Changing Tastes - Re-Processing

[M4cr0s]

I guess this is a viable question both for digital post processing and those fortunate enough to be able do serious darkroom work.

Do you ever go back to old photos and reprocess them as your tastes change and your skill/knowledge grow or evolve? Or is the first incarnation you're content with simply "it" - the final version? Can a later version be said to be your "vision" too, even if it's years after the initial capture?

/Mac

 

[Keith]

I do this quite a lot.

Often I'll be going back through some scans and discover an image that responds differently now to the way it did when I shot it and attempted post processing to little avail at the time.

 

[drewbarb]

Oh, absolutely. Sometimes I'll see an old shot I like but think I can make a better print, and it would be worth it to do so. (I don't much do this in the computer, but with negatives and wet prints, sure.)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes I do. I actually ad the chance to do this when I stopped doing darkroom prints due to health problems. I spent 5 years scanning my entire archive of negatives from my darkroom printing years and I greatly improved on many of the earlier ones when I did the dodging and burning in photoshop that i would have done in the darkroom.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Quite often.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[peterm1]

Yes I do - almost all the time. Often due perhaps to my skills developing as much as my taste changing. This induces me to go back thru and old folder of images transferred from my cameras and find something I had rejected before as unworthy of bothering with. Its surprising how often I will find that I see it in a different light and create something nice out of it. Here is one. This was motivated partly by a change in taste (I had been shooting black and white exclusively) But also it was motivated by a sudden realization that photo I had rejected actually had promise. An attractive young woman was surrounded closely on either side by other people who detracted from the image by cluttering it. By cropping tightly into portrait format, desaturating the color somewhat and adding some vignette I suddenly found that an image I had rejected a few months before could be turned into something worthwhile that I in any event found quite pleasant.

Similarly here. It was a nice shot but boring in pure monochrome and the young woman was surrounded by people. Once again by cropping, vignetting strongly and making sure the only light was on her face and book I suddenly had something I really liked. I also discovered I liked the effect of a little color. I don't know that either of these came totally from a change of taste exactly but in addition there was a realization months after the event that I could revisit the photos to make them more engaging with just as little effort and maybe a few of my new skills.

 

[M4cr0s]

peterm1: Good examples. I have similar experiences when looking back at old files.

One thing that strikes my mind, is that image processing software and algorithms may improve over time. Particularly when it comes to RAW. Hence, you might get a slightly cleaner/nicer file at a later stage. Of course technical quality isn't everything when it comes to photography, but I guess most would agree that they want their images to look as good as they possibly can given one's equipment, experience and 'shop knowledge.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

M4cr0s, image processing software HAS improved over time! It's why I've shot in RAW since the beginning of my use of digital photography. The difference in what I can do with a RAW file from the Canon D30 I used in 2001 ( using Bibble 2.5) and what I can do with it today with current software is amazing. Combined with a decade more experience in digital processing, I've often gone back and reprinted images from that time.

 

[Keith]

Post processing is interesting because it applies to both sides of the fence so to speak. If you're a film shooter with hybrid tendencies, in spite of your dedication to your analog capture method, you still have to posess some skill in digital post processing if you want decent results.

I'm sure there are people out there who just accept whatever quality scans their lab hands them when they have a roll of film procesed but I've disovered with my own photography that the post scan stage is where the work really begins a lot of the time.

 

[M4cr0s]

Post processing is interesting because it applies to both sides of the fence so to speak. If you're a film shooter with hybrid tendencies, in spite of your dedication to your analog capture method, you still have to posess some skill in digital post processing if you want decent results.

I'm sure there are people out there who just accept whatever quality scans their lab hands them when they have a roll of film procesed but I've disovered with my own photography that the post scan stage is where the work really begins a lot of the time.

It's a...tense subject for many, especially the traditionalists (APUG ). I'm a child of the digital age, I actually like and shoot both digital and film (is that the lynch mob I hear lighting up their torches with flint and steel?). For me personally it is however impossible to neglect the possibilities digital image processing gives me. The process does not stop once you hand in your film for developing. In fact, I think that working with images in post, attempting to achieve something you like or imagined when you shot the frame is a worthwhile process of its own, it might make you more genuinely aware of composition, shape, color and texture and also help you imagine what the end result can look like when you're there, snapping. Sort of a different route to achieve something in the neighborhood of what Ansel was talking about.

Then again, each to it's own. I perfectly well understand those who hate post processing, it's very time consuming and can be abused. For the serious amateur however, that does this for his own enjoyment, I think it's about getting to an end result he's happy with. Honestly, even if a frame is more or less ok straight out of the camera, most benefit from at least contrast adjustments, maybe a hint of vibrance and some sharpening. Yet, peoples eyes and minds are different and we want to achieve different things. You don't have to PP, but there's no reason to bash the PP'ers just because you don't (I bet that last naïveté will surely bring down the executioners axe over my neck!).

/Mac

 

[peterm1]

M4cr0s I am with you.

I often take some gentle "stick" on this forum because people object to my photographic style as being "overworked." There is a distinct tendency for traditionalists to gather here and they tend to only like black and white shots straight from the little box - warts and all. Any post processing or deviation from this formula is distinctly suspect. I moved from film having been a hold out for a few years and then embraced digital with a passion. The only thing that matters to me is the final result. If I get it from straight from the camera without tweaking that's fine. (Mind you I seldom do as I am "picky" and like my photos to be "just so.") But if it takes some digital prestidigitation to get an image I am pleased with that's fine too. I know some others don't agree but I do not mind. Anyway I enjoy sitting at my computer- just ask my wife!!

Now don't take this literally. They say "Genius is the infinite capacity for taking pains." (I am not a photographic genius.) My point is I have found that in photography as in life what gets results is concentrating on details as well as the big picture. This is why I tweak during post processing - it can eliminate the little distracting and detracting details that reduce the final image quality whether it be as simple as adjusting color and tone globally or as complex as individually adjusting different parts of the image selectively etc.

Most seem not to realise that the real geniuses of photography did just this. Does someone really think that Ansel Adams just went out clicked a snapshot, came back and printed it up. Not on your life. He took great pains at every stage to get the best possible image quality and final outcome including hours in post processing. I am just trying to emulate this philosophy in my own small way.

I guess I feel this way because I have taken time to develop the skills to do it (well perhaps 70% there) and by researching.

So long story short I agree with you 100%. I am glad to see a like minded person here.

 

[robert blu]

Sometimes I go throu my old negatives (contacts) and discover that some pictures I had evaluate not good is now interesting if put together in a small collection with some other pictures, maybe taken in different moment or different places for a different purpose. In this case I re-edit and re-process (my postproduction is an "imitation" of what I was doing in the darkroom) and re-print. Honestly I could stay long time without shooting and only working with my archive, but...I like shooting...
robert

 

[bo_lorentzen]

All the time.

Not only does taste change, but I also think (hope) that possible my way of seeing and prosseing images matures over time.

This goes both for the dark room and light room. (smile) the funny thing is I frequently run into a old picture, then play with it a little and suddenly realize I already DID crop and process it, yet now I see it as un-processed. ha ha.

BTW... edit @mac - Yup, these days I mostly scan negs into the computer for further processing, love film, seems there is no easier way to "add grain" than simply scanning a actual negative. I also love the way film captures a light range, the scanner seems like a modern enlarger in many ways. (well some ways)

Peter... that second one is brilliant.!

Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com www.bophoto.com

 

[M4cr0s]

M4cr0s I am with you.

I often take some gentle "stick" on this forum because people object to my photographic style as being "overworked." There is a distinct tendency for traditionalists to gather here and they tend to only like black and white shots straight from the little box - warts and all. Any post processing or deviation from this formula is distinctly suspect. I moved from film having been a hold out for a few years and then embraced digital with a passion. The only thing that matters to me is the final result. If I get it from straight from the camera without tweaking that's fine. (Mind you I seldom do as I am "picky" and like my photos to be "just so.") But if it takes some digital prestidigitation to get an image I am pleased with that's fine too. I know some others don't agree but I do not mind. Anyway I enjoy sitting at my computer- just ask my wife!!

Now don't take this literally. They say "Genius is the infinite capacity for taking pains." (I am not a photographic genius.) My point is I have found that in photography as in life what gets results is concentrating on details as well as the big picture. This is why I tweak during post processing - it can eliminate the little distracting and detracting details that reduce the final image quality whether it be as simple as adjusting color and tone globally or as complex as individually adjusting different parts of the image selectively etc.

Most seem not to realise that the real geniuses of photography did just this. Does someone really think that Ansel Adams just went out clicked a snapshot, came back and printed it up. Not on your life. He took great pains at every stage to get the best possible image quality and final outcome including hours in post processing. I am just trying to emulate this philosophy in my own small way.

I guess I feel this way because I have taken time to develop the skills to do it (well perhaps 70% there) and by researching.

So long story short I agree with you 100%. I am glad to see a like minded person here.

Out of curiosity I had to take a closer look at your Flickr. You process to a distinct style, particularly you street shots. I would not care the least bit if someone voice a dislike of your processing, it's what I consider tastefully and effectively done. Some of your landscapes are excellent too, very much to my taste. In fact, I've been thinking for a while to work out my own technique for a slightly desaturated and moody style, about time I get to it! Haven't really had the right shots for it yet though.

For me the film vs digital is just as much a financial reality as anything else. I just cant afford to shoot and process the amount of film I wish to (20-30$ per roll total), and even if I could theoretically set up a simplistic and makeshift-ish workflow for developing B/W I still haven't got access to a decent scanner. Also, I'm vision impaired and I would definitely eventually knock over a bottle with some nasty smelling chemicals and infuriate my better half and possibly burn a hole through the floor So I shoot a few rolls every now and then and get crappy scans, but at least its a chance to use the old and battered manual cameras that I so much enjoy. Basically, I can't afford to be picky, or a snob.

Digital simply equals freedom and opportunities and gives more people the chance to enjoy the photographic experience. There are still some pockets of resistance, some luddites around that express and fight for their perception and the classic film school of thought. I think it's a great thing. The craft and knowledge of film and developing and processing it, should and must be preserved. It is however just silly to hammer someone for making images that they, themselves like and enjoy. Cameras, lenses, computers, papers and chemicals (oh I bet this is going to sound so blue-eyed and idealistic, not to mention sacrilege on a gear centric forum) are just tools.

/Mac

 

[DRabbit]

Rarely - almost never.

I kinda feel like once an image is "finished" it just is, and I don't typically want to go back and redo it. To me, they're kinda like paintings... I wouldn't go back and "repaint" a finished work, even if a few years later I thought I could improve it.

However, I have gone back and reshot a photo, even if nearly identical to the first in composition.

It's not a snobby thing either... I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it... I just personally like to feel finished with a photo. When it's done, it's done. I also don't keep all originals... I make a decision to keep it or it hits the trash, so no opportunity to turn it into a "keeper" later.

 

[M4cr0s]

Rarely - almost never.

I kinda feel like once an image is "finished" it just is, and I don't typically want to go back and redo it. To me, they're kinda like paintings... I wouldn't go back and "repaint" a finished work, even if a few years later I thought I could improve it.

However, I have gone back and reshot a photo, even if nearly identical to the first in composition.

It's not a snobby thing either... I don't think there's anything wrong with doing it... I just personally like to feel finished with a photo. When it's done, it's done. I also don't keep all originals... I make a decision to keep it or it hits the trash, so no opportunity to turn it into a "keeper" later.

This is interesting. Do you feel it is about progression, to keep moving and evolving, taking what you can learn from a photo and go for the next shoot, the next photo op and the next inspiration?

 

[bo_lorentzen]

Amy,

Totally can understand your feelings on a finished image, I feel that way about stuff I have printed and mounted. and I am happy with the images, I do not get a urge to re-do them..

BUT... when I pull out a neg or look at a old digital file, that is when sometimes its time to make a duplicate file and a revised version. I think that is the same as entirely darkroom, once you pull out a old neg to print it again (if you do). you are likely to print it anew like it was just captured, so I would see it with my current set of eyes.

Reworking digital files to me is kind of the same thing, though I always make a copy and keep my original result.

Bo

www.bophoto.typepad.com

 

[Bob Michaels]

One should see some of the differing prints that Ansel Adams made from the same negative over the years as his taste changed.

I believe he was considered pretty good at printing images.

 

[peterm1]

Out of curiosity I had to take a closer look at your Flickr. You process to a distinct style, particularly you street shots. I would not care the least bit if someone voice a dislike of your processing, it's what I consider tastefully and effectively done. Some of your landscapes are excellent too, very much to my taste. In fact, I've been thinking for a while to work out my own technique for a slightly desaturated and moody style, about time I get to it! Haven't really had the right shots for it yet though.

For me the film vs digital is just as much a financial reality as anything else. I just cant afford to shoot and process the amount of film I wish to (20-30$ per roll total), and even if I could theoretically set up a simplistic and makeshift-ish workflow for developing B/W I still haven't got access to a decent scanner. Also, I'm vision impaired and I would definitely eventually knock over a bottle with some nasty smelling chemicals and infuriate my better half and possibly burn a hole through the floor So I shoot a few rolls every now and then and get crappy scans, but at least its a chance to use the old and battered manual cameras that I so much enjoy. Basically, I can't afford to be picky, or a snob.

Digital simply equals freedom and opportunities and gives more people the chance to enjoy the photographic experience. There are still some pockets of resistance, some luddites around that express and fight for their perception and the classic film school of thought. I think it's a great thing. The craft and knowledge of film and developing and processing it, should and must be preserved. It is however just silly to hammer someone for making images that they, themselves like and enjoy. Cameras, lenses, computers, papers and chemicals (oh I bet this is going to sound so blue-eyed and idealistic, not to mention sacrilege on a gear centric forum) are just tools.

/Mac

Thank you very much for your feedback. I appreciate it. And once again I agree with your other sentiments. It seems we think alike! I too cannot (or will not) pay the cost of using film all the time. (I enjoy it enough to do it occasionally though.) Everytime I hit that shutter button it costs me about $1 factoring in cost of film and developing/scanning. Thats just not "on" when the marginal cost of digital is pretty well zero for intents and purposes. Moreover when I take film photos, of the 24 or 36 in the roll, I can bet that only a couple or so will be really worthy of keeping and working on further. That raises the marginal cost of film to perhaps a minimum $4 a usable image. Ouch!

Digital has meant I have been able to become a better photographer (a) because I now shoot more and hence learn more (although I have never been a spray and pray kind of shooter) and (b) because I can now post process in a way I never could in the analogue world. Hooray for digital, I say. You are right, digital = freedom.

 

[M4cr0s]

One should see some of the differing prints that Ansel Adams made from the same negative over the years as his taste changed.

I believe he was considered pretty good at printing images.

I have to admit, that no matter how you put it, that is an excellent point, able to shut me up (almost)

However, it seems likely that there's a different between "artsy" stuff (including hobbyist/enthusiast) and professional commercial photography. I.e. get the frames and sell them and move on to the next job/gig. I don't think a wedding photog go through old frames from one of his 344 consecutive weddings and reprocess it unless there is some kind of financial gain to be had from it.

In the end I think the thread so far has answered my question, I'm not a weirdo (only) because I occasionally go through old frames and have a list of images in the back of my head that I want to process one more time with different techniques and styles (I'm still weird though ).

/Mac