How far is too far?

January 6th, 2009
  • Postprocessing- Do you have a line, and do you/how do you feel about crossing it?

    Do you think a shot should just go from your camera to a print, or do you load it up in PS and maybe while it's there fiddle with brightness and contrast? Do you stop at auto-adjust, or go whole-hog and do whatever it takes? Surreal? Replace skies? Insert clouds? Clone large areas or reshoot? HDR, overlay multiple exposures? Crop?

    What do you prefer in your shots? What do you like about others?

    Do you judge your quality by reaction to posting?

    Is it better you don't know?

    -Just wondering.


  • On this end I try and keep my photoshop time to a minimum. Especially in my commercial and editorial work. My personal work gets adjustment layers in curves and colour balance. Always unsharp mask. I have been trying not to crop my photos in post processing for many years now. I am getting better...

    Seeing photos with selective colouring and "cool" filters used to bring me down. Now I am like; do as you feel and never follow.

    Only rule in post processing with photoshop is do not click auto adjust.


  • Well, I have come to the point where I would no longer show any straight-from-the-camera photo to anyone, any photo I do show or share (be it on here or between family members and/or friends) will have spent its time in Photoshop with me. Sometimes it is only a matter of seconds: levels shadows, levels highlights, USM, done, saved under a new name. Or that plus a slight cropping. I leave the originals as they are. Who knows, later I might no longer like my first edit and would wish to do something new and different with the same photo, so I can resort to the original much rather than to any already edited version.

    Some have been problematic upon taking them (light situations) and I have to do more than just some general shifting the levels to bring out the contrasts more.

    But so far I have never spent a day on just one photo.
    I fear I might lack the imagination, creativity, art to be wanting to do so.

    What I do know is that photos gone wrong don't get miraculously right by applying Photoshop (or anything similar to that). The starting point for PS work should already be a well-exposed, well planned photo, I think. But after that, why not work on it more?

    I did a bit of playing around when the software was new to me, and tried all sorts of things - still do that sometimes - like changing the colours or going for a solarisation effect or something like that. I do that for fun. But not to increase the "quality". Playing with inversions, filters, and all this is for fun (my fun). I am only now detecting all there is in "Layers" (still feel like diving through mud there :oops: ), so I do some playing. But that is for me to become more and more familiar with the software and its possibilities, but not to enhance my photos ;).


  • I am a total noob at photoshop but I know enough to know it can be pretty much the same as working in a darkroom I really think alot of the people who take the "post-processing is a cop-out" are either trying to be elitists or have no experience with darkroom work. I have done alot of B+W printing and really enjoyed the whole process, from adding contrast with filters to different exposures and crops to dodging and burning and everything else that goes into making a great print in a darkroom I have personally just come to the realization that using post-processing with digital is pretty much the same thing and as I said in my last post it can be done badly and when it is it looks really bad but it can be done well and when it is all it does is bring out the greatness in an already great photograph.


  • I just posted on another thread about inspirational photographers a quote referring to W. Eugene Smith who was legendary for the amount of thime he spent in the darkroom to get a photograph the way he wanted
    a quote I also posted on the other thread from the site

    "One print from the famous series on Albert Schweitzer required over five days to produce to Smith's satisfaction."

    Spending alot of time on an image in post processing does not mean you shot it wrong it is just a way to expand your creativity. Also when someone unskilled uses too much editing it shows so it is not just an easy way for a person to make a bad photo good. I think it takes as much skill to post-process a photo well as it takes to shoot that photo if not more and this is coming from someone with zero photoshop skills.


  • The line between post-processing and photography was drawn early in the 20th century when photo labs popped up in every corner drugstore. Before then photography was a process that included the exposure and all the processing and printing that followed (and before that it included making your own materials). Once it became possible to drop exposed film off for others to do the work behind closed doors, somehow photography became pushing the shutter button.

    For 6+ decades the entire photo processing industry has been streamlining for automatic, mechanized processing. Everyone's film gets developed and printed the same way at the lab. Few people bother to learn to do it for themselves, which offers much more choice and creative potential.

    If anyone has any doubts that extensive manipulations and editing have been going on long before Adobe Photoshop version 1.0, read through Ansel Adam's books: The Camera, The Negative, and The Print. If Photoshop isn't photography, then neither is the darkroom.

    In my not-so-humble opinion, people doing their own post-processing (digital, film, or other) are doing more of what I consider "real" photography to be. Dropping un-processed exposures off at the lab is for people who want to take pictures, but aren't seriously into photography.

    Then again, I don't really care how anyone else labels my work. Photography? Painting? Drawing? I don't enjoy doing it because I'm a photographer. I'm a photographer because I enjoy doing it. Labels do nothing to improve my work.


  • I see some incredible post-processing skills displayed on this forum. Makes me want to do it. I get quite a few stinkers, but then I get a few that turn out pretty good. Sometimes a bad shot is just a bad shot. I think sometimes a good shot can be made much better by trying different things and giving ourselves a little push.


  • Photoshop just replaces the darkroom, and the lab is why its so important.

    I've considered sending out wedding shots to a place that can act as a "lab" in a sense but Im not so busy that Its worth the time yet. Eventually
    I might do something like this for the majority of the shots, and personally
    retouch the best few myself.

    with fine art projects you cant really replace your own eye... just takes time.

    Commercial stuff is different too, you want to keep more control on that stuff, its more vital.. maybye a trustworthy asistant is a good idea if I get that busy all at once !


  • There are any number of techniques/media choices that produce effects different than a faithful, evidentiary rendering of reality. Many, when done well, are held in high esteem. No one derides a paper negative print or even a simple monochrome image because it's different than the image the human eye would see. But digital manipulation is held to a different standard.



    I've done a few shots where the sun has set and gone below the horizon. Working that kind of shot the other way, pre-sunrise is considerably harder. Galen Rowell said something to the effect of, "If you can see the light, you've missed the shot." There's another quote floating around the forum I like that goes something like, "A long exposure is an event that never happened." Maybe I got that all balled up, but I think these type of shots would be bound by the same 'natural looking' line in some respects and with color exceptions. Maybe just keep them from looking overworked?


  • I just love post-processing images. I usually spend about 5 to 15 minutes on each photo. Some photos will look very artsy and others more realistic .. it really depends on my mood and what I am looking for (or of course what the customer wants).


  • from Fred:

    I think you cross the line when the photograph no longer looks natural.


    There's photoshop, and then there's photoshop. It seems pretty well agreed that post processing to achieve the best "natural" presentation is the predominate practice . . . and not a new one.

    There are any number of techniques/media choices that produce effects different than a faithful, evidentiary rendering of reality. Many, when done well, are held in high esteem. No one derides a paper negative print or even a simple monochrome image because it's different than the image the human eye would see. But digital manipulation is held to a different standard.

    In my mind "the line" is whether the post processing, whether a b/w conversion, optimizing exposure or some heavy filter application, is done with the intent to communicate or the intent to deceive.

    This may not help much . . . it still begs the question of which camp that photograph of the Bride's mother she liked so much falls into


  • If I could step back twenty years I wouldn't do any post processing. I didn't back then. very little anyway. The photo lab did it all for me and I never had a problem with it. Too dark... Too light... Too red or too blue wasn't an issue.. somebody else fixed it.

    Now you do things simply because you can. Sometimes we lose sight of the image in all the tweaks. I believe if you shoot a strong image a lot of this so called tweaking is just bs. I hear the sky is blown out a lot around here. That just doesn't bother me as much as it does some people here. My mindset is still in the time when you exposed for what was important and the devil take the rest.

    I try to edit that same way now. Edit what is important and let the devil take the rest. I am in the process of scanning some old negs in. Of course back in the day, I personally (probably not everyone) felt it was more important to light the face of my clients at a wedding shoot. Given the choice between a well lit bride and a shadow on the wall you can guess what I chose. To do that safely on film, it was strong strobe and to heck with the room light. So now I am dealing with shadows that I never even thought about before. Why am I fixing them, because I can. But the big distraction is those that go above the head. Caused by the subject being higher than the light. That part of the shadow I clone out now. I don't bother to clone out a normal shadow that isn't distracting.

    In my case and mine alone, The less editing the better. If I did it as if there was no editing possible as I have always done, then the amount of editing is minor.

    Mine is likely a dying philosophy, but I still think a portrait is about the person not the photographer... A wedding is about what happens that day not what the photographer can make up.... If you have a factory in the background, and can remove it, sure that is a distraction. I have airbrushed them out of shots with an actual airbrush so that isn't anything new. What is new is looking for things to change for the sake of change. The old, "look what I can do ma," attitude.

    I know this isn't a popular opinion but it's mine.


  • I think you cross the line when the photograph no longer looks natural. Ansel Adams did amazing amounts of dodging and burning on his prints but the result was always credible. No, that sky didn't exist when he made the exposure but a sky like that might have existed at another time. Manipulated to be sure but still credible. I like it to be credible too.


  • Postprocessing- Do you have a line, and do you/how do you feel about crossing it?
    I definitely have a line, and I cross it all the time. Usually when i cross it, i hit the "undo" or "revert to saved" button. In general, I feel that if an image looks processed, then it is distracting and takes away from the image. As others have said in here, it should be done to enhance the image, unless you are trying to achieve something specific or just playing around, practicing your PS skills.

    Do you think a shot should just go from your camera to a print, or do you load it up in PS and maybe while it's there fiddle with brightness and contrast? Do you stop at auto-adjust, or go whole-hog and do whatever it takes? Surreal? Replace skies? Insert clouds? Clone large areas or reshoot? HDR, overlay multiple exposures? Crop?

    I would never print an image without checking it in PS first. I might hit auto-adjust just to see what it comes up with, but 99.9% of the time I immediately hit "undo". I only have Elements, but at a minimum each image gets a levels adjustment, colors adjustment if necessary, typically some doging/burning, USM, and a run through neatimage depending on the image. I will clone small imperfections that are distracting, but i lack the patience for cloning large areas. i don't like the idea of inserting clouds/skies because if the sky was that boring to begin with, i wouldn't have included it or even taken the shot. I probably crop too much, but it is so easy and on some print sizes you have to do it anyway, unless you want your lab to crop it indiscriminately. I would love to learn more about HDR, i just haven't had the time...

    What do you prefer in your shots? What do you like about others?

    Unless going for something specifically goofy or artsy I want my images to look and feel like what I saw when I pressed the button. I guess B&Ws, desaturated, or duotone shots would have to be an exception, although maybe that falls into the "artsy" category. As for others, i really enjoy seeing everyones work, but again, if it looks overprocessed (without a point) ... then i just don't get it.

    Do you judge your quality by reaction to posting?

    I'm not so much judging the quality by TPF's response... I like to learn, so I post for constructive criticism or tips/hints. I like to hear what works well and where/how i can make improvements. TPF is where I learned about things like unsharp mask and neatimage. because images i posted were blurry and grainy. :D

    Is it better you don't know?

    I have to know, otherwise I can't improve.


  • I will try to make this short and sweet - but everyone has their own styles. Some will do 100% photography, others 50% photography and 50% photoshop, and still other 99% photoshop and 1% photography. Where the line is cut between photography and actual digital images I don't quite know.

    I personally prefer less photoshop - though I am aware of the fact that certain adjustments need to be made out of the camera (especially when shooting in say RAW). I enjoy hearing other's opinions on this one actually.


  • Getting the image to the film (or the digital sensor) is only part of the story. It still needs to be printed (to paper or a computer screen). You make all sorts of creative decisions, filters choices and set camera settings to capture the image to the film/sensor. Why shouldn't you do the same getting the image to the paper/screen?


  • I ALWAYS do post processing on anything that I'm planning on showing anybody else, whether in print or digital. Each photo varies in the amount of processing based on what I'm going for.

    Anything I add to my stock archive (the good stuff) will be processed from the RAW file (sometimes with HDR). If it's just something for the family web site or my screensaver or whatever, I'll usually just work straight from the JPEG (I always shoot RAW+JPEG). After it's in PS, I'll usually do at least levels and curves adjustments. Clone out anything annoying and/or crop. Those are pretty much my minimums.

    Depending on the photo, I'll either convert to black & white, edit the LAB color mode curves, dodge & burn, play with some masks, do more curves adjustments, and probably a few other things. At the end, (especially for the good photos) I'll apply some amount of sharpening if the image calls for it.

    So basically, I don't have a line when it comes to the stuff I really like -- I've spent whole days on just one photo. For the not-so-important things, I usually don't spend more than 5 minutes per photo.


  • Because i am a TOTAL noob at post-processing of nearly every sort and photography is not my paycheck, i try to spend more time getting the exposure "JUST right" (for my simple needs). With digital, my philosophy works a little easier (less junk to clean off from scans). YMMV...

    fm


  • In my not-so-humble opinion, people doing their own post-processing (digital, film, or other) are doing more of what I consider "real" photography to be. Dropping un-processed exposures off at the lab is for people who want to take pictures, but aren't seriously into photography.

    I'm with you 100%. ANYTHING that comes out of a digital camera or off of a piece of film can benefit from postprocessing -- some more than others.

    Not editing your photos to look their best is like going to a job interview without looking in the mirror first. Adjust your tie, fix your hair, make sure you don't have stuff stuck in your teeth, etc. Really, when you put a photo on the web or send somebody a print, it's a job interview for your photo.


  • There are rules that need to be followed for photojournalism and evidence photography. If a photo contest has rules about manipulation I think they should be followed. But for what I do there are no rules or limits, except as dictated by my skills, imagination, eyes, and gut feeling. Some photos aren't manipulated much after the exposure, some are.


  • I like doing the landscape thing, but even now that I'm getting a bit of a handle on the ps thing, I still walk away from landscapes that have undesirable hunks of humanity in them rather than clone them out. I read something about the standards for Rueter's in another thread earlier today, and think they bear consideration. Although I'm looking for maximum effect and willing to try techniques that I wouldn't have tried a year ago even, I'm looking for minimum editing, or at least not pushing against my own -ethical line- too much. I hope this doesn't conflict with what I said earlier in the thread. Will edit after I get some sleep :)


  • I really don't like most of the changes outside of brightness, contrast, and cropping. Things like blurring edges or creating motion blurs (pardon my n00b terminology!) - it seems like cheating to me, I dunno.

    But then I think to myself that maybe I'm actually limiting myself and what I can do with my photos if I don't explore textures and layers and so forth.


  • ps. Even when I didn't do it the lab always did some post production so the shots I do now aren't that much different than those done with film and taken to a lab. I just have to do the work myself now.


  • I usually only adjust curves, contrast and sometimes convert to B&W.

    I was talking to my college lecturer yesterday on this matter and maybe I agree, I'm not sure at the moment.

    The quality of photographers was much better in the 60's and 70's than they are now.
    He said most people will shoot now and just have in mind that they can fix it in post processing. "you can just do a single shot of a person and the use that image in post processing software and crop it how you want, light it how you want. You can do most things, but hardly anyone even bothers to try and get it perfect through the lens anymore."


    He said something along those lines and in a sense he is right.
    Photo courses now will teach you how to take pictures correctly but also teach you as much photoshop work as they do photography work.
    My course is 6 hours on a Monday of photoshop work.
    3 hours on a tuesday studio work.
    3 hours on a wednesday added studio work/darkroom work.

    To me this seems crazy.
    I'd rather do 8hours photography, 3 hours darkroom and maybe an hour learning photoshop.
    We're being taught that photoshop is there to fix your errors and create your image.
    Bah!


  • I try to limit my photo shop time, i mean it almost takes some of the skill out of taking a picture when all you have to think about when your taking it is the subject and not color and texture. and in my opionion selective coloring looks like something from the 80's i just plain dislike it.







    • #If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#
    Your name:
    E-mail:
    Telphone:

    Your comments:


    If you have any other info about How far is too far? , Please add it free.

    Posted in freedeadaim.com | edit