Who does and who doesn't (post process that is! )

[chris000]

I use film and scan and print digitally and I also post process although for the most part this is restricted to dodging, burning, etc. and mild sharpening.

I set out to try to produce good images and, if I succeed, does it matter how I produced them? Do they suddenly become worse images because I tweaked them on a computer?

I don't think so.

 

[ampguy]

if you like the results

if you like the results

you should keep on doing what you're doing. I use Picasa for some photos, and prefer the look of photos taken without radical post processing.

Sometimes when I tell people that I always post process my photos in Photoshop or equivalent, I get a curious response along the lines.... "Oh......you are cheating." This is always said with a smile but it is always said in a manner that tells me that the people are seriously of this view and at least a little curious about why anyone would want to - as they see it "cheat".

Not only do I do this with my digital shots (where I naturally shoot RAW so processing is something of a no brainer) but also with most film shots that are any good. They are scanned and processed as a matter of course.

Every shot that is worth keeping at least gets the following basic treatment:
- Denoising
- Saturation adjustment
- Contrast adjustment
- Sharpening

In many cases I will also do some extra processing too. In Paint Shop Pro Photo X2 (which I have largely switched to from Photoshop for processing as its faster to use and easier to learn) I will adjust the micro contrast using their "clarify" filter. Other top end image processors have similar filters. This increases the clarity of the shot and is especially beneficial for landscapes, especially urban landscapes. And of course things like white balance may need fixing.

Once this foundation work is done, I will then more radically adjust images - converting to black and white or using a cross processing filter or a bleach bypass simulation or some such to change the image.

For what its worth, here are some of my photos on Flickr. Not a single shot has NOT had the above treatment. I am certainly not claiming this to be high art....but hell, it is never the less, my art and I get a buzz out of doing , learning and getting better.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157606843567046/

But this set me thinking.

What do others think about my question that I opened with?

Is processing in this manner "cheating"?

Should photos just be in their "native" form. Or are the people who say this just technology "luddites"? I certainly used to more or less agree with them when I shot film exclusively. Now I am convinced otherwise.

I would like to know if I am in the minority. Especially on this forum where there is a more than average number of film shooters.

 

[morback]

I think this argument stems from the lack of unified consensus as to what photography is and does.

I believe most people think it records reality, or a fragment of it. In this case, photography can only fail, for it is only a grotesquely cropped, magnified and out of context instant recorded on film.

If on the other side you think photography is an expression of one's identity (the photographer's), reflected by the world around and coated on film, then there is no argument about cheating. Who has the right to tell you who you are?

 

[al1966]

Within certain measures work done in software is just development, its only when you start putting things that were never there in the first place that it becomes cheating. Theres always been "composites" digital has just made it a lot easier for people look at Oscar Reijlander's "Two Ways Of Life" (1857) severe manipulation has always been there.

 

[JeremyLangford]

People who call post-processing "cheating" are too ignorant of photography to be even accorded an answer.

/T

Exactly................

 

[JeremyLangford]

One thing I've learned to do with my post processing is to do it to a separate duplicate set of files. Quite often I'll get to the end of processing scanned files from a roll of film and realise I've made them worse in many instances ... then frustrated I'll delete the entire mess and start again. I think if I had a wet darkroom I'd cost myself a lot of money in paper and chemicals!

The other thing I've had to learn is to know when to give up on an image and just accept the fact that I shot it badly in the first place and no amount of staring at it on the monitor and trying every trick I know is going to salvage it and turn it into something that will make me happy.

Both these things happen to me all the time in Photoshop.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

I have made comments on the idea of "i dont photoshop" mentality before on this board but this concept is right up there on the ignorance scale with the guy who shoots rolls and rolls of film but doesnt ever develop them because he is a master photographer.

Chosing not to adjust your import for a monitor, be it from a scan or a RAW file is simply NOT an option. These things dont just appear "finished" when you press the import button. You wouldnt do that anymore than you would put any negative in a carrier, expose paper for 3 seconds, develop for 30 seconds and then call it a master print.

If you dont have the skills, patience, or education to work on your monitorization process, thats fine, but dont have some attitude that suggests "I dont photoshop because Im better", its because you are lazy. the end.

 

[Thardy]

Every shot that is worth keeping at least gets the following basic treatment:
- Denoising
- Saturation adjustment
- Contrast adjustment
- Sharpening

If I didn't process scanned images they would look pretty sick.

How do you go about denoising?