Post-processing to perfection?

[Tony Parsons]

I enjoy PP work, just as I did darkroom work all those years ago (first film camera and dev tank in 1969, then negs printed by local camera shop until I had a darkroom (OK, blacked out kitchen at night with red cellophane over the pilot light for the gas water heater)). Eschewed digital cameras for some time, but was finally converted, and enjoy not only shooting RAW but also finding out what was there that I didn't spot ! Posted some pics on here, some people seem to like them - good enough for me.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I was reading through this and was thinking about when I was in a film photography program the standard was to strive for perfection, proper exposure, contrast, NO spots (automatic deduction for any spots), the mind set was you would only show work you felt was your best. The work would be critiqued by the class and the professor so you had to explain your choices and take the occasional raking over the coals, You wouldn't show the public any work that wasn't of that quality.  That was basically for photographers being programmed for pre-professional editorial, fashion, documentary and commercial product photography. I had to choose between finishing the upper level courses in the program or quit my job, which I also liked very much. I chose to leave, but continued to be involved as a sometimes quasi-pro for weddings and an amateur but serious street like photography.  Though I incorporated much of the way of thinking about working on photos for my amateur stuff, my ideas about what makes a photo good to me also changed over time.  Less rigid about "perfection" which you realized has a huge subjective component, but also I sort of got more into thinking about what I think each photo needs in post without a set concept.  As someone said, sometimes I take a photo that because of the light, I know I'm going to have to spend time and really work over. But the process is enjoyable.

Generally I believe as the base for any photograph is to get the best exposure I can in-camera. A stick in time saves nine.  And try to be as aware as I can of the light and how it will affect the photo,  Light in a photo is one of my main subjects.  If the light is super contrasty and outside the range of the camera, I tend to expose for the highlights, as I favor blocked shadows generally to blown highlights and will also in those situations try to get as flat an exposure as possible to retain the ability to work in the margins.  Anyways that's how I tend to do it.

 

[marceppy]

An internet definition of perfection:  “the quality or condition of being perfect.  The act or process of perfecting.” 

 

The question seems relative, depends on personal preference, experience, the tools at hand, and on the intended application. As an index to achieving PP “perfection” it really can depend on the PP programs available to the photographer.  One may view an image as perfection and another sees it as trash.  So it varies person to person.  Perfection dependent image correction. (👀 just Joking ).  No one size fits all.  The perfection index therefore goes from “it needs PP” to “not there yet”, to it’s perfect”!  I think 🤔 

[mikemorrellNL]

On 8/17/2023 at 7:00 PM, David_Cavan said:

The more time spent around photography the more I agree with this statement. Photography is a personal thing, and whatever works for an individual is fine with me. I do a lot of post-processing, and enjoy it. The goal for me is based on the notion that the image looks as I remember the occasion to have been. And, if that's not "good enough", whatever that means, I will change parts of the image to be how I wish it had looked. There's a phrase we used back when I worked on large IT projects, "perfection is the enemy of good enough". Photography is my opportunity to decide what is good enough, and stop there. Maybe. 

Since I quite real work, and went full-time with photography I've found that the images that sell best are those I like the most - there's something about getting a result to the place I'm happy with that seems to stand out for others. 

I agree completely with your response(all of it)!

[mikemorrellNL]

On 8/17/2023 at 4:24 PM, paddler4 said:

I couldn't agree more. The first sentence is the key. Asking people whether they postprocess their images is the wrong question. ALL digital photos are postprocessed. The question is: "do you postprocess yourself, or do you leave it to a recipe the camera manufacturer's programmers devised?" Those recipes--the camera's styles for creating a JPEG from the capture--are often good enough for many people. I rarely even look at them. I want control over the image I create, so I virtually always shoot only raw. Sometimes an image doesn't need much work; the software's initial rendering is pretty close. Often it isn't remotely close. It's all a matter of the conditions under which the image was captured and the photographer's intent.

Some people will respond to your question by saying "I try to get it in camera as close as possible to what I want." I do as well. That's an entirely different question. The capture is the raw material, and you want the best material you can create. Then you have to put that raw material to work, and that's postprocessing.

Fully agree. Only RAW photo's are 'minimally processed' in-camera. If you shoot (alternatively or addionally) JPEG photos, you have the option of selecting and adjusting in-camera jpeg 'picture styles'. Like you, I shoot exclusively in RAW. 

Other responses (with which I also fully agree) point out too that post-process can't 'fix' a mediocre in-camera photo (lighting, exposure settings, focus, etc.). Out of camera post-processing can IMHO only 'enhance' a good in-camera photo. So for any photos or (culled) photoshoot, I always first myself whether my selected in-camera RAW photos meet my 'good enough' standards. If not, then I'll consider whether and how I can 'bring them up to my standard through 'out of camera' post-processing.

I never consider my photography to be 'art'. Just a learned craft through which I (voluntarily) take and deliver photos for various organizations. But I still have 'personal standards' and I don't deliver any photos that don't meet these. So my PP is limited to editing photos so that they meet my personal standards. By no means perfection but (for me) good enough to deliver.

[samstevens]

14 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

post-process can't 'fix' a mediocre in-camera photo (lighting, exposure settings, focus, etc.). Out of camera post-processing can IMHO only 'enhance' a good in-camera photo

I'd give this a caveat. Generally speaking, this is reasonable thinking. A lot of people think post processing is a way to fix inferior in-camera shots. That's an extremely limited view of post processing. However, I have post processed to make technically poor photos into something worthwhile. That's when the content of the photo—despite of how "bad" the exposure and other technical aspects are—can lead me to post process in non-traditional or different-than-usual ways.

Early on, I took this photo (shot as a jpg before I learned about RAW). I liked it but didn't think there was anything I could do to overcome the extreme lighting conditions I was working with as a novice who didn't really know how to handle them. A friend saw potential and recommended I not get stuck in thinking only of classically-good technique and style. He suggested I look at some Japanese photographers, particularly Eikoh Hosoe. I spent many challenging and enjoyable hours learning new post processing methods and realized then that post processing offered a wide range of possibilities. Not only did my post processing skills improve, but that experience really changed my way of seeing and thinking about photography. Now, I think of post processing not just as an after-the-fact matter. The more I learned to finesse and experiment and even create in post, the more flexible and free and detailed my own vision became when behind the camera.

[mikemorrellNL]

On 8/17/2023 at 11:09 PM, samstevens said:

Also, there's a tendency among some to think of post processing as the over saturation and over-the-top awfulness that seems to stand out these days when browsing through photos on the web. Now, I fully believe there's a place for over-the-top, when it's done with intention and some degree of skill and mastery. 

David LaChapelle comes to mind.

But, more often a lot of stuff that's overcooked just looks kitschy or silly or of a grade school caliber.

What many people have mentioned in this thread, though, is post processing to get a natural look. That often means spending time finessing the tools that are as likely to create unsightly artifacts as not. There's a refinement that takes place when one wants to post process yet still have it appear natural or at least more photographic than computer-graphic or bad. Ironically, or contradictorily, it can take a lot of post processing work to get something to look like it wasn't post processed, if that's the desired end.

Hi Sam, I agree. Especially the bit about "intention and some degree of skill and mastery'.

FWIW, I think that there are 4 very different categories where this applies:

- the desire of many amateur photographers to correct and enhance their photo's to get a 'natural look'

- a further developed (or temporary) 'style' or 'look' can be important (and natural) for artists - including artistic photographers; Through their unique 'style' or 'look', they stand out form the crowd

- a 'brand-oriented' (temporary) 'style' or 'look'

- photographers who experiment with how what PP can do to their photos

 

IHMO, the 1st category (including me) is wide and includes amateur photographers who just aim to PP their out-of-camera shots (or not) to get a 'natural look'. No frills.

The 2nd category includes artists and photographers who - for artistic and/or commercial reasons - gradually establish a unique 'style' or 'look' with which they gradually become associated.

The 3rd categorie is commercial. Many brands usually strive - through ads - to a) stand out from the crowd and b) nuture some kind of 'positive consumer relationship' with the brand

The 4th category includes a relatively small group of photographers/imagers who continue to experiment with what they can do with images that are based on photography.

Disclaimer: all the above is just my personal opinion, for which I have no evidence whatsoever!

 

[rconey]

"Who is doing the post processing?......"  I recall back when I still shot film (pre-2004) I left a bunch of rolls at a camera shop for 1 hour developing (remember camera shops, 1 hour developing?). The guy there asked me what was going on with my camera. I explained that I was bracketing shots because of the high contrast. He laughed and said "that explains it. I had to adjust each print separately because exposures were all over the place". Sure enough, each shot was identical even though I had done plus/mins 2 stops exposures on each scene.....  He redid them for me without adjustment.

[mikemorrellNL]

On 8/19/2023 at 7:25 PM, samstevens said:

I'd give this a caveat. Generally speaking, this is reasonable thinking. A lot of people think post processing is a way to fix inferior in-camera shots. That's an extremely limited view of post processing. However, I have post processed to make technically poor photos into something worthwhile. That's when the content of the photo—despite of how "bad" the exposure and other technical aspects are—can lead me to post process in non-traditional or different-than-usual ways.

Early on, I took this photo (shot as a jpg before I learned about RAW). I liked it but didn't think there was anything I could do to overcome the extreme lighting conditions I was working with as a novice who didn't really know how to handle them. A friend saw potential and recommended I not get stuck in thinking only of classically-good technique and style. He suggested I look at some Japanese photographers, particularly Eikoh Hosoe. I spent many challenging and enjoyable hours learning new post processing methods and realized then that post processing offered a wide range of possibilities. Not only did my post processing skills improve, but that experience really changed my way of seeing and thinking about photography. Now, I think of post processing not just as an after-the-fact matter. The more I learned to finesse and experiment and even create in post, the more flexible and free and detailed my own vision became when behind the camera.

Great examples, @samstevens!  Apart from the obvious  red to B/W color correction, I love you're subtle adjustments. Not just cropping but really bringing out the left face, transforming The exposure of the 'subject's' armpit and torso and bringing out both texture and detail on the subject's left arm. I'm sure I could discover more subtle adjustments if I spent more time.

[mikemorrellNL]

22 hours ago, rconey said:

"Who is doing the post processing?......"  I recall back when I still shot film (pre-2004) I left a bunch of rolls at a camera shop for 1 hour developing (remember camera shops, 1 hour developing?). The guy there asked me what was going on with my camera. I explained that I was bracketing shots because of the high contrast. He laughed and said "that explains it. I had to adjust each print separately because exposures were all over the place". Sure enough, each shot was identical even though I had done plus/mins 2 stops exposures on each scene.....  He redid them for me without adjustment.

Haha,

OT but I'm meeting up with a Syrian (ex-refugee) friend tomorrow whose digital photos are 'all over the place' too! Not through bracketing but through the color balance of his exposures. Like me, he's a 'volunteer photographer'. He still uses a very old (and very cheap) 2nd hand 'camera kit'  (body, lens and flash). The downside is that his limited and poor ISO performance means that he almost always needs to use a flash indoors.  It could also be that his old DSLR sensor just doesn't work correctly any more.

So tomorrow, we're first going to look at his current camera settings to discover whether and how these could affect the 'color' so extremely. But he also wants to buy a better, newer DSLR. So we're going to look at those options too. I've offered him (free) my previous body. So we're going to discuss whether whatever money he can invest can be better spent on a lens and my 'free' body or a more recent 2nd hand 'kit'.

[Ed_Ingold]

Post-processing isn't about perfection, rather "to taste," and taste changes with time. I concentrate on composition and exposure, with detailed processing only for difficult subjects, like starry landscapes. It's a little like gourmet cooking. If you can taste individual ingredients, start over.

[tholte]

I like Frank Zappa's philosophy on playing his guitar and it translates well to my view on taking photos.  "You get a piece of time and you get to decorate it."  How anyone does it is up to them.