How much is too much?

[powers_brent]

I've been struggling with this thought in my head the more and more I get into photography. How much post processing is too much? Don't get me wrong, I love to post process, but at some point doesn't it start to make the photo untrue? For example, HDR Tone Mapping makes the images look amazing when done right, but then doesn't the photo start to show a scene that does not necessarily exist?Increasing saturation and contrast is common too, but again doesn't the same thing happen?

[atticusdsf]

it's subjective and really depends on the photograph. what's your vision? what's the intent of the photograph? is your intent to reflect the real world, or is it purely an art piece?


i will say that a good photographer should be able to, generally speaking, approach their subject, envision the final product, nail the shot, and have it fit that vision with very little post processing (i don't want to exclude it completely, because most of us shoot in RAW).


post processing is like table salt.. some days you create something great, but it just needs that extra something.. and on occasion, you create something that isn't very great, but use salt as a means of making it palatable.. other times, you know full well that you're creating something that's gonna require it later, and that your vision won't be possible without it (HDR). however, if you overload on salt all the time.. it simply isn't healthy. that's how i look at post processing.


that's one of the reasons i love lightroom so much.. it provides me with the RAW essentials, with some great tools that really help me make the most of my product, while still forcing me to shoot for awesome source material to start with. regular photoshop gives unlimited freedom with your photos, but is so time consuming in comparison that i really only use it for photos that really require it for my vision to be complete.

[bono]

Cannot agree with you more!


Being a newbie, I am not familiar with all kinds of processing but that is not the reason why I have some conservative feeling towards it. I think processing is acceptable, just like we all accept the dark room work. But there should be some border line between 'enough' and 'too much'. Otherwise, some good IT engineers with good sense of composition may replace the PHOTOGRAPHERS very soon (no offense to IT engineers :-))

[atticusdsf]

well.. you can have the greatest IT engineer in the world, but they will never replace the artist. need evidence? look at pixar.. they have the greatest IT engineers in the CG business, but its their *artists* that set their work apart from the competition. that's why movies from other companies (like "the polar express") feel so stiff despite being technologically brilliant.

[Steve Eisenberg]

I have seen many good photos, taken by good photographers damaged by too much post-processing. I keep it simple: Set the White Balance (which helps the colors), and up the sharpness, but carefully. I don't want to see "amped up" edges, or pixelated whiskers on the cat. I trust the camera/lens to do a fine job otherwise. I think people can also be fooled by what they see on their screen, as opposed to how the photo prints. How many of us have a correct screen setup? And how many of us have a printer that matches the screen?


I get my photos printed, compare to what I see on the screen, and adjust for the differences. I've noticed that my photos on the computer screen are brighter than the prints. Probably because the screen is backlit, and the print is not. I've also noticed that the prints have better contrast and sharpness than my screen. So I don't mess with contrast, and I take it easy on the sharpness.


Of corse, this is all subjective.And some people never make prints, and only look at photos on a computer monitor. So if you print ones that only look ideal on the screen, then you may never like the prints, and vice-versa...

[Dallasphotog]

Great question with no real answer. If it looks spectacular when your finished, then it wasn't too much.


Some days, I just need "Autolevels" and I'm done. Some days, I'm spending two hours removing a spider web tattoo from the bride's neck one cloned little spot at a time.

[powers_brent]

Atticusdsf: You make some very good points. It is like salt, too much and it ruins the photo. I shoot in RAW too so I have nothing against uping the saturation, sharpness, and the contrast just a bit, but its going past that that I start to feel uneasy. I guess I just want people to state clearly when they post process because not everybody does. This way I won't be driving myself crazy trying to astrive to their same skill without noticing that all I am missing is some post processing.


Bono: While I agree with your point to some extent, Atticus does make a good rebuke.


Steve: I rarely print my photos though, but I do run into that issue when I print. BTW, just how do we know if our screen is setup correctly.


All: Thanks for all the comments; it really does help the battle waging in my head.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Atticusdsf: You make some very good points. It is like salt, too much and it ruins the photo. I shoot in RAW too so I have nothing against uping the saturation, sharpness, and the contrast just a bit, but its going past that that I start to feel uneasy. I guess I just want people to state clearly when they post process because not everybody does. This way I won't be driving myself crazy trying to astrive to their same skill without noticing that all I am missing is some post processing.


Bono: While I agree with your point to some extent, Atticus does make a good rebuke.


Steve: I rarely print my photos though, but I do run into that issue when I print. BTW, just how do we know if our screen is setup correctly.


All: Thanks for all the comments; it really does help the battle waging in my head.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Do a search for monitor calibration spider, and printer profiles. And you can see how in-depth it gets. I just use "Quick Gamma", and get great results comparing prints to the screen (other than the backlit issue I described earlier).


http://www.quickgamma.de/indexen.html ("http://www.quickgamma.de/indexen.html)


How do you know if your screen is set up correctly? I'd say if your prints look like what is displayed on the screen, you're good. But photos might look great on your monitor, and not someone else's.

[atticusdsf]

i hardly consider optimizing a photo for print or web to be overloading on the "salt".. it's a necessity simply due to the inherent differences of the mediums. also.. no matter what, i don't consider HDR to be over processing. if you're setting out to do an HDR project, then you know your vision is gonna require some substantial post processing to begin with. it's a very subjective question, and i think the most objective answer is that all really comes back to the skill of the photographer, and whether they have the ability to create something great to start with.

[Daniel Browning]

How much post processing is too much?


How long is a piece of string?


If your post processing causes world famine, the suffering of children, or thermonuclear war, then it's too much. Everything else is fair game.

[bono]

well.. you can have the greatest IT engineer in the world, but they will never replace the artist. need evidence? look at pixar.. they have the greatest IT engineers in the CG business, but its their *artists* that set their work apart from the competition. that's why movies from other companies (like "the polar express") feel so stiff despite being technologically brilliant.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>


Again, cannot agree with you more :-)


You're right. Nobody can repalce the artist. But what I said was PHOTOGRAPHERS. I judge by my own experience. I felt so discouraged looking at the so beautiful photos of one of my online friends. Indeed, I thought about giving it all up. But one day, when I met him in real life, I discovered that he was a real master in post-processing. Leaving composition aside, his before-processing pictures were rarely better than mine. I feel encouraged again.


You see, a "potential" photographer (not artist, of course) could have been lost if it were not for that discovery :-)

[Colin]

I'll sign on with whatever looks good.


It depends on the image. It depends on the intent. it depends on the display medium. It depends on the viewer.....


Like any art, there are technical aspects, and there are subjective judgment calls. If you don't have a handle on both, you'll probably make a mess of it, but eventually learn to do it better.

[Jeff Lucia]

I think it depends partly on where and how the image will be used -- in other words, more than just aesthetics. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: The "Dustin Snipes look" (harsh lighting, high-pass filter, desaturated reds for a shiny, 3D appearance) has become wildly popular in sports photography, especially portraiture. And it's often appropriate there. But when the same look is applied to an executive posing for the cover of a trade journal, it just comes across as gimmicky and tired. And that, in turn, makes people sick of it no matter where they see it.


A few years ago, a photographer named Chip Simons came up with a unique style -- gelled flash shots made with a very wide angle lens close to the subject's face, with oddball models and a great sense of humor. His work appeared in a lot of editorial uses in magazines (including one I worked for at the time), and the look was distinctively his. It wasn't long before less-talented people copied the look, only without the artistry, the oddball models or the sense of humor. Hundreds of Simons-ripoff images appeared in the stock agencies, and the game was over.


PP is a tool. Used to enhance an image, to correct weaknesses in the original, to create a mood or to impart an artistic sense, it's fabulous. Like any tool, if it's abused, the results are painful.

[Tom Alicoate]

My theory on this is thatyou shouldPP to get the feeling or look you saw when you took the picture. It should be true to what made you take the photo. The other option in my mind is to go overboard and make something overdone enough that it is not confused with reality. People don't like to be fooled by a picture.


"Wow that's beautiful, the colors are so vivid. Did you photoshop it to look that way?" "Yes" "Oh...ok"


I prefer landscapes and portraits, and those both often are best processed with the less is more mentality.


Tom

[Colin]

I think that's a good basic premise, convey the feeling you saw when you took the picture. It may not be the most accurate, technically, but it serves to convey what struck you in the first place.


Still, I like to think that sometimes, if you don't go nuts, things can just look cool.


The picture below, for me, was a lot of fun, because it didn'trepresent the experience at all. If you've been to the Teton national park in the middle of the night without any moon out, you know it doesn't look anything like this.


If the picture looked like what I saw, you'd only see black with some specs of light except near the very bottom. Very clear, beautiful, bright specs, but that's it. I mean, it was pitch black, can't see 10 feet in front, wondering if a bison might be stepping on you soon kindof you dark. I knew the mountains were more or less in that direction, and I figured out where they probably were based on the stars ending, but there was no outline visible, no backlight. Just stars, and a whole lot of black. At f 2.8 and ISO 100, it took 17 minutes of exposure to get anything. When i noticed that the little specs of light, and the background behind the mountains, actually had different colors, I wanted to really bring it out. My thinking was, this is totally not near to reality at all, but it does look pretty cool, and it'd be neat if we WERE able to see it this way.








/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.92/Tetons_4000_Night.JPG

[SupraSonic]

So far i only use Canon FREE software which comes with the box for post processing.I'm happy with it so far.Because when you work with 1000 shot need to be process i think with Canon software will be suffice.

[SupraSonic]

Colin nice capture unfortunately they said equator contries cannot capture this.... emmm

[powers_brent]

Thank you everybody who left constructive responses. All your responses really did help me to see the enitre picture better.

[powers_brent]

Tom: Your mock conversation is mostly what I am looking at when I have this debate in my head. Either way, you hit it right on the head. Thanks for the response. Thanks to everybody!