How much is too much?

[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.

[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.








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

[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!