Amount of post processing

[RaymondC]

<p>I normally do landscapes for this hobby. Mines are pretty minor, a few minutes tops in Lightroom. I also shoot the odd slide film so that does not lie, that is projected so it's not scanned and then edited. I bumped into this youtube video:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>Is this what is done often usually with digital photography? I've attended some seminars of some pro's and they do say they dodge and burn, they photoshop out the footprints, Steve McCurry recently hit some headlines about his assistants cloning stuff out. So even with the film days, was this type of editing done also after it was scanned? </p>

<p>Admittedly I have read the odd book, but I haven't until now watched a entire video on post processing. When I started learning photography it was those film era books and shooting slide film learning how to meter etc. So I guess from that point of view it was waiting for the correct conditions and weather. </p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Here is an example of traditional wet photography editing :<br>

http://gizmodo.com/see-how-three-famous-photographs-were-edited-before-pho-1295302631<br>

As to what is usually done with digital photography, as I understand it, it depends on the editorial rules for a publication and the purpose of the image. </p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p> I also shoot the odd slide film so that does not lie, that is projected</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I don't agree. Most slide films, but perhaps Velvia in particular exaggerate and change colours, often well away from what the photographer saw, varying from a little exaggeration to (depending on the light) totally artificial colour casts. Also slide film compresses exposure range so you lose detail in shadows and highlights and this deviates the result from "reality". What's more its often impossible to recover what your film has lost you whilst or after scanning and lightening just gives you a lighter black rather than uncovering the detail you know was in there somewhere. But not any more! The difference between truth and photograph is often far greater on a slide than McCurry's people tried to achieve by taking out a few marginal distractions. </p>

<p>I have a lot more difficulty in editing a scanned slide to achieve reality or even plausibility that I do with digital originals that enjoy a wider dynamic range to begin with.</p>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<p>The problem is to stop thinking about what the <em>process</em> is, or should be, but rather think about what result you want. Once you know what result you want, then, and only then, should you think about what process will deliver that result. In general, if your objective is <em>work flow</em> then you will forever chase whatever is fashionable; if your objective is the result, you will define the work flow.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>The difference between truth and photograph is often far greater on a slide than McCurry's people tried to achieve by taking out a few marginal distractions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to say I think this is a great exaggeration. The only thing you can alter in a slide is the overall color and contrast and only by changing film: with Photoshop you can change, or delete, any object in the photo in addition to changing overall colors, local contrast, and change the hues and saturation of individual colors. You can also add or subtract local sharpness or clarity easily. Then there are all the instant "art filters". It is just not the same. I am not sure why people say this sort of thing. Who spent their time painting out electric wires in photos predigital? Certainly not in slides unless they made an intermediate print. The Soviets did a whole lot of hamfisted retouching of prints or black and white negatives to removed purged individuals, but the results were usually terrible, photos that could not be manipulated were simply suppressed. Today any photo can be manipulated in gross or subtle ways if desired.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I also shoot the odd slide film so that does not lie</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The biggest "lie" is framing the shot through the lens. The world doesn't come in such discreet little rectangles!<br>

<br>

There's a difference between truth and accuracy. You're talking about accuracy, not truth.<br>

<br>

These so-called lies you're talking about can tell deeper truths than simply "what was there."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what the photographer saw</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A lot of photographers see ahead right to the print. They're not always looking back at "what they saw." What they see in the moment of shooting is as much in their mind's eye as it is before them. <br>

<br>

Did Monet see landscapes as he painted them or as they were? Is there a difference? How about Van Gogh? I can only imagine what these guys "saw"!</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>Thanks to Ray for the video link, and to Colin for the short reference to the darkroom post exposure treatment by a darkroom professional. Those of us who face or have faced both systems probably have had the difficulty of effectively embracing both and the not simple learning curves of each. I presently do only moderate histogram related Photoshop modification of digital images and considerably more elaborate and time comsuming darkroom treatment with film. It probably should be the other way around at present, but as a semi-amateur photographer (depending only in a smaller part of my activity on professional demands and sales) my time is quite limited to move further up the learning curve of digital post treatment.</p>

<p>Correct conditions and weather are important in landscape, as you say. It all relates to light, its quality and angle of course and this is true for all subjects. Dodging and burning and their equivalents in digital treatment are needed even in those landscape image cases and where our interest is in highlighting certain parts of the landscape relative to others and creating (or re-creating) what we feel should be the mood or atmosphere. Overruling nature in subtle ways.</p>

<p>Unless one's aim is to create extra-reality effects of color or tone (that is, extreme "overruling", Sometimes even effective) or to rescue images where the number of pixels is limited in certain regions and other imbalances prevail, I have the feeling that the best "management" of making a photograph from start to finish occurs just before and at the moment of capture. At that time we can realize our subjective perception of a subject within the constraints of the possible point of view, lighting and composition. This may not be possible in all cases, but probably is in the large majority of them. While obtaining a so-called "straight print" is not the general case, the limiting of the extent of eventual post exposure treatments is a good approach.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Correct conditions and weather are important in landscape</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I consider this worth questioning. I'd question it because I actually think it can often be a problem. Photographers often do seem to wait for the the "correct" conditions and it's why so many photos look the same and why there's almost an agreed-upon and built-in sense of drama to a lot of landscapes. In my own shooting, I often find that nudging myself to go with what's there rather than waiting for what I want forces me to find new angles on things and new ways of approaching subjects. Often, what I would "wait" for winds up being what has been previewed in my mind or predicted by what I've seen before. When I think about a lot of my favorite photos, both mine and others, there's such an important element of unpredictability to them. </p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>I think the biggest misconception is "truth in photography" as is often been discussed in these threads. There is no truth other than what the photographer decided to keep in the frame at whatever settings are used, and what the viewer decides they want to see in the photograph. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ray -,</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies."</em><br>

—Pablo Picasso</p>

</blockquote>

<h1> </h1>

[david_henderson]

<p>So, Ray. Process until what you have in front of you is what you want to see-and maybe what you wanted to see before you actually shot it. Its when you don't know what you want the photograph to look like , and so go off in search of "recipes" that photographic weaknesses become apparent.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I guess that the avoidance of truth or reality as David and Fred mention is what really inspires me and perhaps them and some others. Seeking the right weather and conditions in landscapes does not mean what might be thought of as ideal conditions. It has for me nothing to do with picture postcard results or oft seen dramatic images commonly associated by many with the goal of photography of those subjects. My statement "Overruling nature in subtle ways" refers to subjective perceptions of those subjects instead of accurate reproduction of what is seen, but perhaps I did not clarify well enough that point.</p>

[wogears]

<blockquote>

<p>The only thing you can alter in a slide is the overall color and contrast and only by changing film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wanna bet? Filters (pre and post), contrast masking, local color adjustment, adding skies from another slide... If you are actually interested, search "Pete Turner Repronar".</p>

[rossb]

Just do whatever you want to do. Add fake sky's and a pirate boat if you want or try to get a shot that is as realistic to the

scene as you can manage. It just does not matter except to yourself. I am talking about hobby photos for your own

pleasure. I am going hiking in Montana in a minute and will take some photos with B/W film. I will develop myself, scan,

adjust white and black points and crop. I do not have issues with scratches or dust as I am good at the processing thing

but I would use Lightroom to fix that if needed. It's B/W so realism is out the window. I decided that B/W consumes all

my time that I have for photography so that is all i do now. No digital, color or anything else. Obviously I will grab a snap

with my cell here and there.

[User_5888660]

<p>Craig Cooper's post above is spot on.</p>

<p>The process does not dictate the image, the desired image dictates the process. </p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I started out developing and printing my own black and white. Ansel Adam's books, "The Negative" and "The Print" were my bibles. His zone system was all about manipulating both the exposure and development to capture the dynamic range of the scene in a manner that would be best printed on photo paper, which has a limited dynamic range, like 50:1 vs way more than that in the actual scene. Furthermore, once in the darkroom Adams did tons of dodging and burning. Filters were also mentioned above, which can dramatically alter tonal range and contrast in the original negative or slide. So, when I began processing digital, I saw no real difference in the goal of the process, which is to attain what Adams called the "pre-visualized" final print. He is quoted as saying "the negative is the score and the print is the performance" referring of course to music, since he was also a pianist.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Further from Ansel Adams (<em>The Negative</em>), on the question of 'realism'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is impossible for a photographic print to duplicate the range of<br />brightnesses (luminances) of most subjects, and thus photographs<br />are to some degree interpretations of the original subject values.<br />Much of the creativity of photography lies in the infinite range of<br />choices open to the photographer between attempting a nearly literal<br />representation of the subject and freely interpreting it in highly subjective<br />"departures from reality." My work, for example, is frequently<br />regarded as "realistic," while in fact the value relationships<br />within most of my photographs are far .from a literal transcription<br />of actuality. I employ numerous photographic controls to create an<br />image that represents "the equivalent of what I saw and felt" (to<br />paraphrase a statement I heard on a number of occasions from Alfred<br />Stieglitz- the great photographer of the early twentieth century).<br />If I succeed, the viewer accepts the image as its own fact, and responds<br />emotionally and aesthetically to it. It is safe to assume that<br />no two individuals see the world about them in the same way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As the poem (<em>Ephemera: Greek prose poems</em> By Mitchell Starrett Buck) says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For Truth, alone, does not exist. Seek Beauty if thou desirest peace.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

[RaymondC]

<p>Did that did that in the film days when the pro's handed over a slide or a dupe to the editors? </p>

<p>Turning a bland cloudy sky to a sunset red might be a bit overdoing it, not? Didn't pro's shoot slides, view them on a light table with a loupe and then handed the slide or dupe to the editor? Ok, maybe not Velvia, things like Provia or Elite Chrome or Astia. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Yes, several thousands of them....to the NG editor. :>)</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Ansel Adams confessed to cutting down a small tree which was blocking his view - in Yosemite, no less. Perhaps that's called "pre-processing."</p>

<p>Photos for documentaries and journalism should not be materially altered. You should not clone out footprints and trash, nor add simulated smoke from artillery bombardment.Dodging and burning have been accepted traditionally, but times have changed. Each agency will have rules to follow, much like the NYT and other papers have a "style book" for writing. Deviate, and your employment will be brief.</p>

<p>Anything goes with landscapes and fine art in general. Would you have painters not mix pigments or trim brushes? Don't overthink this. Art is not a documentary. It doesn't even have to resemble life.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>It seems the gist of this conversation centers around the belief that somehow there is more “truth” or “accuracy” or even “honesty” when the photo is minimally processed or “altered.” This topic comes up from time to time. I remember one fellow years ago that wanted to shoot with a lens with a focal length that would be closest to that of the human eye, because that would be more “true” or something like that. I think this type of belief comes more from a certain personality trait than anything else. The fact is, as many have already pointed out, the medium of photography itself automatically alters reality by framing the subject in an artificial way, as Fred pointed out. Choice of film further alters reality because of the inherent properties of the film, not to mention processing, etc. Then look at choice of lens, from wide angle to telephoto, and aperture, which can blur the background or be shot at f64 with swings and tilts on the camera (view camera) allowing everything from the near foreground to infinity to be sharply in focus. I have some shots like that. Choice of shutter speed can alter the image, as well as choice of iso. Choice of camera, digital or film, format, etc. can have a profound effect on the finished product. All these choices go into the creative decision making with a final image in mind. The bottom line is you are making choices that affect the outcome from the moment you pick up the camera. The OP seems to be promoting at the idea that beyond picking up a camera and making all the above mentioned choices, that more decisions about how the finished print will look is now undesirable and considered “post” processing, which is now altering the image too much. This makes no sense. Why would someone make a dozen creative decisions before and during the taking of the photo, and then wash his hands of any more decision making after that? <br>

Most of us here do photography as an act of creative expression, an art form. As Fred pointed out: “Did Monet see landscapes as he painted them or as they were? Is there a difference? How about Van Gogh? I can only imagine what these guys "saw"!” We want a certain look to the finished product. We choose our equipment and all the variables available as we take the photo, as well as making decisions as to how to “develop” the image given the technology at hand. As I said, it just doesn’t make sense to stop all the creative decision making once the shutter has been pushed. Why?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Steve, very well said.</p>

<p>I'd only add one small thing.</p>

<p>For me, it does make sense that some people would want to stop at what seem like turning points in the work flow. So I can understand those who want to stop once the film is processed and leave it at that. just as I can understand some writers who insist on writing in a stream of consciousness style, being as creative as they want as they go, but limiting themselves to that by not going back and editing what they already wrote.</p>

<p>What I can't for the life of me understand, just like you, is that one method would be considered more or less honest or more or less true in an art context. There's just as much honesty and truth in Monet and Van Gogh as there is in the paintings of the realists. There's just as much honesty and truth in Pictorialist photos as in Modernist photos. There's just as much honesty and truth in Bresson, Brassai, Larry Clarke, and Martin Parr as there is in LaChapelle, Man Ray, Serrano, and Moriyama. Some are more <em>brutally</em> honest than others, but there's honesty and truth even in the most manipulated photos that depart from more traditional views of the world.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Manipulation produces truth? When I'm doing my taxes next year I'll remember that.

[Brad_]

<p>Your camera, your pixels/film. Do what you need to do to help release the power within your photo.</p>

<center>.

<p><img src="http://citysnaps.net/2015%20Photos/Dog%20shot%202%201-%209-10.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <em> San Francisco, California • Copyright ©Brad Evans 2016 </em><br /> .</p>

</center>

[sjmurray]

<p>There is obviously a certain mindset where you snap the photograph trusting the camera's metering and autofocusing decisions, whether its slide film or jpgs, then simply "leave it alone." I can see there is a sort of "purity" to this mindset. These are the folks who profess to the dictum: "get it right in the camera," as if that's all that is needed. Some people are drawn to this type of simplicity and want to avoid the messiness of further creative decision making. I get that (somewhat).</p>