Anybody else not enamored of post-production work?

[micah_marty1]

In a post below (on the Sony R1) the OP was criticized by one

respondent for saying that he doesn't want to be a "post-production

slave."

 

I've observed that the amount of work done to digital photographs in

Photoshop is sometimes worn as a badge of honor, as though "serious"

photographers are only as good as the amount of time they spend

using Photoshop. (I used to run into the same attitude among my

fellow large-format photographers: "You can't be a 'serious'

photographer if you don't develop your own film!")

 

But I wonder whether there aren't other "serious" photographers in

the digital age who (like their slide-shooting predecessors in the

film age) do not spend a lot of time fussing over individual

photographs after the shutter is closed -- not because they can't

but because they don't want to. (I have and know well PSCS2, but I

try to spend no more than a minute or two post-processing my own

photographs, including those that are published; I simply don't

enjoy the process.)

 

Obviously many digital photographers like post-production work: one

person on photo.net recently bragged that he spends "far more time

using Photoshop than [he] spends out taking photographs." But it

seems that there must be others who like me aren't enamored of the

computer stages of the photographic process.

 

To each his or her own, I say; there is no "right" or "wrong" answer

as long as the photographer is producing photographs that achieve

the desired goal. Or am I off-base?

 

(Moderator, feel free to kill this thread rather than move it to a

forum where no one will see it.)

[scott_eaton]

I think it's an exellent post and not the cliche' "I hate digital and love film because I hate computers" tripe we get here so often.

 

What I'm seeing now is a trend towards the opposite extreme. Basically an increase in a kind of peer pressure to only buy cameras that support RAW exports, and post process the hell out of everything before even learning to use the $1500 camera. I can't wait for $100 digicams to appear with RAW capability.

 

With film scanning, post processing is mandatory because of dust spotting and emulsion variances. More controversial with dSLR capture. The vast majority of my work with my 10D is taken with the higest quality Jpeg mode, and just like you, I spend maybe a minute or two post processing, which 99% of the time is some minor level adjustments, a couple saturation teaks (maybe), and the obligatory pass of USM. That's it. I only shoot RAW if I'm trying to fix a problem. I just finished up a catalog for work featuring chrome and steel parts, and it looks magnificient using just minimal Photoshop work.

[fk319]

Well lets see, is taking pictures your job? yes? then expect to do more post production work.

 

I was thinking about doing photography full time, but Photo.Net talked me out of it. I realy enjoy taking pictures of my family and our vacations. I do not enjoy getting to a certian spot an hour or two early, staying an hour or two late, and then coming home and trying to enhance the pictures I took. And lets not forget getting the pictures to the client, getting the client to pay and then finding another client.

 

On the other hand, how many hours did we spend trying different things to get to the point we are at? oh well..

 

PS, My family went through some old digital pictures that I have not gotten around to putting in my new format. They spent about 5 seconds on most and longer on a few. They laughed and oo'ed. Was it worth 20 minutes of post processing per picture? nope, was it worth taking the picture, YES! and yes, I spend more time behind the camera than I do post processing pictures.

[james_c._turner]

At first the post production work was fun, but now I hate it. It seems to take too much time to get the colors from digital that film reproduces naturally. And it isn't the fact that a particular digital picture is exposed wrong, etc... I know how to use my Nikon D1H. I find myself using my F5 and F100 more and more often.

[jpb]

I personally really enjoy the postproduction work involved with my digital photos. Not that I like sitting in front of a computer, but what like is taking an image that is 90 percent the way I want it and being able to meets its potential in Photoshop. Initially, I was very upset when I bought my 10D and found that very few photos were print ready out of the camera. But now, I really look forward to downloading my raw files and editing them to their fullest.

 

I used to shoot film and, being in NYC, the easiest way to get them printed was just to bring my undeveloped roll into the store, but with digital, I feel like I have so much more control on my own and there is no mystery about why a finished photo looks the way it does (did I mess up the shot or did the photo store mess up the print?).

 

jb

[melresnick]

I used to shoot slide film and know that I did it all in the camera, whether I liked the results or not. Got the projector and screen out to see the results.

 

I used to shoot color negative film and know that I did most of the work in the camera and let the lab do the rest. I also spent a lot of money on prints that weren't just the way I wanted them. I didn't have enough control over the final product for the amount of money I could justify spending.

 

I used to shoot B&W film and spend hours and hours in the darkroom. I got what I wanted, though not often enough. But I had to store and mix chemicals, have a darkroom area, and plan to commit large blocks of time.

 

I now shoot digital and give each image the amount of postprocessing time it requires and deserves. I have complete control over the final product and can start and stop anytime I want. I don't set up the projector, mix chemicals, or pay a lab to do what I can do. And it doesn't cost me a cent to push the shutter button.

 

Shooting RAW+JPG, I can use or give away the JPGs with little or no postprocessing, and I can spend forever tweaking the RAW images when I really want to. And I get to learn more every day.

 

I've enjoyed each of these media but wouldn't want to give up digital.

 

No complaints from here about any kind of photography. Err..., except scanning. Ugh.

[scott_eaton]

<I>It seems to take too much time to get the colors from digital that film reproduces naturally.</i><P>Boy, Velvia just reproduces colors so 'naturally', don't you think? Makes me just want to sell my 10D and go back to plotting the processing variances of my pro labs.

[byronlawrence]

I like taking the picture, I like working with them, I like taking them with the intent to work on them, I like working on pictures that I never intended to do anything with. because of this I like to shoot RAW because it gives me the most room for play,,, like one big *ss sand box.

 

When everthing was film and darkroom I think I heard the similar complaints. some said they loved the darkroom some said they loved taking pictures but hated the darkroom. some loved both. some mastered both, some mastered one or the other. nothing has changed, just the medium.

[conrad_hoffman]

IMO, post processing is important if you want the best out of your shots, but it shouldn't take more than a few minutes unless you suck at it. I do pretty much the same routine to most shots, fixing up color, contrast, and USM, but there's no reason to make a career out of it. At that level, I enjoy it, but if I had to spend hours, it would be pure drudgery. It's also way faster than anything I do in the darkroom.

[andrew_carlson]

I agree that post production work shouldn't be laborious or labor intensive. I can understand that if it seems that it is labor intensive that someone might not enjoy doing it. However I have to admit some really cool things can be done that do take time.

 

I've seen threads on here and the film types just can't wait to get their film back, they're bubbling over with anticipation they are so excited. For me when I tried film a dozen years ago I couldn't stand waiting for processing (nor could I afford it) it irritated the hell out of me so I never progressed byeond to a darkroom and left photography behind. Today I can use it as stress management and I enjoy it as a hobby thanks to dSLRs.

 

I try to keep my post production work down to 5 minutes per shot. Usually I just tweak here and there. C1 from phase one is really good at showing me real time sliders. Photoshop, well I'm starting to fight the interface in PS. I just want to cycle through my shots, tweak, crop if I choose to, and process. Capture one has a really nice batch interface for me to do that.

 

So yes to each his own, if someone wants to spend hours on a single shot (and I know people that have done that) let 'em. In my opinion it isn't going to make me more money if I spend 5 minutes or 5 hours 'tweaking' a shot in post production.

[zacker]

while I dont really have a problem with post prod. I do enjoy getting in there and trying to "Better: the photo.. Although it is said you should make the photo as you want it to be when you press the shutter release! Im not that good a photographer yet so I;ll stick to post prod. Seriously, I dont mind post prod...unless there are hundreads of pics, like my sister in laws wedding... allmost 300..it took me a week to get em right!

lol..

-zacker-

[ericwarnke]

I enjoy post-processing. I think part of this is because I'm a computer person to begin with. I have also had quite a bit of PS work under my belt before I got into photography big time.

 

The way I look at post procssing is bringing the mental image that I saw into something that can be shared with others. Most portfolio images that I have took several hours or several days in photoshop to do the finishing work. I enjoy this work as much as I do taking and sharing the photos.

[bryce_mohan]

Certainly post work is not loved by all (or perhaps many). I happe to enjoy it quite a bit and see it as an integral part of the photographic process.

 

Personally I'm always a little chagrined when I see people debate how much time should be spent. One might ask how much time should be spent developing film? The answer is irrelevant in both cases.

 

The amount of time spent on digital post work is entirely dependant on the artist. It's a tool like anything else. If you feel the photo is perfect as it comes from the camera, more power to you. If you feel it can be enhanced with the aid of some work, more power to you.

 

I would like to add one more point. One of the early posters decries the need for RAW files. I suspect this person is a hobbyist (which is certainly not a negative). My point is that if one makes a living at photos and their output is of utmost importance the benefit of RAW's is at the least, apparent.

 

I'll rest my case with just a single point; My camera (canon 20D) along with most DSLR's will actually capture 12bits per channel in RAW, as opposed to 8bits in .jpg mode. What's the difference you say? Oh, just about 4,000 tonal levels per channel. Take a look at your histogram after leveling an 8bit image versus a 12bit. All those jagged, saw tooth structures in your 8bit histogram represent missing color information.

 

Personally I'm a little skepticle that people who 'know PS really well' as stated by several posters, can't understand the value in good post work. However, as another poster points out, this may be the difference between those who do this for a living and the hobbyist.

[lex_jenkins]

I love the wet darkroom, dislike the post production end of digital photography. It doesn't have to make sense. It's just my preference.

 

That's why I shoot the highest rez JPEGs whenever I can get away with it, making all the necessary adjustments in the camera. With my D2H and daylight shooting it's a snap. Other lighting situations are more challenging and I'll probably shoot NEFs simultaneously.

 

Having used Pixmantec's RawShooter for about a week now I'm just starting to be able to tolerate the basic RAW workflow. No special fx, not even any cropping or healing brush. But it sure cranks out the basically fixed TIFFs and JPEGs easily and quickly. Next best thing to turning my RAW files over to a lab for competent tweaking and proofing.

 

Still haven't been able to force myself to enjoy working in layers, etc.

[ted_marcus1]

I like post-processing to the extent that it gives me complete control over the appearance, color balance, and (sometimes) composition of my pictures. I'm still relatively new to digital cameras (I got my Rebel XT in April, after six years of scanning film), but I do have a workflow set up with raw files and RSE that's reasonably efficient. I really like that I'm spending my post-processing time optimizing my images rather than cloning out the "hickeys" that inevitably appear on film, or employing heroic measures to minimize film grain on older negatives. I've been scanning some negatives lately, which really makes me appreciate the advantages of digital.

 

What I do find is that the as-shot automatic color balance on the Rebel XT often comes very close to the correct color balance, or at least it's a good starting point. I can compensate for any exposure flaws in RSE, often extracting shadow detail using the "fill light" slider. What I usually have to do with the resulting TIFF file is capture sharpening (with Focus Magic), along with increasing the contrast with an S-curve, minor color correction, and possibly some tweaking of individual hues. I usually do all of that correction in iCorrect EditLab Pro.

 

I don't think it's a matter of what a "serious photographer" does. If you want full optimal control over what your pictures look like, you need to shoot raw and some spend time in post-processing. If you're content with the JPEGs that your camera's automation produces, that's fine too-- very often those JPEGs look quite good straight out of the camera, certainly better than what you used to get from a roll of Kodak Max processed at the supermarket mini-lab. It's all up to you. You're quite right that there's no single right or wrong answer!

[tholte]

I am a long time film guy that loves digital. I have PS Elements 2.o and a $39.00 Photokit Sharpener plug in. I spend about three minutes per image in post production. I think that most of us who did a lot of printing in the dark room know that getting a well-exposed and lighted image makes a lot of post production work un-necessary. I don't know how to do the layer thing and am not interested in combining images and all of that kind of stuff. I would like to go to a Santa Fe Workshop sometime next year and take the basic digital course and learn how to do some more sophisticated things and do things in a more coherent and cogent manner. I have more fun taking images than I do processing them. Time is also a factor, you can only do so much. My wife is constantly making unreasonable demands on my free time like mowing the yard, painting etc when I really should be out taking photos.

[greg s]

"Anybody else not enamored of post-production work?"

 

Not me... I like the control immensely and really don't need to spend much time to get it right. Shot a couple rolls of film on the backup cam during our most recent trip... nowhere near as good as what I was able to do with the DSLR (wish I had had 2 digital bodies). Absolutely no turning back. -Greg-

[phyrpowr]

I kind of like it, nice to see my basic shot getting better as I tweak it, but like a poster above, I don't do a lot. Just some contrast, USM, cropping, I'm not pixel peeping at a 300% level

 

I really think some people overdo it, get carried away, then decide it's too much like work

[andrew robertson]

Beats the hell out of making fine prints in the darkroom. If you're the kind of person who

used a lab for all your work, or never bothered to spot or otherwise care for your final print,

I can see how digital photography might seem like a lot of extra work.

[fpa]

I used to say that I went shooting to have something to work on in the darkroom, and now I do the same with scanning + photoshop. I like being able to finally make the print look like what I saw when I took the picture, rather than a literal recording of what was there.

 

Basically, it now gives me the ability to dodge and burn in color, without the color shifts or other attendent issues in wet-darkroom color. Not every picture deserves the full-court press, but it's nice to have the ability when the right image comes along.

[troyammons]

My 2 cents so.....

 

I shoot both and I will say this. If you want to spend less time in post production for digital, do 3 things.

 

1. Shoot in raw format on a custom White balance.

2. Make sure your computer system has a close to perfect balance, from monitor to printer.

3. Set up a custom color profile for your camera.

 

Those 3 things will help more than anything IMO.

[godfrey]

I save primarily in RAW format. 90% of my edits from RAW to finished image take 5

minutes or less done manually

and can be automated. It's the other 10% that take more time in post processing work.

<br><br>

What's key is:<br>

- Get the exposure right.<br>

- Get the framing right.<br>

- Having scenes with acceptable contrast for normal processing.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[tholte]

Troy, I don't think so! How about these three things 1. find an interesting subject. 2. Shoot the interesting subject in some really nice light. 3. Get your camera to properly expose and focus the above two. Does not matter if it was Raw or Jpeg, screw up the first three and the rest is irrelevent.

[frank_dzambic]

Epson paper and ink is terribly expensive. So I only print a small percentage of my pictures. Of the small percentage that get printed, it's worth spending as much time as it takes to optimize the print in any and every way possible. These are the images that showcase my ability and skills. I also find it enjoyable to watch the image "come to life" on screen before printing it.

 

I also shoot simultaneous RAW and jpg. If I'm only e-mailing photos to somebody, I might do a quick 30 second contrast/saturation/sharpening routine to the jpgs before sending them off. (The jpgs also enhance my workflow by allowing an instantaneous full screen preview of all my shots, and allow me to decide immediately after a shoot which ones go straight to the trash bin.)

 

So, the same as I wouldn't scan every single frame of a 36 exp roll of film in the past, I don't spend an hour tweaking every digital image I shoot either. My time is limited, and I only spend it on the images that really count.

[oskar_ojala]

By preparing well for taking a shot, I save a lot of time in PS. I usually make some brightness and contrast adjustments to photos, after which they are done, about 1-5 mins. per shot that I choose to be good enough for use. Some guys do a million adjustments in at least two color spaces and obviously make at least ten local adjustments. Each to his own, but I like getting outdoors to photograph, not to slave in PS for adjustments that can be avoided.

 

But there will always be the gearheads and procssheads in photography, who value equipment buying/postprocessing processes more than actually becoming better photographers. The way I see it, that's just another hobby :-)