Attitudes to processing images

A while back a guy in my office decided to get a camera and started off on the whole “I want to do everything in the camera and Photoshop is cheating’ rant.

I found these two quotes: “You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” – Ansel Adams
“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.” – Ansel Adams.

They both are how I feel about pics. Anyone else bored enough to discuss this?

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.

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

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.

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).

2016 10 15 lakescape 02 by Rob P[/url], on Flickr

2016 08 03 Castle Crag 01a by 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.

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.

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”?

2016 08 03 Castle Crag 01a by 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.

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.

Surely a good photo of a shit (boring) subject.
Nowt wrong with photoshop, just don’t try claiming that it isn’t anything else apart from a photoshopped image.
I appreciate the art of getting the image right by undertanding how to use the camera. I also appreciate that art can be made with photoshop.

scotroutes – Member
OK, here’s a question Rob.
Would you say to someone “I took this photograph”?

Good question. I took ‘a’ photograph but I made ‘this’ photograph. In the sense of the literal meaning of the word. In all honesty, I don’t think I ever have claimed to have ‘taken’ one of my finished images.

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)

As I was saying, I deliberately introduce and keep those kind of things in as [a] I quite like the way digital artifacts look and they reveal the image for what it is – a manipulated photograph (truth to materials and all that…).

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.

Meeaaaoowww!

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 can 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 has 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?

Not saying I do anything well (although I do have a First in Fine Art for what that’s worth, which is probably a whole other thread…).

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.

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