Post Processing Images as a n00b?

Sleepy

Following on from a couple of posts with Dades in the best of Feb 2009 thread...

Is it really wise to start photoshopping your images as soon as you start out with photography?

Looking at pics on flickr, pix.ie and this forum I'm often struck by how many images posted here aren't what I would consider photographs but rather digitally enhanced images and/or blends of multiple exposures etc.

I accept that post-processing your images with Lightroom/Photoshop etc. can be a useful means of rescuing an image that you've messed up the exposure on or working around the technological limitations of the equipment your budget stretches to but to my mind it makes more sense to focus on getting the art of photography down before learning to enhance your shots or correct your mistakes.

Surely the knowledge that you can 'fix it later' while learning the art makes it too easy to get good photos without actually being a decent photographer? Personally I (and I find most others) learn far more from mistakes than successes. Every shot I mess up because I left the ISO at the wrong setting / didn't get the shutter speed right / left the lens cap on teaches me to not to do it again and makes me a better photographer. Without this learning, aren't I just becoming a better photo-manipulator?

Interested to hear peoples thoughts on this (apologies if it's been done before).

.Longshanks.

Im a total n00b with photgraphy, but i have been told to see processing software as a tool just like the camera. Processing software can only "rescue" an image if there was something worth saving in the first place. It won't save an image taken with your lens cap still on;)

Nisio

Sleepy wrote: »

Looking at pics on flickr, pix.ie and this forum I'm often struck by how many images posted here aren't what I would consider photographs but rather digitally enhanced images and/or blends of multiple exposures etc.

Just curious Sleepy, what do you consider to be a photograph?

Is it made:
When you've pushed the shutter?
Post processed and uploaded?
Printed and mounted?

ThOnda

I do understand photography as a creative process to produce pictures.
That includes capturing the light, developing film = processing the data, and publishing the pictures - upload or print (and frame).
The other question is how much processing you would like to do - what would be the aim of the processing. Straightening horizon is technically a processing too.
Learning what is possible to do with the data and then doing your own processing (includes no processing at all) is just part of the creative process.

Sleepy

Nisio wrote: »

Just curious Sleepy, what do you consider to be a photograph?

Is it made:
When you've pushed the shutter?
Post processed and uploaded?
Printed and mounted?

A single exposure exactly as it came out of the camera. In digital terms an unmodified RAW / JPG image, in terms of film an accurately developed and printed exposure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking post-processing. I do intend to use it at a later stage in my development as a photographer. I'm just questioning if it's advisable to try and perfect two arts at the same time when one of those arts can be a crutch for poor technique in the other...

gloobag

Post processing has always existed, it's just that we can now do it digitally which makes it a bit more accesible to your average joe. That being said, you should never take a photo with the attitude "I'll just fix it later in photoshop". That's just lazy.

Paulw

Sleepy wrote: »

A single exposure exactly as it came out of the camera. In digital terms an unmodified RAW / JPG image, in terms of film an accurately developed and printed exposure.

Raw and jpg differ greatly. Raw is simply data. It's not an image. It's information about the light captured. Until you process this file, it is not an image.

jpg is data manipulated as per the instructions of the camera manufacturer to produce an image. So, the processing is done within the camera, and you have limited control.

With film, you can do a lot with the image while developing the print.

So, no matter what you do, some post processing is done - it's just a matter of who does the processing - the person developing the print, the camera company developing the software to produce a jpg, or you processing a raw file to produce an image.

Dragan

Why limit yourself?

Genuine question. I have spent the last 13 months learning both photography and have made great gains in my knowledge about both at the sacrifice of neither.

Within the term "photography" are a lot of effects and methods, across both film and digital. People will always come up with their reason ( for those who are inclined to do so ) as to why one way is more "pure" than the other.

I look at it as simply as being another tool in my tool kit. My job, as a photographer or as an artist, is to produce the best possible image that i can.

I deal in finished products, the methods i use to get me there are secondary, though obviously very interesting. I'll not feel an image is less that pure because i did more than simply press a button.

Sleepy, the best thing i can advise you to do is decide, right now, how much time you have to put into photography and what YOU would like to do. If it's to currently steer clear of Post Processing then go that, master the camera you purchased and work from there.

Your goals should be your own, and for your own reasons. Only you know whats the best route for you to take man.

Sleepy

As usual, I've not expressed myself very well. It's not an issue of 'purity' rather than that of developing technique. njburke put what I'm trying to question very well in his thread about acquiring some old camera gear:

njburke wrote:

With digital theres not quite the sting associated with mistakes. I believe that the sting is necessary to reinforce any learning experience but it can still be fun, like the noble art of boxing. A fllm camera might provide the required occasional bloody nose.

I'd agree with the outlook that it's the occasional bloody nose that best teaches a boxer how to duck and weave. If we as photographers choose to avoid the bloody nose of missed shots / ruined images through the powerful tools at our disposal of post processing are we missing out on some valuable lessons?

Dragan, we may be veering off topic and into the philosophy of photography here but to my mind the ultimate ambition of a photographer should be to portray that which his/her eyes could see as accurately as possible whether or not that's the most interesting or beautiful image that could be made from that shot. That's what I want to do for now. In this respect, getting it right 'in camera' seems to be the best option...

DaireQuinlan

Is it time for this thread again ?

OP you might want to read through the rather exhaustive list of posts here first:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055274884 All 6 or 7 pages of them.

Although I suppose if the internet is good for anything it's endlessly repeating the same arguments ...

Dragan

Sleepy wrote: »

Dragan, we may be veering off topic and into the philosophy of photography here but to my mind the ultimate ambition of a photographer should be to portray that which his/her eyes could see as accurately as possible whether or not that's the most interesting or beautiful image that could be made from that shot. That's what I want to do for now. In this respect, getting it right 'in camera' seems to be the best option...

Ah, and here is our most fundamental difference as photographer! I tend to go for what my mind see's!

You have to love photography that way, that it is so different for everyone.

With regard to the boxing analogy, i always found the very best boxers are the ones who don't need to be told not to get punched in the face. Sorry, couldn't help it.

elven

and it isn't friday... what's going on?

yes, it's all been done to death but this is a slightly different take - whether to learn the craft of the camera before trying to learn the craft of processing i suppose is the question.

It depends what you're trying to get at, as you say you have an idea of what you want:

"to my mind the ultimate ambition of a photographer should be to portray that which his/her eyes could see as accurately as possible whether or not that's the most interesting or beautiful image that could be made from that shot. That's what I want to do for now. In this respect, getting it right 'in camera' seems to be the best option..."

so you've answered your own question.

I'd be careful with throwing around the word 'should' though. It's very subjective, based on your own motivations.

I think there's an element of traditionalism here because we've progressed from using film where you had to have special equipment and knowledge to achieve what you can now do with tools most people already own (a computer and editing software). I think this stops people from looking at what's really right for them to a certain extent because it's such a standard thing, having been used to shooting on film and having little control over the processing, and moving on to this digital free for all - and seeing that as a standard transition. For the kids who are growing up with a digital as their first camera, it's not going to seem so clear cut and who knows what will be acceptable for them.

Dragan

elven wrote: »

For the kids who are growing up with a digital as their first camera, it's not going to seem so clear cut and who knows what will be acceptable for them.

As one of those kids, the answer for me would be.....everything.

challengemaster

*gets popcorn*

*waits for Fajitas to see thread*

Sleepy

elven wrote: »

yes, it's all been done to death but this is a slightly different take - whether to learn the craft of the camera before trying to learn the craft of processing i suppose is the question.

That's exactly what I'm trying to discuss. This wasn't meant as a 'photoshop is bad, mmkay' thread. I can see real uses for it (and do on many of the images posted here).

rockbeer

Have you ever worked with film, sleepy? I haven't done much but I know people who have, and there's a fair degree of image manipulation and creativity in film developing, just as with digital post-processing. That's why most film photographers choose to develop their own rather than go to a lab. If it was a standard, unvarying process, as you seem to imagine, there would be no need for photographers to develop (hah!) darkroom skills. So in this sense I see it as just a question of degree.

Additionally, I don't think of post-processing as a fix so much as an enhancement. Of course you can add to what's already there, but in essence the processes involve selecting and emphasising certain aspects of the light captured by the camera at the expense of others. Thinking your camera technique doesn't matter because you can fix it in photoshop would be akin to a musician thinking recording quality doesn't matter because it can be 'fixed in the mix'. Every musician knows this is nonsense and so should every photographer. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

So, for what it's worth, in my view camera technique and post-processing skills are two essential parts of
the digital photography process. Camera skills to get the essentia data required to produce a worthwhile image, and post-processing skills to present that image to its best advantage.