Processing?

[Jacket]

As I look through the picture threads here (or anywhere on these internets), in many cases it is obvious that the photo being shown is a far cry from what the original scene once was. Vivid colors, alterations, distortions....some blatant, other subtle. In many cases, the photographer is trying to create an abstraction, which makes sense to me as a viewer/critic and I would expect processing to take place. But in other cases it's just an image - a scene or a portrait that has been "doctored" to try and make it more spectacular than it was in person.

So as someone who appreciates a nice picture, but who does not pretend to understand the limits of what the camera and processing software out there can do, I'm interested in hearing from some of you.

- What defines a processed image? Can it be defined?
- Given the technology available in most cameras these days, is there no such thing as an undoctored image?
- Is there a category for unprocessed imagery, where the photographer simply captures the image, and downloads it off the camera (assuming digital here) and that's it?
- What is the general feeling from both professional photographers and skilled amateurs in terms of the levels of processing of an image and its "authenticity"? Is processing necessary? Optional? Depends?
- Does post-processing take away from the skill of the photographer, or is it considered part of overall skill set?

Just curious mostly. When I take a set of pictures, I usually find a handful that stand out as "better", where I feel like I did a good job capturing the scene, the light, the window. But my unprocessed pictures rarely produce the "pop" that I often see posted up here. Do I need some new software to hang with the big boys?

 

[tdesanto]

Matt,

These are good questions. I'm curious to hear others' opinions on this matter as well.

You may be asking a question similar to “what is art”, or “what is not art”. Ultimately, I think that a lot of these digital tools simply make the photographer's job easier than before. If not easier, at least the tools can now be solely in the hands of the photographer.

In the past, a lot of this was done by the lab, or the film manufacturer. For example, increasing contrast and saturation of an image is not much different than simply shooting Fujifilm's Velvia. Adjusting mid-tones, shadows, and highlights are not much different than using masks or dodging and burning when making a print. Increasing dynamic range of an image is not much different than using graduated neutral density filters. Or, using color filters when shooting black and white to increase contrast.

So, as you can see, trying to define a “processed” image may be difficult, as for many photographers who started out with film, or simply shot jpegs, there was already a fair amount of processing done as soon as the shutter was released.

Again, great questions. I'm looking forward to the responses.

 

[ThomD]

I break processing into 2 sections - mechanical and artisitc, for lack of better labels. Mechanical processing is minor adjustments to exposure, maybe some white balance and a little "curves" work, sharpening and cropping. This is what I view as the core image. It is a attempt to get to what the eye saw when I took the shot.

"Artistic" adjustments are anything else - any alteration to only a portion of the image, blurs (in lieu of depth of field), color alteration, cloning etc.

The only group of photographers bound to the first type of processing are photo journalists. Even they might get into trouble with too much curve or white balance work.

Anything else is fair game.

 

[sinuhexavier]

- What defines a processed image? Can it be defined?
- Given the technology available in most cameras these days, is there no such thing as an undoctored image?
- Is there a category for unprocessed imagery, where the photographer simply captures the image, and downloads it off the camera (assuming digital here) and that's it?
- What is the general feeling from both professional photographers and skilled amateurs in terms of the levels of processing of an image and its "authenticity"? Is processing necessary? Optional? Depends?
- Does post-processing take away from the skill of the photographer, or is it considered part of overall skill set?

To me photography is the opportunity to share my world with others, through my eyes. My vision of something is unique to me and any image that I take is processed through my own filter starting with camera/lens choice, camera position and composition. While I'm not a fan of post processing when it comes to heavy alterations, I feel it is just an extension of the photographers vision that he/she wants to share.

That may be an ambiguous answer but it's the best I can do...

 

[bigreen505]

I'm with Sinuhe on this one. When I press the button to take a picture, I have a vision in mind and that may or may not be technically possible with traditional equipment. I think you cross the line from actual reality into digital dreamland when you use tools to manipulate a scene into something that didn't exist. Personally, I stick to what my eyes or heart know is there, but I shot Velvia years, so I have never sold my photos as reality.

Just be honest with what your photo represents: art/your interpretation or vision of what was there; or your best depiction of reality. I capture emotion and the soul of a scene, that IS my reality. Just because you or camera saw something different doesn't make my vision any less real.

 

[Lost Canadian]

It's easier if you put the camera and other photographic tools into the same category as paint and paint brushes, as the camera is just a tool. Process is used for artistic interpretation because reality is impossible to capture. We will never achieve a literal translation of a scene, with any arts medium, it's just not possible. Having said that, authenticity of scene is also impossible to achieve. The goal of any photographer should be to look for and illustrate the mean, not the specific.

What am I talking about? OK look at it this way, our emotions change the way we see things, on any given day a red wall may look different to me, even if shown in the same light. So ultimately, the desire of all photographers, even those who use the medium for journalistic intents, is, or should be to portray something; an emotion, a feeling, a response of any kind. How the photographer does that is up to them. The lens, the DOF, the camera, the film, the position of the shot, the comp, the post work; all are considered process, as all impart their own specific characteristics.


It is as tdesanto pointed to, it's a question that is similar to “what is art”, or “what is not art?” Any form of art, regardless of if we like it or not, is simply a human expression of what it is too be. Some may receive our messages, some will not, what we do to portray the message is really irrevelant. It's the messages themselves, or lack of a message that we should concern ourselves with.

 

[articulate]

... I would expect processing to take place.
. . .But my unprocessed pictures rarely produce the "pop" that I often see posted up here. Do I need some new software to hang with the big boys?

Your questions are valid.

Do you think your digital camera records things exactly as you see them? Particularly with auto settings for exposure and white balance - I swear the results with these are totally unpredictable when when letting the camera do the thinking. If you shot a photo and you didn't like the result, is that because you were shooting an ugly scene? Probably not, right? You took the photo for a reason.

A couple of things to come to grips with when it comes to digital photography:

1. A digital camera isn't perfect, especially when left to fend for itself with auto settings
2. Your computer is your photo lab, you are the developer

When I got into photography with a 35mm Rebel, I tried various types of negative and transparency films. I learned every film has its own personality - color strengths, contrast properties, etc. Both Bill and Tony mentioned good ol' Velvia, which is a good example of a film with a distinct personality. But print film? Yikes, I used to try to scan the negatives to make a decent digital image and they nearly always came out like horse dung in comparison to the print I'd get from the lab. Anyway, what I'm saying is that "back in the day" a photo lab had to do some post-processing to your negatives to make pretty prints. Post-processing isn't new or alien to photography. It's just in different hands now.

I think one of the troubles with the post-processing discussion is that so few consumer photographers realize that you are your own processing lab now, and a digital camera isn't perfect when left to fend for itself on auto settings. It has dials, settings, and menus for a reason. And if you botch the white balance or exposure, some software will help you out. While you're there you can tap the contrast a hair, and the saturation a smidge.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

I cant get too deep in explaining my form of processing, but do you think this image is processed?

It's not. This is just the way it came out of the camera. Got into an argument on another photo forum when someone commented on this shot saying "If I knew how to use photoshop as good as you do, I could make my images look like that too."

Like I said, this was the way it came out of the camera. Camera was set on a tripod, 4 second exposure @ f/9.5 on ISO 100.

Also one of my favorite arguments with people who say they dont like to post process their images because they feel it is cheating have obviously never studied the works of Ansel Adams.

Mr. Adams was an expert in the dark room. Sandwiching negatives over top of one another. Adding full moons to images, burning and dodging and manupulating many of his images to the masterpieces we all know them as today.

If he was alive today, he would probably be the Scott Kelby of the photoshop world only he did it all in the dark room

 

[Lost Canadian]

Guy Tal actually answered this exact question, kind of anyway, on his blog about a month ago.

The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without work.

–Emile Zola​

Ever wonder what makes one image “better” than another? In some cases it may be obvious - one may have more compelling subject matter, another might suffer from poor technique, some benefit from fortuitous circumstances (”same place, but with a rainbow on top&#8221 etc. Still, most of these can be canceled out through practice or luck. There is still that “something,” though — that elusive “je ne sais quoi” — that sets off great from good. It is why some can produce great work more consistently than others, even working in the same medium and with the same subjects and using the same tools.

More often than not, the difference comes to something very basic: excellence requires hard work. Those who choose the comfort of motorized access will never have the same selection of locations as those willing to trek on and off the trails. Those who prefer automation to manual control will always be at the mercy of little electronic brains. Those who prefer to work light and fast will rarely produce the same compositional balance and attention to nuances as those who take their time to study, consider, and experiment. Those who are naive enough to believe that clicking the shutter button in the right place at the right time is all it takes to make a great photograph will not benefit from the same versatility of those willing to spend the time studying, and fine-tuning every last pixel in post-processing.

As Thomas Edison put it: genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. In practically every case the better image is a result of more hard labor: more sore muscles, more heavy lifting, more shivering, more sweating, more bleeding, more discomfort, and yes - more posterior-numbing time spent staring at a screen. Better images are almost always the result of commitment and an obsessive drive, of a self-critical state of mind that just won't settle for “good enough”.

As with so many other things, the law of diminishing returns is very much at play. With some practice, the vast majority of people can consistently make good images. The jump from “good” to “very good” is a steep one, and the one from “very good” to “great” a hundred times so. When you're close to the edge even small gains come at great cost. That tiny margin at the very height of the game is what excellence is made of. Equipment will only get you so far, even opportunity and vision will only get you so far. That last percentage point is all about you and how far you're willing to push yourself.

There may come a day when technology allows for visualization, or seeing the finished image in one's “mind's eye,” to translate instantly into a great work of art, bypassing laborious trekking, camera controls, and post-processing. Until then, take a long hard look at just how far you're willing to go for your art. Just how passionate you are, and how much you're willing to sacrifice.

Call me cynical but when someone protests about the “other guy” having better gear, or using Photoshop, or having more time, I hear excuses. Most of us are fortunate to live in times of opportunity, where our basic needs are met, where information and education are readily available, where almost anyone can do almost anything if they want it badly enough.

Want to explore and experience wild natural beauty but are not comfortable hiking, backpacking, or camping? Get comfortable!

Think your images don't live up to their potential because you're not good with Photoshop? Get good!

Want to spend more time outdoors but can't because of work, or because of where you live? Don't take the time - make the time!

Passion and hard work and risk and personal sacrifice transform into results. Excuses remain excuses.

Guy

 

[paulj]

Many non-photographers don't realize how much your eyes and brain process the images you see. Your diaphragm opens and closes in response to how much light there is. Your eye moves around, focusing one thing close, then on something far away. Your brain automatically adjusts the color balance, so 'whites' look equally white in full sunlight, and under incandescent lights.

To get a photograph that looks 'real', the camera (and possibly post processing) has to do the same sort processing. You or the camera electronics have to choose the shutter speed, lens opening, focus distance, color balance, contrast, image stabilization, and more. Just as it is possible to choose these things to make a image that looks 'realistic', it possible to choose them to achieve an artistic effect.

In that waterfall picture, the key parameter to getting artistic effect is the 4 second exposure. But other things had to be chosen to match - the use of the tripod, lens opening (moderately closed), even the color balance (shade?). Camera position, time of day, weather (cloudy, not too dark), and time of year (enough water flow), all played a role in making this a great picture.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

In that waterfall picture, the key parameter to getting artistic effect is the 4 second exposure. But other things had to be chosen to match - the use of the tripod, lens opening (moderately closed), even the color balance (shade?). Camera position, time of day, weather (cloudy, not too dark), and time of year (enough water flow), all played a role in making this a great picture.

That was exactly what I was trying to get at but didnt want to say it myself.

All those items that were needed to make that shot right out of the camera is basically doing all of your post processing in advance and knowing what to look for.

You were right on with all your facts about what made the image that way. It was a dark day, helped with the long exposure.

It was raining while I took the photo and had been for a few days prior - Helped with the water flow and made everything seem very saturated

Sturdy Tripod and a very wide angle lens 27mm on a full frame camera.

Once you press that shutter button, you've basically changed what the eye sees. So taking any picture is a form of post processing

 

[Michael Slade]

Two things to remember (I'm into making lists today...)

1. The camera ALWAYS lies. You just decide which way the lie gets told.

2. Get it right when you shoot it. Anything else is just trying to rescue an image. If it ain't right when you shot it, odds are you are just going to be polishing a turd.


I teach a class where my students don't get to do any post-production work all term. They hate me when they start, but by the end of the term they see what I am trying to teach them to do. It is the digital equivalent of shooting slides or transparencies and showing those for critique.

I like the quote from the blog that Lost Canadian provided. There is a lot of truth there.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

I like that quote alot also.

I think teaching your students the right way to expose a shot in the first place is the best way to teach photography. That would be a cool exercise even for me to try and not do any post processing for a few shoots.

I really hate when I see someone snap a picture and I mention that if they wait around 10 or 20 minutes the light will be much better. They usually just say something along the lines of "Oh I'll just fix it in photochop when I get home"

 

[nwoods]

with a few fortunate exceptions, I'm not a photographer, I just take pictures. I have learned enough to tweak the settings of the camera to more or less faithfully record what I see, but I have yet to master creating an image that only my mind can see. Rob O's recent HDR work is a great example of shooting what's not there and creating an image. It takes imagination and forethought. Skills I do not yet have, but am working towards.

I like ThomD's definition of Mechanical verses Artistic processing. I personally run a sharpening script on all my photos, and tend to reduce the highlights on many of my photos, and the occasional dusty sensor booger. I often use the Healing Brush on people's faces, but rarely use blur or cloning or more exotic color/contrast settings.

I definitely have noticed that over the past few years, I need to process far fewer images, and I also shoot fewer images, but have a higher "keepers" percentage of what I shoot. This is encouraging for me, and I keep working at it.

I think these two images are my favorite unprocessed images:

 

[dhackney]

I like Michael's technique of forcing the students to shoot good images first, with no post-processing, a lot. If they don't learn that essential skill, they will, IMO, be polishing, um, well, you know, what he said, for the rest of their shooting lives.

I noticed in reading this thread that we oldsters might be on one side of a generation gap here. We all grew up shooting analog. We had to get the basic, initial shot right enough to get something on the table without spending a week in the darkroom burning through supplies trying to pull something out of nothing, which I guess was the analog version of polishing the, um, thingie.

How many people here learned how to shoot manually, as in the camera was only manual? Remember how exciting it was to have a little meter pointer in the viewfinder on a 35? Can you imagine taking a kid out today with the mode dial gaffer taped in the "M" position and asking them to shoot?

It is my guess most young people who grew up with fully automatic point-n-shoot cameras consider the M mode to stand for Misery.

My point here is that those of us who carry this analog background have a pretty clear view of the conceptual difference, the bright and shining line, between the capturing of the image and the processing (and by that I mean alteration) of that image.

For people who grew up in the digital age of photography, who may only have dim memories of APS or 35mm analog cameras, there is no difference at all. It's just one continuous digital stream, or what we would probably term workflow, from pushing the button to whatever they post, project or host.

I think to those of us of a certain age (my kids would say epoch), the 'mechanical vs. artistic' division is entirely logical and common-sensical. I'm not sure someone raised entirely digitally would see it that way.

Personally, I've tried to spend our time out here capturing good images. I find I spend less and less time in any photo editing package. I used one today for the first time in a very long time. I use very, very few of the capabilities of Lightroom beyond tweaking exposure and cropping. I don't even do much curves work anymore.

This may all change when our boat comes ashore and we re-enter normal life. I may then delve deeply into Photoshop and put in the time to learn how to create the amazing art that talented Photoshop people can produce.

But for now, I'm just trying to take solid, well made images, such as the wonderful waterfall shot in this thread. I'm just trying to give myself the best material to work with later, if I choose to, that I can.

I don't think that approach makes me more pure, or more divine, or more anything. I just think it makes me about the same as the kids in Michael's class - trying to make the best images possible with no post-processing.

Doug