How much post-processing do you do ?

T

taffer

void
Local time
9:19 AM
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
3,447
In one or other way we're all half-digital photographers as we post digitalized versions of our negs here, but after the contact sheets thread I've started to wonder something.

I use to take advantadge of what PS and other programs offer, and not only by adjusting levels, curves, sharpness, brightness, contrast, etc to try to make the scene look the most 'like the original' possible but also by cropping and/or rotating slightly when I see something that works better as a crop or to correct slightly tilted horizons.

But I'm curious. Somewhere I read that the more task you can do in your camera the better, and I completely agree with that but do you consider 'fair' to correct that kind of errors using digital technology or should that be considered 'manipulation' ?

OTH I'm not talking about massive image changes, but mostly those ones that have something to do with exposure/crop/tilt.

Dunno :confused:, what do you think/do? Would love to read more opinions on this !
 
Keep in mind that many of the 'manipulations' that you find in PS or any other image editing software are directly carried over from what was/is available to you in the wet darkroom.

Things like cropping, dodging, burning, sharpening, rotating, spotting, double-exposure, etc, etc are all 'old tools'.

Personally I try to limit myself to just that - things that I could have done in a traditional darkroom. To me that means that I don't add or remove elements of significance within a photo.

Example of 'of significance':
I consider it OK (for me) to use the cloning tool to spot a scan from dust particles - or even a scratch.

I don't think it would be OK (for me) to for instance change that photo of the protester to carry another sign (or paste in a photo of cop - or add a dramatic sky).

Colour is a touchy topic to me. I want to be a purist to a certain extent but with colour photos I find that I always 'massage' the colour range a lot to get the look I want - even though it does not always match the original slide/negative. I have also some time de-saturated a colour shot to turn it into a b&w image but I've never liked doing it.
 
I do as much post-processing as it takes to bring out the image the way I want it. Totally parallel to working in a darkroom.

It's true that the more that's right with the negative, the less there is to fix up.

How you develop your negatives depends on whether you do darkroom printing or scanning only. For scanning, thinner negatives are preferable. And not too contrasty. I pull back at least 15% from the suggested developing times, sometimes close to 25% to get thinner, less contrasty negs.

Then there's the scanner software. Most of the software I've used (Minolta and Epson) has a tendency to clip both the highights and the shadows. I switched to VueScan and have much greater control over pulling the maximum tonal range from the scanner.

My scans from VueScan are almost what you'd call 'muddy'. I try to capture as much highlight and shadow detail as possible, resulting in a very washed out grey looking starting image.

That's where Curves, Levels, etc come into play and I start adjusting the image to look the way I think it should. I should add that I scan to 16-bit TIFF so I have more latitude with strong adjustments. I convert back to 8-bit JPG for the final image and before sharpening.

I'm sure everyone has a different work flow. This is just how I do it...

Gene
 
I see Richard, that's more or less what I think myself too :). As for color, I like to use color films from time to time just to give that different 'touch' but I'm pretty much a convinced B&W shooter now.

Then there's also perspective correction, was that available in the wet darkroom ? By using bellows in the enlarger lens maybe ???
 
Gene said:
I do as much post-processing as it takes to bring out the image the way I want it. Totally parallel to working in a darkroom.
Click to expand...


That's it Gene, 'focusing' in the final result is what I always try to do, however, I was really curious to know what others thought about that.
 
A good question.
I guess I could say that I'm a "traditionalist", and I only recently got a proper scanner, with which I'm able to scan negatives.
One does tend to get carried away sometimes, but I do try to stick to the usual stuff - i.e. a bit of level and contrast adjustment, and just a tiny bit of USM.
I do mostly B&W, and I try to produce scans which are similar to what can be done and what is usually done in the darkroom. I'm strongly opposed to any kind of excess manipulation, and I hate (with a passion) obviously manipulated (digital) photos I find on various photo sites. One recent example was a couple of thumbnails which caught my eye because of interesting bokeh (even on a tiny thumbnail). When I opened the larger version of photos, it turns out the guy has used "Gaussian blur" on the background to get something similar to "Leica glow", but obviously totally artificial. I hate that stuff!
However, the removal of blemishes (spots, hairs, dust, etc.) is a real blessing! :D

As a sidenote, I noticed a considerable boost in my (photographic) output. In the last month and a half (since I got my scanner) i shot more 35mm film than the whole previous year! It's great to just take out the film from the camera, develop it and wash, and after two hours it's more or less ready for scanning! And I get the photos the same day...
Before the scanner, I could never force myself to make the prints - it was usually late in the evening, after the kids have gone to bed, and I was always too tired. Now I can produce the photos (i.e. scans) any time of day with much less effort, and I'm enjoying it more than ever!
 
i'm looking forward to getting a film scanner.

oscar, i am a complete rookie at this stuff and i think your question is very timely for me.
i was very hesitant to involve myself in any kind of 'digital workflow' for fear of going over to the dark side but i'm starting to see the parallels to a wet darkroom.
i think if i want a print for my wall though i'll stick to 'wet'.
for now anyways...

joe
 
backalley photo said:
i think if i want a print for my wall though i'll stick to 'wet'.
for now anyways...
joe
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot to say that, as a "traditionalist", I wouldn't dream of anything but a traditional silver print for a "materialized" (paper) photograph. No inkjets/lasers - just a traditional enlarger and a traditional silver halide print.
All of my scanning is purely for Web/email use :)
And it definitely replaces contact sheets as a means of evaluating negatives. The scans from negatives also help me evaluate any "tweaking" which will be necessary in the darkroom. The "final product" is always a darkroom print. Scans are just the intermediate steps - although the majority of those never get "materialized" on paper ;)
Denis
 
Cropping, level and/or curve adjustments, colour balancing and USM are always applied to my scans. Some dodging/burning for B&W is pretty common too.

Some photos receive perspective correction although it is very minor because I always pay attention to perspective of buildings/structures when taking the shot.

And lastly, the painful dust removal process. Dust removal feature on my Minolta SD IV doesn't seem to cooperate. ARRRRGHHHHHHHH! :bang:

A couple of links for you guys interested in Photoshop workflow that I find very useful.

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/home.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/instant_photoshop.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with the preceeding comments. After scanning my negs I use PS Elements 2.0 to get what I want in the final image. This is no more than what a 1hr lab does to give you your prints. I am far more satisfied now as I get what I want and not the labs version of what they think I want. This is not giving into the dark side only having the best of both worlds. I use a little levels, auto colour, auto contrast and a touch of USM with rotation and some cropping where needed. Still trying to figure out why I would need a higher version of PS.
 
Hi Kris,

How do you find the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual IV? I want to change a new scanner. A new scanner is not photographic equipment! (Mantra) :)
 
Peter, if you're in the market for a scanner, take a look at the Minolta 5400 while you're at it. I think it's one of the best purchases I've made. For colour and C-41 B&W you can use Digital ICE to remove most spots and blemishes. It's a bit more than the Scan Dual IV, but offers a lot of punch for its price.

Gene
 
Peter, as Gene said, give Minolta 5400 a consideration. ICE will save you lots of time from cleaning up dust specs in PS. I'm happy with SD IV in pretty much everything but one thing: ICE. I spent countless number of hours cleaning up dust specs in PS.

Also, if you don't scan any silver halide films (traditional B&W and Kodachromes) have a look at Nikon scanners. Coolscan V or LS-50 comes to my mind. LED base illumination is said to be superior to cold cathod in terms of dynamic range. Unfortunately LED based illumination doesn't cope well with silver halide emulsion.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/elitecoolscan.htm

Oh and after next week, I won't have much life. This week I'll be shooting hundreds of photos for a non-profit organisation. Back to straining my eyes and clicking the damn mouse with that clone stamp. *Sigh*
 
In this discussion I think it's also important to keep in mind how the final image is portrayed. If it's a photojournalistic image I hold it to much stricter rules that I would of an ad in a paper selling toothpaste.

If it's a blatant digital composite of sky, aliens, cows, etc I have no problems at all with that - it's when the boundaries gets blurred and digital composites are being 'sold' as 'photos' that I take offense.

Damn I'm such a luddite.
 
Kris, may I know how you got so much dust on your negatives? Do you just hang up your negatives to dry in the bathroom? A friend told me to use a clothes bag (could get one in IKEA) and put the negatives to dry inside the bag. This way you could prevent alot of dust. If you want extra assurance, you could put the clothes bag of negatives into a cupboard with dessicant. :) Alternatively, you could get a negative blower/brush to tidy up the negatives before scanning. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
taffer said:
Then there's also perspective correction, was that available in the wet darkroom ? By using bellows in the enlarger lens maybe ???
Click to expand...
Indeed yes, at least for some, if the enlarger offers the feature. Mine does, a Beseler 23C, through its tilting lens standard. Combined with tilting the paper easel, this allows perspective control, within the coverage ability of the lens. However, this also results in a stretch for the image in the direction of the tilt.

So far my scans are only from the lab. I make very minimal changes as necessary for "realism" through rotation, cropping, Levels, color balance, and saturation.
 
Taffer,
I have had the same question for months, just never asked it.
I use every tool available too massage my final image into what I see/want. I take Ansel Adams approach to photography and visualize the scene before I press the shutter. I may want an image that has brighter skin tones, or a darker sky than was present at the time the image was made. I could use a redish filter and accomplish both, or I could dial in an average exposure and handle the rest in Photoshop.
Like Richard said, almost all the tools available in PS are derived from traditional tools of the wet darkroom. Ansel Adams spent hours burning and dodging, running test strips, using every tool in his belt to give us the images we've all seen. I think if alive today, Ansel would be into Photoshop big time.
Most of my images have the typical Curves, USM, etc. applied to them, I find because I use a flatbed scanner they need it. Also because I use a Mac (calibrated 1.8 gamma) I will use a levels adjustment to make sure all my Pee Cee friends (2.2 gamma) here can see what I see in my images.
There is no substitute for proper exposure . Good question!

Todd
 
Peter

Another vote to consider the Minolta 5400. To see the end product check my gallery here.
 
Nikon Bob said:
Peter

Another vote to consider the Minolta 5400. To see the end product check my gallery here.
Click to expand...

heh... Nikon Bob votes for Minolta, sounds like betrayal! :O)

I use minolta SD III but I don't have much of a prob with dust, only perhaps 2-3 dust to clone out per neg. which is good cuz SD III doesn't have ICE. however I've read reviews which also say ICE tends to soften the pic somewhat, anyone has experienced this?

I guess one of the big turn offs with using PS is that after all the hard work in tweaking the photo, its wasted cuz you can't print a proper BW print like a traditional silver halide print. why can't someone come up with a cheap way to print great BW prints?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom