Printable View
I don't post process much beyond cropping or adjusting exposure.
Photoshop and post processing has always been somewhat taboo to me. I can understand it's use for advertising or abstract art creation and web design, but beyond that I feel the image is just becoming a misrepresentation/lie.
Thoughts, opinions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85
I disagree somewhat. It is a tough issue for me since I tend to be something of a purist but...
Photographers use to chose film based on characteristics or even flaws depending on the mood they were going for. They'd push or pull film, cross-process and such. Digital doesn't offer the flexibility without post production. It can really be kind of the sterile without processing. Photoshoping allows to accomplish things that plain old digital won't give you.
Just think about the cameras them selfs. The lowpass filter; it's job is to blur the image before as it reaches the sensor and I don't know the specifics but I'm sure it responsible for the often muted colors.
This doesn't mean you always have to do it. I don't think PS should be a bail out for laziness or lack of savoir-faire.
Think of it this way - many people with dSLRs shoot in RAW format. RAW is like a film negative - not useful for much of anything on it's own. It must be post-processed to create a usable digital image, much like a film negative needs to be printed on positive paper. In that printing process, there are choices of exposure, etc., to be made. Likewise, if you look at some of the Photoshop effects, like 'dodge' and 'burn' - where did those names come from? They were techniques used in darkroom negative printing to compensate for local exposure problems, etc.
When you shoot JPG, the camera is doing the conversion for you, just like taking your film to the drug store. Still, you are affecting the image by choosing a Picture Style (even 'Standard' performs sharpening and color adjustments).
Ultimately, it's about getting an image that you like. If that means a realistic, minimally-processed image to you, great. If that means a heavily saturated or grunge-tonemapped HDR image to you, that's great too!
I totally understand, and which is why photography is an art.
I suppose it really depends on how you want to portray the image. Sometimes i feel as though i should only be capturing and showing what the naked eye sees; and i feel guilty if i deviate from that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85
Forget about that. You can't ever do that. First off, the human eye has a much wider dynamic range than film or digital. Second, the mind behind those eyes has the ability to selectively pay attention to certain features of the visual field. Third, the eye sees in three dimensions, and the photographic medium (hologram excepted) is two-dimensional. Finally, anytime you use a focal length other than ~45-50mm (FF equivalent), you're capturing a different field/angle of view than the human visual system.
IMO, the point of photography, especially artistic photography, is to portray an image in a way that the human eye cannot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Exactly. I mean, do you feel guilty if you use a large aperture to blur the background?
how about photojournalism? how much pp or photo shoppping are they allowed by editors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85
Go to the supermarket and pick up a tabloid. Check out the pictures of alien babies and judge for yourself. [:P]
Seriously, why does it matter? If you are a photojournalist, ask your editor. If you plan to become one, it's a relevant question. Else, do what you want - that's what matters.
I would guess that photojournalists (real ones) can do a significant amount of PP to adjust exposure, crop, add visual impact, etc., as long as they aren't altering the content/context of the shot in such a way as to be misleading.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
This is a valid point. I do a lot of sports work work the local newspaper and our photo editor does not want much more than cropping done to the photos. I set a picture style in the camera that gives me a little extra saturation and then I pretty muchleave the images alone.
If I'm shooting for parents, I'll do anything necessary to make their athlete look good (including adding the ball, the gaol line, etc.).
I think the customer to some extent dictates the amount of PS that is appropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nimblybimbly85
I like to keep my pictures in the style I called: natural+
I like to keep the natural look, but I may add just a little vibrance, extra contrast or other things. I mean, green gras stays green, red is red etc. But sometimes the picture just needs a little extra twist, but I won't make the grass green if it's mid-winter and it just isn't green.
To be honest most of my postprocessing (exposures, cropping, slight adjustments) is done in Lightroom. I do have Photoshop, but I only use it for the photos which I think need a specific look. For instance: I didn't notice a small piece of plastic in my shot or something like that. If the shot is really important or it really bothers me I will delete it. Unless I could get a second chance of course.
Personally I don't delete any acne or scars or anything that is a part of my models. I find it more of a challenge to make the photo looking better by adding other light or a different perspective.
Hope this helps: remember that I'm an amateur and I don't earn money with it. Things could change if I was a pro, but that's also the fact that I like the way I shoot now.
I started out with taking photos at sports-events and I only posted the good ones and did it for free. If I wanted to make money I could easily earn big money by posting photos of every contestant and therefor posting hundreds of "the same" pictures, but it would be at the expense of quality and personal enjoyment. Do how it makes you enjoy it the most, that's how I feel about it. [:D]
Jan