Hi. I'm new to this project, but I've been photographing casually for a year. Now, I've noticed that my photos are very different from the pros': the colors are less vivid, they're less sharp, and they're missing a certain je ne sais quoi.
I think one of the reasons may be that I almost never do much processing work after I've taken the picture. I have Photoshop, and I open up the files in there, but the purist in me won't let me do more than just tweak the colour levels a bit.
(There's also the fact that I don't know much at all about photo editing...)
So what do you think? Is there support for shunning post-processing? Or should photos be retouched more often than not (and if so, what software is best to use)?
This is an ongoing debate on this website. I’m personally pro post-processing, but I I don’t alter my images as much as enhance them. I really like Lightroom. It’s much more user friendly than PS, especially if you’re not wanting to do anything more than sharpen and adjust colors, etc. I think if you search the discussions you’ll find a lot on this subject.
I have wrestled with this lots. I, like you, am a purist. Partially because, as a journalist, I expect honesty in photography.
However, like you, I find that art is a huge consideration when doing challenges and having comments made on my work. The photo has to catch the attention of others, and regular, unedited photos, no matter how well composed or technically perfect, will seldom catch the attention of others.
So, I strive to take the best photo SOOC - straight out of the camera - and will label it such if it requires no post-processing.
I will then process using my limited skills (and they are truly limited) with the pic-monkey provided on this site.
I will follow you, and perhaps, between the two of us, we can support and encourage each other as purists!
Good luck!
@cthulhu I am half way through my first year and like you I started out not doing too much processing. I now tweak almost all my photos, though mainly to enhance lighting, contrast etc. I have also played around with other processing, and have had fun with doing a few *etsooi shots. While I have fun doing it I probably wouldn't do it if I weren't for 365. Just have fun, try different things, learn how to do different effects and you will also learn what you like doing and what you don't. Processing is great for those days when your photos are very sad and you can *edit the sadness out of it
If someone wants to shun post processing for whatever reason, that's fine with me, the same as if someone decides that using auto focus is cheating and wants to take all their photos manual focus only.
Also, if someone finds it a neat challenge to take all their photos with one hand tied behind their back, and they enjoy doing it that way, I say good for them, and have at it.
For me, the final image is more important than how you got there so I'll use post processing with abandon, if I think it will get me closer to the look I want to create.
@farmreporter I would think as a writer that you would also agree that editing the piece for the approach, voice, tone, and overall effect on the reader is the same as with editing a photo for the viewer. After all, while something may be "real" or "non-fiction," the arrangement of the information matters--otherwise, we're looking at a list of things that happened vs. a full narrative. :)
as for editing, your project your rules
I'm mostly for shooting the best shot I can, but sometimes what the camera saw was not what I saw.
And sometimes it's just fun to try something new and silly.
As far as I can tell all known/ professional/ sold photographers do some amount of editing, even the old classics.
@darylo Again, it is a real dilemma. My publisher does not allow his reporters to add their own voice or tone to the article since that will affect the reader's opinion. Instead, we must accurately convey the opinions and attitudes of the people we interview. We are merely the mirror that reflects their story.
Not only that, we are strongly encouraged to present both sides of any story so that the reader will be able to judge for himself the position he will choose. So, when I write about what is killing the bees, I talk to those who are spraying as well as beekeepers so the reader can understand both sides.
I guess I am saying that my job is a recorder, and nothing more. While I do try to make the recording as clear, concise, and interesting by drawing out as much from the interview as possible, I cannot add what is implied, but not said, to my story.
@farmreporter I completely agree to some extent, but HOW you effectively report for accuracy is important because often context is the driver of the article (and I completely agree that you have to cover both sides, etc). You must be able to convey the information in a way that is deliverable and receivable without blurring lines. I think in photography, we have really stopped understanding that editing is an important feature to the delivery--if someone takes a photo of a landscape and it's lacking adequate light, that does not mean the landscape lacks the light as it was seen--it means that the camera, the photographer, etc. may have not been adequate. Equally, with reporting events, perhaps the event did not reflect well in the article because the writer did not actually do a good job of reporting, gathering information correctly, or did not even look at all sides (and did not edit, provide background information, research data, etc.). A publisher is not going to get much to a readership if it doesn't have good writers (and editors). So the idea of "purist" to me is a pretty false one--but I get what you mean. I just think that we are not being very honest when we set up these standards that don't really take into consideration all the elements that require a good delivery. :)
I did this free course https://www.open2study.com/courses/the-art-of-photography a few months ago which gave me a better understanding of post processing including sharpening your images, although the course isn't all about that aspect of photography.
My first year of this project I didn't do much processing other than a minimal amount of cloning and cropping. Although I've been into photography for a few years I am learning more day by day and I am beginning to embrace post processing to enhance my photos. Let's face it the jpeg in the camera is how the camera sees it and it may not be the same as how you saw it, also Raw images have to be processed just like a negative has to. Photographers in darkrooms used post-processing methods. I believe there is room for all types of photography and think of it as another art form. Good luck with your project and I hope you enjoy many happy hours on here.
@darylo Really interesting read and love how you put your point across.
@cthulhu just to chip in and add a bit of fuel to the discussion. Only you know what it was you where taking the photo of at the time of the shutter press. The camera has know idea what it is and how it should look. It only captures the light as a series of numbers. It's up to the photographer to have the vision to make those numbers mean something, now if you think that a best guess by the camera software is what you had in mind the SOOC is fine however if it's not then edit edit edit until it fits to what you had in mind.
@elaine55 Oh dear. Now what I have done. reading this at 6am and I have enrolled on this course ! It looks good and there is nowhere it says that you have to live in Australia - long distance learning indeed!! Thanks, (or maybe I shall reserve that for later, lol!)
A picture is an image created in the mind of the artist; a photograph is an image recorded by a camera. The camera does not have a mind; its images are mere snapshots of what was in front of its lens. Having been in print all my working life (newspapers and magazines) I cannot remember a single occasion when I submitted an unfinished work for publication, and when I worked later on the picture desk of a national daily newspaper I frequently had the disappointment of having to reject a potentially good picture because it was unfinished, or having to resort to the appalling butchery of having it manually retouched. A real photographer will always look at his work carefully and if he decides it "could be better", he will do whatever is required to make it so... as has always been the case since the dawn of photography, and now in the digital age there is no excuse for not doing so, whatever the "purists" might believe. I have to admit, though, somewhat shamefacedly that I posted a photograph to 365 this week un-retouched ... but I did remember to add a few words explaining how this happened, and why I still felt that it was worth submitting, without using that awful excuse "SOOC".
@wordpixman I only learnt that expression on here! I don't always use it though do post untouched sometimes. People can choose to like or not the photo that I have submitted. If you are going to work on a photo you need to know how and if you have not learnt to do it then better to leave it as it was. I only do what is in my limitations and have not learnt how to do some of the amazing photographic art that is on here - I leave it for the experts.
@elaine55@callymazoo ... Quite so. Always do what you can and know how to do and don't make silly excuses if you can't. Enjoy what you know, or experiment to discover your hidden talents.
But please also note the important comment about accuracy by Wendy @farmreporter and make sure you do not alter the content or meaning of the image. In other words, be honest - although that can include a lot of artistic creativity as long as it can be clearly seen as such.
First, let me say that I love editing the photos...I think it's fun. So maybe I'm trying to justify what I already want to do....but to my thinking "post-processing" is really no different than adjusting the camera. Every model of camera is different. Every sensor is different. There are tons of settings within the camera (most cameras these days) which manipulate the image on its way from lens to digital file. There is no "reality" only what your equipment produces from the light wave it receives. The question is whether you are using one tool (the camera) or two tools (camera + editor) to create the image. I like using both tools.
@kwiksilver eek! No pressure then! It coincides with busy time with visitors, summer holiday and entertaining child so I hope I keep up. See you are from SA. Went there on honeymoon and loved it!
@wordpixman Thank you, Arthur. I find that, using an old expression, there is no black and white in this discussion - but only shades of grey. There is such a difference in degrees or amount of editing done that can enhance or completely change a photo. Everyone has a different comfort level with editing - and vive la difference!
@houser934 ... Exactly so, Kathryn. That silly term "SOOC" is often used as an excuse for not looking deeper into the potential of the image, but I am sure that some of those people who proudly declare it imagine it gives them status on a par with those real photographers of old (and I had the privilege of working with some of the best in Fleet Street!) whose colleagues called them "Mr One-Shot" because with just one plate in a very basic camera having none of the modern exposure or focusing aids, they regularly came back with the definitive image taken at the decisive moment For them SOOC might have been an acceptable excuse for falling slightly short of perfection, but whatever the result they still worked hard in the darkroom to make it even better, because they knew how to do it - and those who had not yet discovered how, soon learned from their example.
Not everybody has the wish to learn how to post-process, or sufficient experience to get it absolutely right first time, every time, but there's no shame in that. The real shame is that some people seem to think there is! I really do hope that the nonsense of SOOC used in this context will find its place in the Hall of Shame, not fame!
@farmreporter ... Thank you Wendy. As you say, find you own comfort level at whatever shade of grey suits you and serves your target audience/readership best.
I started on my project just like you, doing very little post-processing and thinking it was somehow cheating to change a photo as it came off the camera. I used to crop a bit and do some auto editing using Picasa, but like others, as I broadened my knowledge, developed my creativity and saw what brilliant photos people on this site were producing, I began to see how I could enhance my images. So I began using Lightroom, and have recently bought Nik software, and now I enjoy processing as part of what @wordpixman calls finishing, to produce the best image I can to convey what I want it to convey. In fact, I feel I'm cheating now if I don't spend time on an image after I've downloaded it from the memory card.
Thank you everyone for your comments.
I don't see anything wrong with post-processing. I think it's an artistic skill just like composing and taking good pictures straight from the camera is.
I don't use it myself, but then again, I'm just beginning. Hopefully I'll get more comfortable with it later on. :)
I didn't know anything about post processing when I started this project, and I'm still a novice at it, but I must say that for me, I love tweaking the photos and look forward to learning the more intricate ways to post process photos. I recently fell in love with HDR photography so I'm always on the lookout for something to shoot ... but as you will hear and see, not everyone is a fan of HDR photography .. you find what makes YOU happy with your photos and then go from there. There is no right or wrong here - it truly is individual preference. You would be amazed, however, how much you can make an "ordinary" photo extraordinary with just a few tweaks here and there. I saw this quote by a photography teacher and loved it: "Photos are captured in the camera, but they are made in post"
My views on post processing: To begin with, the photograph you take is not the same as the thing you photographed. A picture of a flower is not the same thing as the flower itself. Even before you do anything else to it, a picture is the result of your interpretation of a certain subject and the extent to which your camera allows you to express that. Then, If you have a camera which allows it, further processing starts even before you take the picture, when you set the dof, when you move the camera around to get the pov you want, etc. In some circumstances you may deliberately under- or over- expose.
I see post processing as a continuation of something which started even before you took the picture. I find the "purist" idea a little irrelevant because no picture is a pure and totally accurate rendition of the subject, nor can it ever can be that. In some cases, the processing you did before and during the taking of the picture is enough to produce the effect you want--in that case, you probably won't do any more to it. In other cases, you may decide to continue processing after you see the picture on your computer screen, to make the picture as close as possible to what you want. I definitely don't see anything immoral or dishonest about post processing--it's just a continuation of "pre" and "during" processing.
Hope this makes at least a little sense!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
However, like you, I find that art is a huge consideration when doing challenges and having comments made on my work. The photo has to catch the attention of others, and regular, unedited photos, no matter how well composed or technically perfect, will seldom catch the attention of others.
So, I strive to take the best photo SOOC - straight out of the camera - and will label it such if it requires no post-processing.
I will then process using my limited skills (and they are truly limited) with the pic-monkey provided on this site.
I will follow you, and perhaps, between the two of us, we can support and encourage each other as purists!
Good luck!
If someone wants to shun post processing for whatever reason, that's fine with me, the same as if someone decides that using auto focus is cheating and wants to take all their photos manual focus only.
Also, if someone finds it a neat challenge to take all their photos with one hand tied behind their back, and they enjoy doing it that way, I say good for them, and have at it.
For me, the final image is more important than how you got there so I'll use post processing with abandon, if I think it will get me closer to the look I want to create.
as for editing, your project your rules
I'm mostly for shooting the best shot I can, but sometimes what the camera saw was not what I saw.
And sometimes it's just fun to try something new and silly.
As far as I can tell all known/ professional/ sold photographers do some amount of editing, even the old classics.
Not only that, we are strongly encouraged to present both sides of any story so that the reader will be able to judge for himself the position he will choose. So, when I write about what is killing the bees, I talk to those who are spraying as well as beekeepers so the reader can understand both sides.
I guess I am saying that my job is a recorder, and nothing more. While I do try to make the recording as clear, concise, and interesting by drawing out as much from the interview as possible, I cannot add what is implied, but not said, to my story.
It is one thing to choose not to post process as an exercise in getting the best you can at getting the image into the camera.
It is another to not edit because you don't have the skill set.
In this digital age, post processing/editing is part of the process.
Learn everything you can and then choose.
My first year of this project I didn't do much processing other than a minimal amount of cloning and cropping. Although I've been into photography for a few years I am learning more day by day and I am beginning to embrace post processing to enhance my photos. Let's face it the jpeg in the camera is how the camera sees it and it may not be the same as how you saw it, also Raw images have to be processed just like a negative has to. Photographers in darkrooms used post-processing methods. I believe there is room for all types of photography and think of it as another art form. Good luck with your project and I hope you enjoy many happy hours on here.
@darylo Really interesting read and love how you put your point across.
@callymazoo Let's hope we learn something, Cally ;) I've followed you to watch your progress.
But please also note the important comment about accuracy by Wendy @farmreporter and make sure you do not alter the content or meaning of the image. In other words, be honest - although that can include a lot of artistic creativity as long as it can be clearly seen as such.
Not everybody has the wish to learn how to post-process, or sufficient experience to get it absolutely right first time, every time, but there's no shame in that. The real shame is that some people seem to think there is! I really do hope that the nonsense of SOOC used in this context will find its place in the Hall of Shame, not fame!
I don't see anything wrong with post-processing. I think it's an artistic skill just like composing and taking good pictures straight from the camera is.
I don't use it myself, but then again, I'm just beginning. Hopefully I'll get more comfortable with it later on. :)
I see post processing as a continuation of something which started even before you took the picture. I find the "purist" idea a little irrelevant because no picture is a pure and totally accurate rendition of the subject, nor can it ever can be that. In some cases, the processing you did before and during the taking of the picture is enough to produce the effect you want--in that case, you probably won't do any more to it. In other cases, you may decide to continue processing after you see the picture on your computer screen, to make the picture as close as possible to what you want. I definitely don't see anything immoral or dishonest about post processing--it's just a continuation of "pre" and "during" processing.
Hope this makes at least a little sense!