to "fix" and not to recover, some of the things you mentioned. Take a look at the new Photoshop and especially the fixing of blurry photos. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html<br /> Matt you' re right my friend, but I was talking about pictures created in PS that has to do a little with the original shot (heavily processed), for example turning the day into night and so on...<br /> In general my feeling is that we are blessed with modern technology but it's also true that for many this seems to become an one way street. As many times said, at the end of the day is the result that counts and not the way it was achieved.<br /> In the meantime the biggest seller on the market, Canon, which obviously the last couple of years is heavily investing on video within the DSLRs, presented a camera such as the Canon EOS 1D C. They are claiming about video stills and "recorded" photos. You are filming a video and then you pick your (photo) stills at a very good quality. And of course this is only the beginning, their first camera to demonstrate this new way of "taking" pictures. <br /> Times they are changing indeed Arthur...one thing is for sure that the photographic future will carry many surprises and most important for how long the photographer will be in a protagonistic role when it comes to technique before shooting...robotic cameras, video photography and who knows what these manufacturers hold for us...Wishing a good day to everyone! Cheers!</p><div></div>

<p><em>What follows next is the creation and a final result that, in most cases, has nothing to do with the original shot.</em><br>

<em><br /></em>This would be the exception rather than the norm. Usually only very minor adjustments are made and the original shot can certainly be recognized. <br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>If someone has invented software that can make sharp images out of blurry captures, they're going to be a billionaire. Because as far as I know, there is absolutely no was to recapture lost sharpness. Just as there is no way to undo motion blur.</em></p>

<p>In many cases it <em>is </em>possible to undo motion blur or camera shake to an extent; not necessarily perfectly. You have to somehow estimate the trajectory of movement in the picture and then the movement can be deconvolved out. The result won't be as good as if there had been no movement, but sometimes you have no choice. Photoshop CC has a feature which can be used to do this; from my initial experiments with it it has significantly improved some shots that were initial failures due to too long exposure times.</p>

<p><em>there's an unprecedented number of people spending a whole lot of money on software that would be totally unnecessary if they had just gotten the shot right in the first place.</em></p>

<p>I disagree. Image editing software is necessary if the image is to be used somewhere, i.e. if it is to be converted into web displayable form, prints, etc. and the quality of the software greatly affects the degree of control you have over the end result. Also, cameras offer limited control over the "look" of the end result and if images are to separate from the pack, to give that extra edge, some editing is usually required. <br /><br /></p>

<p>People are making the pictures they want to make.</p>

<p>This is a bad thing?</p>

<p><em>By today's standards most of these things are easy to achieve through the use of modern point & shoot cameras and not by the photographer. At this point his only worry is to get the composition right.</em></p>

<p>This isn't quite right. Once you get to high resolution requirements, it can be quite difficult to achieve perfect focus across the frame or only on just the right part of the scene, especially if the subject is moving. Also, the more sloppily you expose, especially in low light, the more noisy your images are. Timing is an essential part of the capture process, and getting both timing and focus just right in what might be a one off situation. I was just shooting some flowers in a meadow at 9.30pm and the light was at first 1/400s f/2 ISO 400. I was focusing on a few plants and then let the background get blurred. The plants were swaying with the wind so to get perfect focus one needed to be patient. When I decided to get another shot with the meadow all of it in focus, I had to use a telephoto lens with tilt and a relatively small aperture (f/11, leading to 1/10s or so) and then the wind interfered with sharpness. Photography hasn't become trivially easy in the capture process - people just move onto more challenging subjects (or a different, more difficult to achieve look) since the old ones have been done over and over again. E.g. capturing figure skaters at f/2 instead of f/5.6 now that autofocus can handle the latter easily.</p>

<p><em>I was talking about pictures created in PS that has to do a little with the original shot (heavily processed), for example turning the day into night and so on...</em></p>

<p>A lot of the time those kinds of shots are done with lighting, at least when it comes to portraiture. Either which way they're more the exception rather then norm, and this kind of a site tends to rise cheap tricks above subtlety. In the real world I think the majority of photographers aim for more realism - not complete realism, but let's say improved only slightly in appearance from the mundane. Still, for a photograph to have lasting value, it has to capture something interesting (finding the right subject is often the most challenging part, and being there), in interesting light (yes, this still helps tremendously) and getting the timing of the shot and the composition just right, so that it becomes an interesting image. Then it can be tweaked a bit in PS. This is what most people do I think, rather than redo the shot entirely in post (which is a domain of its own). Cheap tricks wear out quickly, and after a while they're sickening to look at.</p>

<p><em>You are filming a video and then you pick your (photo) stills at a very good quality.</em></p>

<p>This kind of a technique has very limited application. You cannot use high shutter speeds if you want to be able to use the material as a smoothly running video. You cannot use slow shutter speeds because the frame rate is so high. You cannot use the optical viewfinder or phase-detect AF (at least for now), so it's basically manual focus on a big screen to see the focus properly. There is no possibility to use the most basic lighting equipment used by still photographers (flash). It stores enormous amounts of data yet each frame is an 8-bit JPG, so you have limited room for post-processing adjustments. And the resolution is quite low for still images (8MP?). In practice it might fit certain situations, but it's not a generic solution to catching the right moment at capture time. The photographer's eye, reflexes and experience are what allow the capture of just the right moment in many cases, and collecting a 8MP stream at 24fps is not a competitive method of achieving the same without manual timing in my opinion. Special situations, e.g. capturing a jump sequence with available continous light, it might work, but I cannot see myself storing all that data just to be able to select the right moment in post. The resolution is a bit too low by today's still photography standards, no RAW, and if those were amended, then the video files would be even more gigantic. In many situations I would think portraits would be substandard if I cannot use flash. Continous light uses more energy, for the same exposure requires much heavier duty equipment, and can cause squinting / too much heat. And flash can stop movement. Finally, the 1D C camera itself is very expensive. I think it's more an experiment, and a development project, than a practical tool, when it comes to picking stills from video feed. As a video camera I am sure it gives great quality when equipped with the right monitor, focusing equipment, and so on. Imagine a wedding day where the photographer might capture 1000 frames (in, say 12-14 hours). That's just one shot per 40-50 seconds. With a 24fps camera, capturing "clips" you can imagine the amount of data that would need to be processed. </p>

 

<p>I typically take a series of bad shots along the way to make a good, or even a great shots. I'd rather "get it right" or close to right as I can, in-camera, and to be left with a few minor tweaks on the computer (sharpening, cropping, and local adjustments, for example).<br>

Of course, my mood dictates the final picture, and my mood does change!</p>

In many years of film photography I used Kodachrome almost exclusively so I tried to think before I clicked. Post processing was limited to a wastebasket.

<p>The bottom line for me is predictability. Modern cameras work predictably well on AUTO. For even more predictability for a subject there are "SCN's" galore.<br>

As a last resort, one can always use manual settings to give uniform outcomes. I shoot on manual to find out <em>where I've been</em> when I post-process. Can't always do that with pre-sets.<br>

The idea of any "zone" system is to insure repeatability. <br>

Going out with such powerful instruments as modern digicams is a challenge to your pre-visualization skills. You have to think about results and whether AUTO is best for you nine out of ten tries. <br>

Mistakes are how you learn. Un-expected results that are, for me anyway, a huge part of photography. I "captured" this table top-pattern with new camera on <em>stun</em>. (How do you capture what you don't see?) The camera took it upon itself to figure out what would be awsome. Had no idea what would happen. Post processing resulted in a ton of new images. <em>Straight</em> out of the box.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>there's an unprecedented number of people spending a whole lot of money on software that would be totally unnecessary if they had just gotten the shot right in the first place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Whether something is necessary or unnecessary is a personal preference based upon the desired result. If you're cooking, salt and pepper are necessary only if you desire the flavor enhancement that they'll provide.<br /> <br /> Speaking for my own preferences, I don't want to see noise in the shadows of my images. I attempt to minimize noise by exposing carefully and managing contrast in post processing. Exposure values sometimes need to be adjusted in order to blend with the modified contrast. White balance routinely requires adjustment in order to eliminate color casts and to ensure realistic skin tones. Some of the lenses that I use, typically the zooms, add barrel or pin cushion distortion to the image. I prefer to eliminate that distortion.<br /> <br /> Even in cases where burning and dodging are not required, post processing can improve an image substantially. Each individual adjustment is subtle, but when combined, the impact is significant. In camera results would not be as effective (especially in the case of dynamic range and noise management) or as accurate (in the case of white balance and exposure), and they would be no better than the estimates that the photographer programmed into the camera before shooting. Making the adjustments in post processing with the help of a calibrated monitor yields more accurate results.<br /> <br /> There are plenty of things that I need to worry about at the time of capture: composition and framing, exposure, accuracy of focus, camera stability, motion blur, light quality and direction, depth of field, the decisive moment, etc. None of these things can be fixed after the fact. I prefer to dedicate my attention to these factors at capture time and worry about white balance and contrast and lens distortion later when I have the luxury of time and the ability to review the image carefully.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whether something is necessary or unnecessary is a personal preference based upon the desired result.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Actually, it's not. While I agree with all Dan's comments, with printing from film or digital, there is a need for post-processing of some sort. Having done black and white printing and sat in the darkroom with the person who did many of my color prints, it's obvious that there's no "push and print" type shooting for anyone that really cares about their results. Exposure and contrast always have to be adjusted. Color balancing is always required, whether the machine does it or a human does it. It's naive to think that there's no such thing as post-processing in any photographic medium unless one likes the type of output you get from a security camera.</p>

<p>Previously I've read any number of comments from participants in discussion forums, all to the effect that a well seen and taken photograph in the best case obviates the need for postprocessing, and in other cases at least lessens that need. I get this, and I am trying my best to live by it.</p>

<p>I don't really see any difference between the past and the present in terms of shooting and post processing, except that its done on a computer instead of in the darkroom. I remember the very first (B&W) photo I took that was intentionally "artistic." It was a time exposure of the moon reflecting on the water and outlining a swimming dock. I sent the film in to the drugstore and since they were machine printed, they were just a gray mess, with the water being gray instead of black, and the moon and reflections just white blobs. I had just started to use a friend's darkroom and so I tried printing the "underexposed" negatives with a number 5 (high contrast) paper and viola, a wonderful image appeared. Instead of grays, the water was deep black with the small waves appearing on the surface. The swimming dock was outlined by the white but sharply defined moon reflecting on the water, etc. This very first experience opened my eyes to the fact that there was an enormous amount of interpretation that could be done with the right materials and a good sense of what the potential could be in a negative. In later years I studied the Zone System to better control the contrast and exposure of my negatives to better match the characteristics of the print paper. Dodging and burning were frequently used to create a final print that was closest to what I wanted as a final result. Selenium toning also deepened the richness of the print. This is the artistic process.</p>

<p>Shooting slide film you were of course stuck with doing what you could in the camera. When shooting slides you often just have to give up a lot of dynamic range and you have to decide whether it will be in the shadows or highlights. Each image has its own requirements. If you stick to low contrast scenes, you can capture the full range with slide film, of course.</p>

<p>Today I shoot in raw format, which gives me the most dynamic range, white balance control, contrast control, sharpness control, noise control, etc. Who doesn't want control! I start by "getting it right" in the camera and then working from there according to my vision. Again, this is the artistic process. The tools have changed, but the process has not.</p>