So I've been doing this project for quite a while now (but I just recently posted here). Anyway, ever since I started, I've always found myself post processing my photos through Photoshop. Adjusting colors, levels, curves, cropping and watermarking--stuff like that.
There have been various comments about this.
Some people hate post processing because they want their photos to look more 'natural', thus is more of a photographer (or so they say).
There are people on the other hand who says that post processing is okay because it really makes your photos 'pop out' and more unique.
I wonder what's the take of other photographers out there?
I think processing can be good or bad. Like why use a filter if you already have the software to make the correction in 4 seconds? And some coloring really does add interest to a photo.
However, I'm terrible at judging exposure, and I'd much rather learn the techniques on my camera to get the right exposure than to have to go back and fix every single photo. It does make you a better photographer.
I can go either way. Some images can be processed to death, others need little fixes. But it's also really satisfying to have a great shot SOOC.
i edit and im happy to say i edit :) my editing skills are better than my photography skills in my oppinion..... i never take longer than 10 mins on an edit unless its something i really really want to do .... normally if it takes more than 10 mins its dumped lol , mainly because im a bit lazy ....
i know a lot of people prefer to get it right first time so no editing needed but to me my personal oppinion is that if the software is avaliable to use ...... use it :)
I think it all depends on what you're trying to get in the end of the day. If i'm shooting in a studio, then I meter exposure there and find that I do very little post production with the exception of maybe cropping and healing a few items here and there.
If i'm taking landscape, well I've sometimes got a tendency to HDR and really go nuts
@kioreo personally, i process all my photos. i can't leave everything to the camera, it is a tool. if you had a vision when you took the picture at that moment, the camera just freezes it. you can leave it at that, or you can go to the computer and put back that 'something' you saw when you took that picture. it adds a personal touch. :)
I love editing my pictures! I have had great sooc shot like my angel but then there are shots that I need just a bit brighter or darker or maybe needs to be cropped a bit. I also love playing some of the filters the editing software has. I don't think processing takes anything away from a shot it just enhances it! It's still your work and it's your art! Be proud of it!!
I enjoy the editing part, but I love when the shot comes out so well that no editing is needed. Since I've begun this project, I've been taking a bit more time playing with effects and processing, depending on the image. Its all part of the learning curve for me.
I am an editing minimalist. I do believe that editing software is a useful tool & it is great when you want to completely change things but I always try to compose in camera so what comes out is what I see. Does it always happen that way? of course not but I get a wild satisfaction from a great SOOC shot.
I was always a snob to the post processing and wanted to be more of a 'purist', creating the image in camera using only the camera and light - but the reality is that some of the most remarkable and memorable images out there were manipulated in the darkroom. How is your manner of developement in the darkroom any different than what is done in photoshop? With that said, I don't do any editing. All my pictures are straight out of camera (BW are done in camera), but I would like to venture into photoshop and possible try my hand at some HDR in the future.
Sorry,I`m too busy to write a long reply,just came home and need to HDR some shots... :)
I think over-processing isn`t a wise thing to do,not when you`re still a beginner. Sure,a little adjustment here and there is okay,but in my oppinion first you should know your camera settings well,on manual mode.Like,you go out and suddenly it gets cloudy or something and you`ll instinctively know how to set the aperture/iso/exposure just right.
I`m guilty too of over-editing,I started this project with SOOC shots and now PS is allways needed,even if the photo is okay.But no way I`m relying on post-processing only,so I`m still a newbie that`s trying to take better SOOC photos.
i think editing makes a photo look very obviously false. Whilst you get some good effects, this then removes the skill from photography to just being clever with a PC.
i avoid editing unless i really feel the picture will benefit from the look, maybe just to lighten, if it's too dark, or to crop it to eliminate any rubbish.
@spaceman - LOL. Sometimes I process to make up for inexpensive equipment, so I bristle a bit when people say they are processing snobs - usually they are the ones with expensive cameras. Sometimes I do it to deal with high contrast lighting or just for fun! After all, isn't this project about pleasing yourself?
I haven't made up my mind on this issue. I think it may depend upon what you are wanting to do and the results you want to get. I remember the filters my father used on his camera and the darkroom techniques a family friend used. I am trying to use mostly SOCC shots for this project so I will improve my photography skills, especially my compositional skills. I have cropped a few of my photos and adjusted the contrast some.
@kioreo
The question you have to ask yourself is what do you want the photography to do and what style do you want to have.
If you just want to get a macro-bug to illustrate that particular bug species, then being artistic and creative are likely to undermine the true representation you need and might not be appropriate. On the other hand, if you want to capture the 'bee-ness of a bee, whatever it is you think that is, then art can play its part in how you first take the picture and how you process it in order to emphasise its innate qualities (I suppose!!).
If you want to communicate with images then you should use whatever tools will enable you to get your message across. This was really illustrated for me by the recent world class photographer Don McCullen exhibition here in Bath. One shot had a copy next to it covered with post-its explaining what adjustments he had made to the pic and why. He did a lot of post processing of his pics to communicate something that maybe wasn't possible to get in the picture, for whatever reason.
Like Martin says, it's better that you can master the camera on manual in the first place (which I need to do!), but that is one tool and the 'dark room' (ie photoshop or similar) is another. I was much more purist when I joined 365 but now I like to have whatever tools I need to get across what I want, whether that is a feeling or message.
I definitely don't like it when stuff is over-processed for its own sake. For me processing needs to be used for a reason, although all the post-processing tools we now have are very seductive and there are many photos that I could leave SOOC but I crop a millimetre off, or up the colour a point etc LOL, just for the pleasure of it.
For me, future DSLR shots will focus on getting the best I can at the point of pressing the shutter, however, the spontaneity of not worrying too much about that allows you to capture pics that would be lost while getting all the settings right.
Thank you for such stimulating thread - sorry for my verbal diarrhea but I was 'processing' my learning as I went along - LOL.
Woah I'm overwhelmed with your responses guys! It's amazing how one day (aka: a couple of hours) in this site made me learn so much!
Your responses are very interesting and everyone does have a point! I've been bothered lately because there are a lot of people bugging me about dropping post processing because of their own reasons as well.
Like some have mentioned, post processing is important when I want to convey a certain 'feeling'. After all, photography is art and art is an extension of an emotion. The camera I use daily is a compact and it couldn't do much in terms of setting the mood so I usually adjust the colors to make it more vibrant or otherwise.
Although I also agree to some who said that the natural-ness of the photo should be kept. This is where my dSLR comes in. I'm generally happy with the results I have with it so I don't adjust too much.
I guess there are always two sides of a coin!
Okay, I'm blabering now. Anyway, thank you guys :) I'm very happy with the things I learned today!
I hate, HATE, post processing. I only use manual mode, so I know my exposure. where post processing makes my life easier though is to control my overshooting. I shoot in RAW and I like BW better than color for most of my images, so post processing is a need to get me better range of pure blacks, whites and greys. IF I just set my camera to large JPG in BW I am wasting my camera's capabilities to acquire more information to work with.
Having that said, some days, I just use LARGE jpg with a bit more of saturation so I don't have to do any post processing.
My dream is one day to NEVER have to use software, but I know it won't happen.
If I had to use just Photoshop I'd hate processing too. But with Lightroom it's quite painless since my post processing is usually quite minimal and repeated. Usually it's just a quick crop, set the WB, tweak the exposure and black points if need be, and add a little sharpening for viewing on a computer screen. Create a few presets to do most of the work for me and it's a snap.
Every great photographer had darkroom 'tricks' that they would use to get the effect they wanted (yes, even Ansel Adams!). That being said, every great photographer knew his/her equipment well enough to minimize the need for darkroom editing.
Am I guilty of over processing for the sake of artistic effect? Yep. But I also strive to start off with a good picture. Rarely do I need to crop an image, because I have composition in mind when I shoot. When I started I shot everything in automatic, but lately I shoot nearly everything in manual mode. Understanding ISO, aperture, shutter speed and their relative strengths/weaknesses will help you master the craft. If you start with a shoddy picture, processing will simply make it a glorified mess. But if you start with a good pic, and have a light hand (Ansel Adams said he would play with a picture until it looked right, then back off a bit), it can be a great pic.
I am working hard on making perfect sooc compositions. On days that doesn't happen, I am happy to post process to make it better. I don't want to throw my pics out because I forgot to adjust the white balance on my camera when an opportunity to capture came up quickly. To each their own, I am looking for more natural photographers to follow though, so I can learn a better technique. I think a well rounded photographer can do both very well.
I don't mind post-processing... I am actually learning how to do it more effectively. I think its great for saving a photo or enhancing a photo in a good way. I love the more natural SOOC but I also really enjoy some of the stunning work that is brought from being processed in photoshop too.
I love post-processing.. on other people's photos! Personally I don't have the software, the time or the skills to do it.. and (probably just because I can't, so I make myself feel better about it by saying this..) I enjoy the challenge of trying to get a good photo that looks good SOOC.. I'm sure it'd look better with processing, but it can be incredibly difficult to get good shots knowing that whatever you get you are stuck with whether you like it or not..
But if I could then I would!! Definitely post-processing is good :D
Sometimes I will shoot something with the intention of editing it to death in PSE or Lightroom. Must mostly I am trying really hard to strive for perfect sooc.
I dont do much editing, I would love to learn more but its finding the time, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 6 which I guess is old now ? correct Me if Im wrong, I was given it and I also use Picnik, All I really do seem to use is HDR I quite like the detail it gives.
So many people seem to look down on processing as something done to make a bad picture into a good one. They say you should be able to make the image fantastic in-camera, and if you need to process you mustn't be a good photographer.
To those people I will say this, as I have in a dozen like threads before this one: you need a great straight out of camera shot so you have something to process!
If someone takes rubbish photos, no amount of processing is going to make the shots into great images. Sure, every now and then someone will come up with something artistic, but it usually ceases to be a photograph at that point.
If someone just does everything in camera, they are forgetting the second half of creating a photograph - the developing stage! They are relying on their camera to get everything right, including local contrast which is almost impossible to control in anything less than an optimal studio environment (and even then it is not easy by any means). In the darkroom, even if one didn't dodge and burn and muck around with the enlarger, you still had to make choices - you chose your film (not just ISO, but grain and tones), your developer (this could completely change an image, or just subtly influence the contrast and detail), the paper (changing the warmth, detail and colour) and of course the framing/crop (11x14, 8x10, 5x7 etc - none of which are the same as 35mm film or any medium format film).
Yes - it is essential you get it "right" in camera. When you've done that, you have something to process, as much or as little as the image asks for. You've got to listen to your images!
I hate processing. Sitting in front of the computer bores me to tears. I'm doing about 12-15 hours of that today, editing client photos and galleries. But I've gotten alright at it, because it needs to be done. I'm not going to show my clients "half done" photos straight out of camera - they expect, and deserve, more than photos shot on 35mm film and dropped off for the local lab to make all the processing decisions (usually all bad ones).
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
However, I'm terrible at judging exposure, and I'd much rather learn the techniques on my camera to get the right exposure than to have to go back and fix every single photo. It does make you a better photographer.
I can go either way. Some images can be processed to death, others need little fixes. But it's also really satisfying to have a great shot SOOC.
i edit and im happy to say i edit :) my editing skills are better than my photography skills in my oppinion..... i never take longer than 10 mins on an edit unless its something i really really want to do .... normally if it takes more than 10 mins its dumped lol , mainly because im a bit lazy ....
i know a lot of people prefer to get it right first time so no editing needed but to me my personal oppinion is that if the software is avaliable to use ...... use it :)
If i'm taking landscape, well I've sometimes got a tendency to HDR and really go nuts
I think over-processing isn`t a wise thing to do,not when you`re still a beginner. Sure,a little adjustment here and there is okay,but in my oppinion first you should know your camera settings well,on manual mode.Like,you go out and suddenly it gets cloudy or something and you`ll instinctively know how to set the aperture/iso/exposure just right.
I`m guilty too of over-editing,I started this project with SOOC shots and now PS is allways needed,even if the photo is okay.But no way I`m relying on post-processing only,so I`m still a newbie that`s trying to take better SOOC photos.
i avoid editing unless i really feel the picture will benefit from the look, maybe just to lighten, if it's too dark, or to crop it to eliminate any rubbish.
The question you have to ask yourself is what do you want the photography to do and what style do you want to have.
If you just want to get a macro-bug to illustrate that particular bug species, then being artistic and creative are likely to undermine the true representation you need and might not be appropriate. On the other hand, if you want to capture the 'bee-ness of a bee, whatever it is you think that is, then art can play its part in how you first take the picture and how you process it in order to emphasise its innate qualities (I suppose!!).
If you want to communicate with images then you should use whatever tools will enable you to get your message across. This was really illustrated for me by the recent world class photographer Don McCullen exhibition here in Bath. One shot had a copy next to it covered with post-its explaining what adjustments he had made to the pic and why. He did a lot of post processing of his pics to communicate something that maybe wasn't possible to get in the picture, for whatever reason.
Like Martin says, it's better that you can master the camera on manual in the first place (which I need to do!), but that is one tool and the 'dark room' (ie photoshop or similar) is another. I was much more purist when I joined 365 but now I like to have whatever tools I need to get across what I want, whether that is a feeling or message.
I definitely don't like it when stuff is over-processed for its own sake. For me processing needs to be used for a reason, although all the post-processing tools we now have are very seductive and there are many photos that I could leave SOOC but I crop a millimetre off, or up the colour a point etc LOL, just for the pleasure of it.
For me, future DSLR shots will focus on getting the best I can at the point of pressing the shutter, however, the spontaneity of not worrying too much about that allows you to capture pics that would be lost while getting all the settings right.
Thank you for such stimulating thread - sorry for my verbal diarrhea but I was 'processing' my learning as I went along - LOL.
Your responses are very interesting and everyone does have a point! I've been bothered lately because there are a lot of people bugging me about dropping post processing because of their own reasons as well.
Like some have mentioned, post processing is important when I want to convey a certain 'feeling'. After all, photography is art and art is an extension of an emotion. The camera I use daily is a compact and it couldn't do much in terms of setting the mood so I usually adjust the colors to make it more vibrant or otherwise.
Although I also agree to some who said that the natural-ness of the photo should be kept. This is where my dSLR comes in. I'm generally happy with the results I have with it so I don't adjust too much.
I guess there are always two sides of a coin!
Okay, I'm blabering now. Anyway, thank you guys :) I'm very happy with the things I learned today!
I hope you teach me more things soon! :>
Having that said, some days, I just use LARGE jpg with a bit more of saturation so I don't have to do any post processing.
My dream is one day to NEVER have to use software, but I know it won't happen.
Am I guilty of over processing for the sake of artistic effect? Yep. But I also strive to start off with a good picture. Rarely do I need to crop an image, because I have composition in mind when I shoot. When I started I shot everything in automatic, but lately I shoot nearly everything in manual mode. Understanding ISO, aperture, shutter speed and their relative strengths/weaknesses will help you master the craft. If you start with a shoddy picture, processing will simply make it a glorified mess. But if you start with a good pic, and have a light hand (Ansel Adams said he would play with a picture until it looked right, then back off a bit), it can be a great pic.
But if I could then I would!! Definitely post-processing is good :D
So many people seem to look down on processing as something done to make a bad picture into a good one. They say you should be able to make the image fantastic in-camera, and if you need to process you mustn't be a good photographer.
To those people I will say this, as I have in a dozen like threads before this one: you need a great straight out of camera shot so you have something to process!
If someone takes rubbish photos, no amount of processing is going to make the shots into great images. Sure, every now and then someone will come up with something artistic, but it usually ceases to be a photograph at that point.
If someone just does everything in camera, they are forgetting the second half of creating a photograph - the developing stage! They are relying on their camera to get everything right, including local contrast which is almost impossible to control in anything less than an optimal studio environment (and even then it is not easy by any means). In the darkroom, even if one didn't dodge and burn and muck around with the enlarger, you still had to make choices - you chose your film (not just ISO, but grain and tones), your developer (this could completely change an image, or just subtly influence the contrast and detail), the paper (changing the warmth, detail and colour) and of course the framing/crop (11x14, 8x10, 5x7 etc - none of which are the same as 35mm film or any medium format film).
Yes - it is essential you get it "right" in camera. When you've done that, you have something to process, as much or as little as the image asks for. You've got to listen to your images!
I hate processing. Sitting in front of the computer bores me to tears. I'm doing about 12-15 hours of that today, editing client photos and galleries. But I've gotten alright at it, because it needs to be done. I'm not going to show my clients "half done" photos straight out of camera - they expect, and deserve, more than photos shot on 35mm film and dropped off for the local lab to make all the processing decisions (usually all bad ones).
Just my two cents.