[Closed] Attitudes to processing images

Shit photos don't get any better in photoshop.

Each to their own. I don't do PS because I haven't got time/can't be bothered. Might be worth mentioning to him that the world's most expensive photograph had a factory photoshopped out of it.

[img] [/img]

There probably aren't many film photographers who have never burned in a lens flare on the print etc.

Yeah, I take shit photos and no matter how much I overlay the crap out of them, they're still shit.

However, I don't care.

It's all about the image You see, if you want to process the bejebus out of it after its been taken then go ahead, why not.

One thing I do not like though, and that's 'airbrushing' the images of young ladies in underwear marketing adverts and such.. also the medias insistance on bland perfection being the norm. I get annoyed at the constant betrail of uniqueness amongst Women in photographs.

^^ that's a shit photograph.

Is it some random image off t'internet ?

bikebouy, it's a video still from when Gursky was shooting Rhine II. In all its photoshopped glory below

[img] [/img]

Mostly snobbery.

To me, it depends what you do. In film, you could vary the exposure of the print, dodge, burn, etc.

Are you sorting the horizon, adjusting white balance and tone? Or are you adding in Nessie and removing half the contents of the frame because you really mucked up the composition?

WTF!
Honestly, why bother, why not go along the Zuiderzee and pic any of the vast 100k flatland images !

Ok, if that's what can be done as an example, then hey.. impressive.

I don't see that there's any harm in processing an image so that it more closely represents what can by seen by the human eye (I'm not even going into adding elements to it). Some of what is now passing as "photography" has gone way beyond that and is really an art form in its own right.

I've always loved playing with something called Enlight, it's an App for photo enhancement. It's got a load of presets and a massive selection of adjustments underneath, I like playing.

Anyway, this shot has been played with, I like it, even though the original image was fabulous the enhancements in my eyes make it bettererer.

[img] [/img]

One of my pet subjects. I'm firmly in the 'process the hell out of it' camp, especially now I'm firmly digital rather than analogue.

I come from a Fine Art (painting) background, so it's process and outcome that interest me and not the 'purity' of the decisive moment. I treat photography like I treat painting - I'll do whatever I need to in order to create the image I'm after.

Because of that, I actually really like the digital artifacts that build up when you process digital images heavily - they are part of the 'story' of how that image came to be and have a beauty in their own right (I fully appreciate I may be in a very small minority in this).

One aspect I am pretty 'pure' about though - I VERY rarely add, remove or alter individual elements - IMO composition happens at that moment you take the picture and is where the skill of the photographer makes itself evident (in the ability to see that interesting / stimulating / beautiful image isolated from the chaos of the visual world).

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5322/29888319623_a59bf2415b_h.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5322/29888319623_a59bf2415b_h.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/Mx8s8z ]2016 10 15 lakescape 02[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/robpaul/ ]Rob P[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5489/30182615444_2b5c85a959_h.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5489/30182615444_2b5c85a959_h.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/MZ8N2s ]2016 08 03 Castle Crag 01a[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/robpaul/ ]Rob P[/url], on Flickr

The universe is probably just a hologram on the event horizon of a vast and unimaginable nothingness. The majority of that hologram is made of something we call Dark Energy, which we cannot prove exists even as an illusion. Most of the rest of that holgram is Dark Matter which is similarly difficult to point out. And yet your friend is correct, only a photo taken in camera is a true & honest representation of reality.

[quote=colournoise ]One of my pet subjects. I'm firmly in the 'process the hell out of it' camp, especially now I'm firmly digital rather than analogue.
I come from a Fine Art (painting) background, so it's process and outcome that interest me and not the 'purity' of the decisive moment. I treat photography like I treat painting - I'll do whatever I need to in order to create the image I'm after.
I guess that's what I'm getting at above. You're creating art.

I think its naive to suggest that post-processing the the digital world is wrong or that its cheating. Post processing has always happened in photography in some form or another. to suggest that cropping, brightening, contrasting, burn/dodge etc etc never happened in analogue film is foolish - you can do those things in the darkroom, just through different means than on a computer.

That being said, I think as above there is merit to the argument that subject matter makes or breaks a photograph. But even then, that to me breaks down into whether you make the photo, or you are just lucky enough to capture that right moment.

"You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” – Ansel Adams

No all the time. With landscapes, I think a lot falls into that you make it ... you're placing yourself, really assessing the scene and making it appear the way you want. You rarely just randomly snap that *moment* of landscape, its more that you capture the essence of it. (imho)

Alternatively, some of the most iconic *moment* photos are just that... being there at that moment and pressing the button to capture it with less regard for its overall composure.

“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.” – Ansel Adams.

I can see that analogy. I have made a number of completely different looking prints from the original photograph taken. In both cases though, the original was a good picture to begin with.

Photographers have been dicking around with the photo since photography was invented and most top photos in history will have had some form of manipulation in the development. Filters and lenses are also altering reality as you take the shot.

Though myself I'm not a fan of post process gimmicks. Intagram style faded polaroid filters, HDR "effect" that is processed to hell (and in some cases aren't even HDR). Though I like a subtle HDR that is actually doing as intended, just balancing the exposure of various elements of the photo. Where it's used to provide unrealistic colours and glows, I'm not so keen.

I do a lot of post process manipulation myself on most my SLR photos because they do tend to come out a bit flat from the camera, but it's limited to selective adjustment of levels. In the main bumping contrast in areas to make the image "pop" more.

Depends though. A photoshopped to hell image if it looks impressive then yeah I like it. I just considering more like a painting than a photo. As art it's fine.

[quote=bob_summers ]In all its photoshopped glory below

Still a shit photo. IMHO. But then clearly I'm not fully appreciating the poncy bollocks.

I don't see what the issue is. I don't use PS or LR I prefer putting my photo's via Nik software. However in years gone by when I had a darkroom, you were taught to dodge and burn, try all sorts of effects and put the wet image through toners.
If when you'd printed, and it still wasn't right you could use brush and ink to paint out blemishes.
All thats occurring now is a digital version of what we did 40 years ago.
I do however agree, that taking out people or even a factory across the river is perhaps taking it a bit too far, depending of course on what you are trying to portray.
Other than that, take a look at old videos of the like of Adams and see how he builds up his landscape images into a photograph.
No, I don't see what the issue is.

OK, here's a question Rob.

Would you say to someone "I took this photograph"?

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5489/30182615444_5c11c0d56b_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5489/30182615444_5c11c0d56b_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/MZ8N2s ]2016 08 03 Castle Crag 01a[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/robpaul/ ]Rob P[/url], on Flickr

I personally dont see whats wrong with saying that you took it so to speak. Its clearly cropped and vignetted (possibly a wee bit too much personally, cause you can see the step of it) ... but it is still obviously been *taken* to capture that valley / glen.

I'd like some of what wordnumb is smoking.

[img] [/img]
/p>

That isn't straight! Arrrgh

I don't do PS because I haven't got time/can't be bothered.

I'm the same, only with the addition of a lack of ability.

There's nothing wrong with it though, and I kinda wish I could do it. I'm pretty sure that professional film photographers didn't spend hours on end composing shots and then fired the completed roll off to Boots.

Like most art forms it's about taste. If I like the result, I like it, whether it's been adjusted ot not.

Still a shit photo. IMHO. But then clearly I'm not fully appreciating the poncy bollocks.

scotroutes - Member
OK, here's a question Rob.
Would you say to someone "I took this photograph"?

With my arty-farty hat on, I guess I make images more than take photographs. I really don't see them as any different to the paintings I no longer have time to do - my visual concerns and preoccupations are pretty much the same, just expressed through a different process and medium.

fisha - Member
Its clearly cropped and vignetted (possibly a wee bit too much personally, cause you can see the step of it)

I post-process according to the Spinal Tap mantra...

The problem with processing is that most people who really like it also have awful taste, and/or are generally absent of the ability to apply any of it with any degree of subtlety.

Three_Fish - Member
The problem with processing is that most people who really like it also have awful taste, and/or are generally absent of the ability to apply any of it with any degree of subtlety.

Guilty as charged, but subtlety is knowingly not on my radar and I'm pretty confident on the taste front. Whether others share that taste is up to them. If they're happy being wrong...

😀

Depends whether I wanted to capture a moment in time or create a beautiful image. If it's the former then I'd probably not want to alter the original too much, colour balance, exposure maybe but not much more. If it's the latter then the photograph is just the first stage of the process and all forms of manipulation are on the cards.

I have a friend who insists on doing as much as possible without any kind of post processing. He shoots in JPEG and most of the time does nothing to the image. It's an entirely valid approach to creating art (and one that has landed him as a finalist in the Sony World Photography Awards this year, last ten in the portrait category from a worldwide submission of 100k+ images).

A lot of people, myself included, shoot in RAW and then do a very mild PP, so mild I don't need Photoshop just a RAW converter, albeit a very good one. And that's also a valid approach.

My personal view is that it's not whether you do PP or not but rather how much. Almost everything on Flickr Explore for instance is just horrible over processed gash. It's about taste for sure - it's not my taste. But then don't be upset if lots of other people don't share your taste. Most of us aren't in the business of creating photo's that will hand in fine art galleries so we're really only creating things for our own personal expression so you may as well create something that you like yourself otherwise what is the point.

One last point; I was able to see a very well curated exhibition of Richard Avedon's portraits recently. The exhibition included some examples of his printing directions, where he marks up proof image with notes to the developer for how to get the print right. It was littered with notes - darken here, brighten here, soften there etc. That approach to PP is no different to ours.

My line however, does exist at the point where you create something that wasn't there in the first place. For me photography is about truth, beauty and love. If it wasn't there to begin with, then it cannot be truth. But that's just my line.

A JPEG is just a standard compression of what the sensor 'sees' anyway. Except that it's in camera.

I prefer to shoot in RAW then do a bit of post processing. But I can't be arsed more than twiddle the sliders mostly. Until I think it's better than straight out the camera.

Full use of PS is definitely an art (and as said earlier just a digital means of replicating the darkroom).

Full use of PS is definitely an art (and as said earlier just a digital means of replicating the darkroom).

I think there is an important difference between what photoshop can do, which is to create composite images that do not represent any scene seen by the photographer, and what a RAW converter like Lightroom and Capture One does, which is more analgous to the dark room.

I'm not sure that creating fantasy like images in Photoshop is any more an art form than say comic illustration, which I guess means it is 'pop art'.

and I'm pretty confident on the taste front.

The first picture you posted is interesting (in a good way); I like it. I also like noise and artifacts, of digital and analogue varieties. The second is grotesque; a destruction of something naturally impressive. Kind of like a really bad cover version of an amazing piece of music - you know that hell-awful Sound of Silence cover, by Disturbed or something? Like that, only visual. It's not dramatic or sympathetic, just a tasteless hammering. Just because you [i]can[/i] do something...

My original post wasn't actually directed at you, although your head obviously fits the cap (or more likely a sombrero or backwards baseball cap). There is no argument, in my mind, about whether or not processing is right or wrong. It's 100% impossible to create an image without processing the light in one way or another.

Do you know why you're so confident? What is it that you think you do so well?

Taking a photograph is the first step in making an image.
Use whatever tools you feel necessary to realise what you want to create.

Less theorising, more image making.

It's always an interesting argument. I work on the basis these days that I use minimal LR processing, but because I tend to shoot RAW there basically [i]has[/i] to be some. Because a lot of my shooting in large numbers of event images, I don't have the time to individually tweak each separate image, so it tends to be drop the images, do a quick select then apply a preset or two. There are some things that actively annoy me, overblown HDR being the main one, simply because they don't look 'real', but it all depends what you want out of your image.

I think there is an important difference between what photoshop can do, which is to create composite images that do not represent any scene seen by the photographer, and what a RAW converter like Lightroom and Capture One does, which is more analgous to the dark room.

Point noted and agreed with, I'm more comfortable with LR approach than PS. What I meant was there's an art to the 'proper' processing of an image (not the 'fakin'g of...), which I don't possess myself unfortunately... 😳

Is the same concept not true for music? In my somewhat outdated opinion there's nothing much wrong with a Les Paul plugged directly into an overdriven 50w Marshall head. Then you have J Mascis.

Interesting topic. As a keen and deliberately amateur snapper who rides a lot, I hope to capture the beautiful scenes that I enjoy while I'm out.

If it doesn't work out, I'm disappointed but it's motivation to go on another ride and take more snaps.

I have no problem with people using PS to adjust images to recapture what they thought they saw, but heavily processed pics leave me cold - however dramatic they look.

Is the same concept not true for music? In my somewhat outdated opinion there's nothing much wrong with a Les Paul plugged directly into an overdriven 50w Marshall head. Then you have J Mascis.

Surely J Mascis is like a photog with a shitload of filters and stuff om his camera, but doesn't do that much on the computer. Kevin Shields would be the Photoshop power user, surely?

One of my first jobs out of art college was photoshopping in a large highstreet photo lab. Most jobs consisted of removing or adding people to photographs or putting two people from seperate photographs together. More often than not when presented with the finished print the clients would be puzzled as to where I had found this new, hitherto unseen photograph of their relatives.

Had I found it somewhere among their dead mums belongings? When was I at their house? Was I warlock or a necromancer of some sort. They seemed to expect some kind of crude outline, or gap where I had cut one subject out. But obviously good photoshopery can be completely invisible. It can be used to accomplish anything any other photo editor can do or a lot more besides.

Use it or don't but it's idiotic to get snobby about it. When people talk about photoshop generally they just mean bad photoshop. If you want to be a purist build your own pinhole camera. If you think photoshop is cheating then you've clearly never used a dark room. Better not use auto focus, or auto white balance, auto iso or multi matrix light metering while you're at it.

Three_Fish - Member
Do you know why you're so confident? What is it that you think you do so well?

I'm confident that I'm doing exactly what I want to do and getting the results I personally want. I'm confident there's nothing hamfisted about the way I post-process regardless of how you view the final images.

it's not my career (although I do teach GCSE Photography amongst other subjects - had quite a few 'interesting' discussions with other photography teachers about how it should be taught) so I don't really care whether the viewer finds the image grotesque (interesting choice of language BTW), interesting or beautiful. I'm lucky I have the freedom to explore the bits of digital photography that I find interesting.

The parallel would be someone like Picasso (although I'm in no way putting myself ANYWHERE near his level obviously). He was capable of some of the most breathtaking naturalistic images, but spent pretty much his entire life exploring other ways of showing the world just because he found them more interesting than demonstrating his traditional skills.

[img] [/img]

Someone paid $4.3 million for that!?! Holy ****!

I'm a bit wary of post processed images, I'd rather see photographs unadorned.

I'm a bit wary of post processed images, I'd rather see photographs unadorned.

If the post processing is done well, you'd never know it was done at all*. As others have said, almost all images have had some form of editing, whether that's just tweaks to the colour curves, contrast or brightness or anything bigger.

* My personal opinion, obviously.

No photo will ever do justice to what was seen by the human eye at the time the photo was taken imo: so many times, for example, I've been up a mountain and stood in awe at the view and come away with a photo that's just 'meh' so if filters/PS/etc can add a bit of that 'awe' back, then fine by me...but then most of my photos are for me & my friends with barely anything for public viewing so maybes its different for 'real' photographers

'Photoshopping' is such a generalised term that it's pretty much meaningless - it could mean anything from a bit of exposure adjustment on a RAW image to better reflect what you actually 'saw' through to completely bastardising the original by adding stuff, taking stuff away, distorting detail etc.

Fundamentally I guess the argument is about whether you should change what the camera captured. But what if what the camera captured isn't what you saw anyway? It's arguably better to post-process stuff so that it better represents what you saw.

Or maybe better represents what you felt or experienced.

What if I'm processing images for web site use and I run a set of actions to sharpen it up and give it a little more 'pop'? Is that a problem? Anyway, I find it hard to get really animated over, except in so far as some publications use Photoshop to create unattainable, aspiration images of people that, in turn, have the potential to create misery in some of the audience.

If a polar bear just a looks a bit whiter or sharper then so what?

"I'm a bit wary of post processed images"

I come out in hives every time I see a black and white image with one colour object (usually a rose, post box or mid range sports saloon with a spoiler)

I'm confident that I'm doing exactly what I want to do and getting the results I personally want. I'm confident there's nothing hamfisted about the way I post-process regardless of how you view the final images.

The picture of the glen looks like a photograph and a selection of processing techniques applied over the top (in both senses of the term). The two things - image and process - are completely separate and distinct elements. Intended, perhaps, but could you explain the relationship between the original photograph, the processing, and the final image? I appreciate absolutely that you're exploring your own interests, but that is never going to alter the fact that people who know what you have done will perceive and translate your images in a particular way. As a fairly well-experienced digital developer, I would say that your processing is very heavy-handed. That may or may not be your intention, but it is my perception and description.

The parallel would be someone like Picasso (although I'm in no way putting myself ANYWHERE near his level obviously). He was capable of some of the most breathtaking naturalistic images, but spent pretty much his entire life exploring other ways of showing the world just because he found them more interesting than demonstrating his traditional skills.

I think you over-qualify and over-rate yourself, sorry.

[quote=km79 ]
Someone paid $4.3 million for that!?! Holy ****!

I presume they're a fan of poncy bollocks

Seems a moot argument. All images have to have processing applied to them whether in camera or software.

A raw image is pretty hopeless without some form of processing.

Software allows you to do the finishing rather than in-camera. It's as much part of the chain as taking the picture in the first place.

I only shoot RAW and prefer to do the editing rather than the camera - I do overdo it sometimes though.

Which do people prefer from these two?

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/600/31916211753_4a57182610_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/600/31916211753_4a57182610_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/QCjVNZ ]DSC00594[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/671/32689025136_6788473544_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/671/32689025136_6788473544_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/RNBNiE ]DSC00595-Edit[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

I really don't like the photo of the pine branch on the beach that bikebuoy posted up, it's horribly over-processed, a sort of HDR that really doesn't work at all.
The composition isn't all that, and the pine needles at the branch extremeties have lost all definition and just gone fuzzy.
I've no issues with post-processing in Lightroom or Ps, I used to do it as part of my job in print prepress, and it should be as invisible as possible, but I don't have Ps on my current Mac Mini, and TBH I really can't be arsed to phaff around tweaking my photos, if I can't get it to work in-camera, then I'm not bothered.
I'm in awe of someone like Ansel Adams, the effort he put in to get exposure spot on for his landscapes is incredible, because he was shooting 10x8 Polaroid Land negative film, with virtually no grain, and staggering DoF, but I'm more of the Cartier-Bresson school, of get the framing and exposure right then don't mess with it.
Which works sometimes, but I do end up having to do a bit of cropping if only to get a horizon horizontal or vertical vertical.

Dave - for me the question is; which one is closer to reality? The sky in the second one looks more realistic but the grass looks strangely bright - though I've seen it do that under certain lighting conditions (usually dull overcast with a shafts of low sunlight).

Which do people prefer from these two?

Top one if I have to pick, it looks real. Bottom one looks too fake and obviously played about with. Somewhere in between the two might be the better option.

Three_Fish - Member
that is never going to alter the fact that people who know what you have done will perceive and translate your images in a particular way. As a fairly well-experienced digital developer, I would say that your processing is very heavy-handed. That may or may not be your intention, but it is my perception and description.

Even as a "fairly well-experienced digital developer", you seem to be looking at this from a pretty fixed viewpoint. People are free to interpret any image in any way they want to, but it doesn't make any of those interpretations correct. They're just images and their meaning and impact is constantly in flux.

I think you over-qualify and over-rate yourself, sorry.

Anyway, think I'm going to leave this now. Opinions differ and that's a good thing, but banging your head against a wall isn't.

[img] [/img]

Reduce the saturation of the lower one, and it'll look a lot lot better than the top one.

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR - Member
I only shoot RAW and prefer to do the editing rather than the camera - I do overdo it sometimes though.
Which do people prefer from these two?

Better?

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/723/31887734714_07b2e5b397_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/723/31887734714_07b2e5b397_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/QzNYzy ]DSC00595-Edit-2[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

It's better but the sky looks too dominant with the rest of the pic. I would back off the contrast on the sky (flatten it) and then it will district you less from the main subject. Basically everything is popping in your picture.

This could be a very long answer so will try to contain myself.

Generally, I agree with the initial sentiments. An image is not what is front of you, it is what you make of it. It is how you control and use the light and how you see the subject and what you include and exclude from the frame.

There are of course a plethora of photographic styles and some are based on PP (post processing).

If we just think about standard digital images, then all photos are processed. This is usually by a camera to a set of default settings. This was the same with film choice previous to this.

Post processing to me is just taking control of the processing. Sure, it's not easy, sure it takes skill to do well, sure it's easy to do badly but if you want a photograph to really be yours then you have to do it. This is just the same as if you were a film tog back in the day.

...the same goes for filters. If you use ND or ND grad filters for landscape images then they all have a colour cast to a greater of lesser extent so PP is actually a more pure way of processing the shots.

...okay kept that fairly brief but that's my 2c.

Someone paid $4.3 million for that!?! Holy ****!

That picture of the Rhine crops up every single time we debate photography on this forum. Without exception.

I quite like the it. It's a good image; it's very pleasing and serene and the balance of colour is nice.

That someone paid £2.7m for it has no more to do with it's aesthetic qualities though than an unmade bed littered with the detritus of sexual proclivity or a cabinet of pills and potions. The only valid question to ask is why the person who created those works has come to hold such high regard that their work commands this price.

Anyway, if you think that's bad someone recently paid EUR1m for this picture of a spud:

[img] [/img]

This is not my picture - it was taken by a good friend of mine - but it's currently in my top ten favourite pictures. I'm interested to know what others think/how you appraise it's qualities.

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8865/28512003533_b8f9b1ba9a_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8865/28512003533_b8f9b1ba9a_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/KrvtiP ]The Cub[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/timtop2/ ]TPTopple[/url], on Flickr

This is not my picture - it was taken by a good friend of mine - but it's currently in my top ten favourite pictures. I'm interested to know what others think/how you appraise it's qualities.

Loving the critique, as is always the case in observations like these it's those who have the biggest gripe fail to post anything they produce.

But that's ok.

Because I like what I do.

What you do/do not is personal to you.

I'm interested to know what others think/how you appraise it's qualities.

Bagpuss.

It's a nice snap.

It is indeed but it goes deeper than that.

[img][url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/324/31550785472_4095b22866_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/324/31550785472_4095b22866_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/Q532iS ]Photo-Forum 'Best In Show' 2016[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/timtop2/ ]TPTopple[/url], on Flickr[/img]

It's better but the sky looks too dominant with the rest of the pic. I would back off the contrast on the sky (flatten it) and then it will district you less from the main subject. Basically everything is popping in your picture

Whilst I'm always open to constructive criticism, I'll have to disagree on this one - to my eye, the sky could well have looked like that naturally. Flattening would make the overall picture less interesting IMHO

ruh-oh

[quote=TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR ]

It's better but the sky looks too dominant with the rest of the pic. I would back off the contrast on the sky (flatten it) and then it will district you less from the main subject. Basically everything is popping in your picture

@takfastr I agree with rone. Even if I was to look at a sky and let my eyes adjust I'd never see that range of contrast. Back off the contrast a bit and increase the exposure a little and you're there. Main problem with the photo is the subject and composition not the processing.

I've nothing against manipulation in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'll process a RAW file until the image makes me feel I've represented the image how my eyes saw it and how I felt about it when I took the shot. I will also, like most painters, put my interpretation on the image rather than make it a faithful representation.

[url= https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/421/31920096733_71481fed49_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/421/31920096733_71481fed49_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/QCEQFp ]DSC00595-Edit-3[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

changing the colour isn't going to drastically improve it but you could perhaps level the horizon properly...

It is indeed but it goes deeper than that.

Top baiting. I agree, it's a picture that really works well. I would totally have photoshopped the junk out of the bottom corner though.

That HDR of Ladybower is a perfect example of people overdoing post processing. The initial image doesn't lend itself to HDR particularly (it's a relatively 'flat' exposure without the dark/light areas that HDR can correct). It's almost like you chose the effect before you looked at the picture and then turned the dial up to max. I don't like it.

People have been tinkering with film cameras for years to get different effects. Using different films, dodging, burning, split toning etc. When those effects were used in the wrong circumstances, I'm sure they created terrible pictures, just like people do in PS these days. I guess one issue is that nowadays it takes no effort at all to achieve these effects - a couple of minutes to produce something striking, if not actually good.

I suspect my perception of this is clouded by the fact that I cannot see what has been done a lot of the time. I can see bad HDR, crude saturation and cast adjustments and dodgy additions, but if someone really knows what they're doing I probably don't perceive what they've done - the picture will just look great.

So I [i]think[/i] I prefer minimal processing, but I'm probably wrong. 🙂

Top baiting. I agree, it's a picture that really works well. I would totally have photoshopped the junk out of the bottom corner though.

"but you could perhaps level the horizon properly..."

TBH I'm just not sure it's framed that well anyway, before the gash HDR treatment, there's too much distracting from the main subject. In the absence of an ND Grad at the time of capture, I'd be looking at subtly darkening the sky in LR, rather than HDRing it to bring back some of the texture of the clouds. This would also lessen the intensity of the scrappy woodland, especially on the left of the picture (where I'd also try to re-balance the light).

I'd possibly look at the composure of the image a lot more too. Not sure of centring the drain would be too cliched, but it's sort of plonked arbitrarily where it fits in the frame at present, which doesn't make the image that gripping to me. Much of this is far easier to do when taking the photo though. I've learned with time that capturing the light in the landscape is often what makes a photograph stand out. You can have the best subject and the best composition in the world, but if you don't have the light to suit either then basically you'll have at best a record of what you saw.

I always think a good photo captured at the right moment usually needs only a little processing to make 'right'as the content is so strong.

The more you tinker with it you are effectively trying to make up for something that is displeasing about it.

We work with digital video/raw video and the best shots just need a nudge here and there.

I'm generally not drawn to HDR unless it is used for something outside the the bounds of normal and towards the surreal.

In fact what you see in a lot of images/films now is a push towards a flatter image as it tonally represents a more satisfying look.

Our acuity though is naturally drawn to a high contrast image - as indicative of quality. You sometimes have to unlearn things like this.

Whatever ever system we use I always make sure the processing is backed off in the camera , the idea being that you are trying to capture the most information possible. So throw out the sharpness, NR and contrast etc. Unless you're in RAW where that is all a given.

So what's going on in this image ?

Seeing lots of images like this st the moment, and because the eye isn't used to seeing images like it they look good.

Personally not to my taste.

[img] [/img]

So what's going on in this image ?

An ugly bloke is going for a jog.

I'll respond, seeing as my picture seems to be creating a bit of vitriol. Erm actually, no specific HDR processing has been added to the photo, it's a single exposure and an ND Grad was used in LR.

I'm still getting into learning how to use LR, so, love it or loathe it, I know the processing is far from perfect. Each subsequent pic wasn't a cry for 'now please tell me it;s great', it was a response to a previous poster and their idea of what it required (or didn't) in the way of processing.

Photography can be very subjective - some pictures are undoubtedly shit, some undoubtedly fantastic, some will split opinion. What a handful of people dislike here, dozens like elsewhere. That poncy piece of over=priced tat posted earlier, wouldn't even make it onto my wall and I can't say I'm a huge fan of the child picture, but some people obviously love them

It's purely a matter of taste.

We process images before we even take them - everything looks better after a couple of drinks.
🙂

And unless you're using film, there will be certain degree of processing in most cameras anyway.

Best not to worry about it too much.

Funky - I reckon that runner pic uses an off camera flash, you can see the blast of light coming in from the right of the frame (check the shadows) and maybe there's one on camera too to fill in. That's what makes the runner really 'pop'. Clever use of light is really an art and creates a very rewarding image when done right. Some heavy vignette and a cool temperate applied.

MrSmith - Member
I come out in hives every time I see a black and white image with one colour object (usually a rose, post box or mid range sports saloon with a spoiler)

Digital pictures that try and look like old film stock.
Kodachrome at the touch of a button?
No ta.