The Anti-processing brigade ... or those who claim not to PP but do

Thecageyone

... can be very annoying [IMO] Meaning those who claim not to process, but do indeed.

The ones who exclaim "I never process my images, I don't believe in it!"

The ones who shoot Jpeg and allow the camera to do the processing and think their images are purer than thou because of it. I can't see anyone who shoots RAW not processing at all. Surely their images would all be flat and lifeless?

So why? Why harp on like a purist when there's no such thing, unless you shoot film and never allow your images near a pc.

It gets on my nerves, I'm sure I'll be shouted at and put down for saying this, but elitist 'purists' are the most annoying photographers out there.

This is not coming from anything I've read on here, but rather in groups on Flickr. there seems to be more and more photographers claiming "un-edited" or "non-processed" in the description of their images.

The end result to me, is what is most important. Where I don't believe in over-processing, I believe Almost all RAW files off cam need some work to spring some life into them.

Your thoughts?


[edit] Here's a top example of talking BS -

http://www.flickr.com/photos/boodoo/128274130/

Just read the description ... "after being combined and Tone Mapped, but not being touched in Photoshop" ... Oh, i see, so long as you don't touch Photoshop it's 'unprocessed'?

Ghost Train

I suppose its best not to know what processing or methods go on to get to the final image or what equipment is used. That way any photo you look at is judged the same.

Thecageyone

I agree, I don't know why people explain their methods or processes.

But it's more the ones who shout out big and proud that their image in 'un-touched' - yet it's pretty clear they either let the camera touch it up for them, or they at least did some light work in Photoshop or LR - far from un-touched then.

I just don't get why they imagine it makes them superior or a better photographer?

jpb1974

I don't see why people can't just present a photograph and then just STFU.

I'm not keen on comments such as "Great shot, can you tell us about the post processing?" because it just feels like maybe it's the post processing that stands out moreso than the subject matter of photo.

Nor - "can anyone suggest some post processing to improve this shot?", again it just too often feels like the actual photography bit is in the bag and all that remains is to perfect the post processing.

When people say "It's my style" when referring to Sepia toned wedding photos, enough vignetting to ensure that only 25% of the original photo remains, over-saturated landscapes, a lightroom preset field day etc.

Why the need to title your photos based on post processing - "Howth Boats HDR", "Self Portrait - Dragan Style", "Lovely Landscape with Octave Sharpening Technique".

Street photos where there's more thought gone into a catchy title than the actually presenting a thought provoking photo in it's own right.

There is a lot to be said for just taking a photo and having the confidence to leave it the phuck alone and let it speak for itself.

But in all honesty I'm not one to truly care... it is what it is... turn the page, switch the channel et al.

magicbastarder

i don't like processing - i find it tedious and boring (to do), and i do feel happier with myself if i get an image which needs minimal processing. just means i've been successful at the taking stage.

i suspect the reactions on flickr to processing may be from people who present photos and are then asked what processing was done on them, which might be irritating if they're relatively untouched.

Nisio

[devils advocate] Perhaps it's pride that the picture they had in their mind and the picture they took with the camera are identical?[/devils advocate]

the_monkey

Film photographers have been processing their images in the dark room for years before digital anyway .

Promac

Can't agree with jpb1974 much. "Howth Boats HDR" is a perfectly reasonable title for a picture. At the very least someone who doesn't know might ask what HDR is and might learn something.

I used to do a lot of film photography and there's no difference between photoshop and what you do with an enlarger. Cropping, rotating, dodge/burn, lightening/darkening, etc. When you're shooting in digital RAW, how are going to do that without photoshop? I can do it all with a negative and paper and there are very few good film shots where the picture is straight off the negative with no input from whoever developed it.

Ghost Train

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't like processing - i find it tedious and boring (to do), and i do feel happier with myself if i get an image which needs minimal processing. just means i've been successful at the taking stage.

I think thats main point, getting the image right first time and not having to use post processing to fix mistakes

It can also be seen a deceptive to alter a photo. People like to know what there seeing is real.

So then it comes down to how much you do with an image before it turns into an artistic malipulation instead of a photo

Calina

I hate entrenched positions.

Ultimately whether someone processes their photo or not doesn't bother me one way or the other; but I feel that if you take a particular position on it, you may lose out on a lot of beautiful things.

With regard to "can you tell us about the processing", I'm not against questions like this. Reading answers to those questions had a large input into my learning how to process my own photographs and it is an educational process in one way.

So I actually don't mind those discussions. Processing is a skill, not an innate talent. You need to learn it from somewhere if you're so interested.

I don't especially care for some times of processing, HDR for example, but I fully support the right of anyone to do it. It's their time after all and processing takes a lot of time.

After that, meh, I couldn't really care less. My life is too short to get in a tizzy about what other people think of whether I should process or not.

elven

I really want to wade in with a ridiculously argumentative post here just for fun but instead I'm going to be boring and say:

It can go both ways. You can get photos that'd look great with a bit of TLC, and then you get others (wedding sepia vignette example above) that should have been left the hell alone. Unfortunately you can't license good taste, and everyone has their own ideas of what looks fantastic and goes crazy with those sliders. I'm pretty sick of seeing heavy toning on stuff that people are trying to make look 'vintage' or 'retro' and it goes over the line that's actually 'tacky'. It's no wonder people see that and declare that all processing is evil...

My own guage of what's ok is when you see the picture before the processing, and not teh other way around. I don't believe that a better picture is one that needs less done to it - sometimes the foresight of taking the raw image that you intend to manipulate to a final presentation is just as good as being able to 'get it right in camera'. It's just a different kind of skill. There are also different kinds of pictures - some of them are more about teh content, and some of them are just about aesthetics, and you have to apply the right finishing as appropriate to the kind of picture.

On a social note rather than a photography one though, we tend to make decisions about stuff, and we get very protective of those decisions because we see it as being a part of our personality. That's why everyone who chose to buy a canon camera wants everyone else to buy one too, and everyone who decides to make declarations about boycotting photoshop does the same and when that point of view is attacked, they get defensive because it's their decision and therefore part of them.

Jesus, I just had my coffee and I haven't even checked my email yet and that comes out. Phew.

elven

p.s. i do remember an entertaining thread back in the day about 'photoshop as a crutch'. I wonder what skeletons that'd bring out of the closet!

sNarah

jpb1974 wrote: »

I don't see why people can't just present a photograph and then just STFU.

I'm not keen on comments such as "Great shot, can you tell us about the post processing?" because it just feels like maybe it's the post processing that stands out moreso than the subject matter of photo.

When people say "It's my style" when referring to Sepia toned wedding photos, enough vignetting to ensure that only 25% of the original photo remains, over-saturated landscapes, a lightroom preset field day etc.

There is a lot to be said for just taking a photo and having the confidence to leave it the phuck alone and let it speak for itself.

But in all honesty I'm not one to truly care... it is what it is... turn the page, switch the channel et al.

I for one do not do a lot of PP on my pics for 2 reasons:
1 - I'm slighty lazy and lack a hugh amount of technical skills when it comes to the PP process. That said - usually I do touch up colour and contrast.
2 - Some pictures I find do not need PP - that is my own personal opinion on my own images. If however, one of my "peers" provides C+C on how to improve the image by PP, I will take on that advice and experiment with it.

I do find it interesting to see how some others have PP'ed an image - which is why I don't agree with you on the matter of people asking about which PP has been applied. Agreed - on Flickr it sometimes goes off into madness but in general I find it interesting - as a form of selfstudy and learning PP techniques of others.

Nisio wrote: »

[devils advocate] Perhaps it's pride that the picture they had in their mind and the picture they took with the camera are identical?[/devils advocate]

+1 on that.

the_monkey wrote: »

Film photographers have been processing their images in the dark room for years before digital anyway .

Thecageyone wrote: »

...
So why? Why harp on like a purist when there's no such thing, unless you shoot film and never allow your images near a pc.

Suprisingly - shooting film usually involves A WHOLE MORE pp than shooting digital. You will manipulate your negs in the darkroom to such extend that they are nowhere near the original image.

Secondly on that matter - most of us who shoot film will get the negs developped onto CD/Scan negs and give the images the same treatment as digital ones with photo-editing software.


Now - as for my personal opinion on the matter. I'm neutral when it comes to PP. Yes - in some cases it will improve the images. In others it won't.

Some of my favourite photogs present their work "as is" and I like them for that reason. Some of them heavily manipulate images and I like them for that reason. Because I like their work regardless of what PP has -or has not- been applied.

There is a saying in French that says "You cannot discuss colours and taste" - which I think is very suitable for the PP discussion. You are either a fan of it - or you are not.

jpb1974

There's just too much emphasis on technicalities -

What camera, what lens, what filters, what settings, how many megapixels, JPG or RAW, did you bracket, what software, what post processing.

Not enough emphasis on what inspired you too take the photo, the thought process behind it, the subject matter, why you like it, the thoughts it might provoke, the memories it might evoke etc.

Maybe I'm just being a bit too romantic... but I believe that photography should be 95% about what's floating around in your mind and through your eyes and 5% about everything else.

I can appreciate that people want to learn and will ask questions... we've all been there. I'm definetly guilty of all the things I've mentioned earlier myself.

I think it's just a desire for people to let go of the technicalities for 5 minutes... free your mind... enjoy it... express yourself n' all that.

magicbastarder

it came up in another thread recently - photography and post processing require different skillsets. proficiency in one does not imply proficiency in another, and as i mentioned above, a photographer who has taken a shot he is proud of (and may have gone to considerable effort to capture) may balk when someone assumes that the shot turned out well because he plugged away at it in photoshop for a couple of hours.

as regards the 'wet processing has been around for years' defence - true, but the things photoshop makes available far exceed what is possible in the darkroom.

Calina

magicbastarder wrote: »

as regards the 'wet processing has been around for years' defence - true, but the things photoshop makes available far exceed what is possible in the darkroom.

I've always considered improved access to tools a good thing.

magicbastarder

true, it is a democratisation of the processing phase, but my point was not that it was a bad thing, but that they're not always directly comparable.

Thecageyone

I enjoy the processing as much as the shooting. For me, programs like Photoshop and Lightroom [especially] don't provide a crutch, rather tools to further enhance the image I had in mind before even shooting.

I don't mind people asking how such an image was processed - only yesterday someone asked how I managed not to mess up using the adjustment brush - I had already stated after a query, how I processed it. I'm proud of my processing when I feel I got it right. The image, of course, has to be worth the bother in the first place

It's the people who go out of their way to claim "UN-processed" under their work that annoy. It's been going on while, but never realy bothered me until very recently. I see it more and more on the likes of Flickr like it's some new trend.

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

Just read the description ... "after being combined and Tone Mapped, but not being touched in Photoshop" ... Oh, i see, so long as you don't touch Photoshop it's 'unprocessed'?

have you ever commented on this sort of nonsense? just curious what the reaction would be.

Thecageyone

I have on the odd occasion, in fact I did this morning when I ran a search on there for 'unprocessed' images. One guy claiming all he did was use the wrong white balance ... the image [of a beach with a silhouette of a boat] was mad orange and yellow toned, no way there was no processing. I actually can't find the image atm, will have to wait until there's another comment and it'll show in my home page I also stuck in that the horizon was crooked :P

I hate leaving negative comments in general, even when I feel they're constructive or warranted, as you just know you'll get backlash on your own images.

sNarah

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's the people who go out of their way to claim "UN-processed" under their work that annoy. It's been going on while, but never realy bothered me until very recently. I see it more and more on the likes of Flickr like it's some new trend.

Can I just ask why do get annoyed by that? It what they LIKE and what they WANT to do. Like I said before - it's a difficult debate with 2 sides that probably will not agree. Why can't you not choose to disagree?

In photography - every once in a while a new trend will arise. be it HDR, Lomography, Retro vignetting, etc etc and people will rant about it. (Yes, they will, look at all the HDR stuff we had to read trough) Person A will think it's great, Person B will hate it and Person C is "Meh". That's fine. That's how it works!

Rather than ranting about it - why not just leave it be, ignore it if you must or even try it yourself? Perhaps try and achieve a perfect in-camera image.

I can understand why some photogs might find no PP a form of "freedom" and self expression and why they choose to specifically mention this to their audience. It is a statement - that they are part of a community that chooses to display their images in this particular fashion.

Wether you, me or anyone else's likes their images or not, is a complete different question.

Calina

Thecageyone wrote: »

I have on the odd occasion, in fact I did this morning when I ran a search on there for 'unprocessed' images.

Do you actively go out of your way to get annoyed in this way? I mean, me personally I do a huge lot of processing on some shots, particularly in Adobe RAW and if the unprocessed evangelisation was annoying me, I wouldn't actively seek it out.

I'm really trying to work out what your point is here.

Thecageyone

It's not a rant, it's worth discussing IMO. That is what photography forums are for no? Discussing different techniques/styles/processes etc ...

That's a bit like saying - If you're not bothered about it, why not leave the thread alone?

It doesn't annoy me to the pint I'll kick a small dog like ... it's just something I've noticed a lot of lately. These big claims in the description of "UN-PROCESSED" when a lot of them clearly are.

Thecageyone

Calina wrote: »

Do you actively go out of your way to get annoyed in this way? I mean, me personally I do a huge lot of processing on some shots, particularly in Adobe RAW and if the unprocessed evangelisation was annoying me, I wouldn't actively seek it out.

I'm really trying to work out what your point is here.

Original point was to spark a discussion on processing vs not ... and all these claims of non-processing ...why?? I'm not having a go at people who actually do not process - that's their preference. But there's a LOT of photographers making the claim and obviously processing. I just don't get it, and it's no harm to discuss it as it is photography related. I just gave my opinion on it, you are free of course to dispute. I'm interested to see what others think on it, I'm sure many flickerites here have come across it too.

And on the point of not getting annoyed by it: Well, we're not all the same basically. Why does my being annoyed by it annoy you?

Slidinginfinity

Thecageyone wrote: »

These big claims in the description of "UN-PROCESSED" when a lot of them clearly are.

Seems to that you are more bother by what you perceive as a lie, than by anything related to the quality photos.

stcstc

the part of this i find hard to deal with, is where the process or processing becomes the heart of the images

a while ago now i saw an exhibition, where a big deal was made about the fact they were shot with toy cameras. BUT the images were un interesting or un inspiring.

the push of the exhibition was the toy camera and not the pictures, if that makes sense

and when it comes down to it, what it was shot on or how it was processes doesnt matter if the image is rubbish

but i do enjoy like calina the discussions of how things were shot and processed etc. i have learned a lot from reading those types of discussions.

Thecageyone

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

Seems to that you are more bother by what you perceive as a lie, than by anything related to the quality photos.

Well, yeah. I don't get why they make huge claims, as if it made them any better. As I said earlier, I look at an image for what it is. i don't care mostly how it got there, once it pleases me to view. I find some of the people who make the un-processed claim, do so on very average, blatantly processed images. Like i wouldn't be impressed even if it were completely un-touched.

It's more a niggle than an annoyance, it won't ruin my day or anything.

sNarah

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's not a rant, it's worth discussing IMO. That is what photography forums are for no? Discussing different techniques/styles/processes etc ...

That's a bit like saying - If you're not bothered about it, why not leave the thread alone?

It doesn't annoy me to the pint I'll kick a small dog like ... it's just something I've noticed a lot of lately. These big claims in the description of "UN-PROCESSED" when a lot of them clearly are.

Yeah - that's what I meant actually, rant = discussion sometimes

But, I do agree with you on that last point you made, don't claim it's "as is" when it's not. I love unedited pure and raw images just as much as processed ones.

However, your point now comes down to honesty of photogs again - oh god I can't believe it, another integraty debate :rolleyes: - when claiming something isn't what they say it is!

Thecageyone

stcstc wrote: »

but i do enjoy like calina the discussions of how things were shot and processed etc. i have learned a lot from reading those types of discussions.

If an image interests me I do like to hear how it was done. Only if the photographer wants to share that is. I love processing, I find it relaxing, I tale my time doing it, I think it's as much a part of modern photography as the shooting. I'll often have in mind how I'll touch an image up while I'm shooting.

There's the "my lens is bigger than yours" bunch too, who give all the gear info under the image ... but that's another thread to itself.

magicbastarder

sNarah wrote: »

But, I do agree with you on that last point you made, don't claim it's "as is" when it's not. I love unedited pure and raw images just as much as processed ones.

if i saw two fantastic images of similar quality and was then told one was straight from the camera, and the other had eight hours of post-processing, i'd be lying if i said i'd be able to look on them as equals again.

humberklog

Where does one read this info about the pic (or method of taking it)? I've genuinely seldom noticed the claim being made but have never seen it as bold statement but more like boring info.

Is it common on peoples websites? Or more common on photosharing sites like pix.ie? Or on photography forums such as this?


If it a brag...well then it's probably just someone being a little silly...wouldn't it?

Thecageyone

sNarah wrote: »

Yeah - that's what I meant actually, rant = discussion sometimes

But, I do agree with you on that last point you made, don't claim it's "as is" when it's not. I love unedited pure and raw images just as much as processed ones.

However, your point now comes down to honesty of photogs again - oh god I can't believe it, another integraty debate :rolleyes: - when claiming something isn't what they say it is!

If it was just the odd person doing it, grand. I could leave it alone. but I'm coming across it a hell of a lot lately. Like there's a triger effect, one sees another claim it, and they carry on the lies!!!

I have upped the odd un-processed image myself, but didn't make a song and dance about it. I just thought the image was nice enough. Though, they were Jpegs off cam, so the cam did the work for me.

There's more annoying things on Flickr, like ... Explore ... just the whole of explore! Pictures of Blackberry phones and finger nails getting 20000 comments and flashy 'trophies' and awards. But I can leave that alone. it's easy ignore. It's not easy ignore the un-processed claims when you see it pop up a lot when searching images. 'll see an image that looks great in the thumbnail, but then find all this "Completely un-touched, no 'shopping" etc ... when the image clearly is. SOme of thm should learn to hide their exif data before making the claim.

dakar

Thecageyone wrote: »

If an image interests me I do like to hear how it was done.

But just because an image may not interest you, doesn't mean it may not be of interest to someone else, and they may like to hear how it was done, no?

Thecageyone

humberklog wrote: »

Where does one read this info about the pic (or method of taking it)? I've genuinely seldom noticed the claim being made but have never seen it as bold statement but more like boring info.

Is it common on peoples websites? Or more common on photosharing sites like pix.ie? Or on photography forums such as this?


If it a brag...well then it's probably just someone being a little silly...wouldn't it?

If you run a search on flickr for 'unprocessed' images, 1000's will come up, just select at random and I bet you'l find the claim in the description somewhere. Then you decide whether or not it's true. Some of them are genuine, that's fair enough.

Thecageyone

dakar wrote: »

But just because an image may not interest you, doesn't mean it my not be of interest to someone else, and they may like to hear how it was done, no?

What's your point? I'm just saying how I've come across it, by searching images that I think look nice. Hearing how it was done is fine, already said that. but they're telling you it's not touched by any software, when you can just tell it was at times, other times the exif data reveals it.

humberklog

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you run a search on flickr for 'unprocessed' images, 1000's will come up, just select at random and I bet you'l find the claim in the description somewhere. Then you decide whether or not it's true. Some of them are genuine, that's fair enough.

Ah you'd have to do something like that to come across it? Like looking for something you know is going to annoy you? Ah...I'll give it a miss so.

I thought it was something more obviously done and I was missing something under my nose.

Happy out.

Thecageyone

humberklog wrote: »

Ah you'd have to do something like that to come across it? Like looking for something you know is going to annoy you? Ah...I'll give it a miss so.

I thought it was something more obviously done and I was missing something under my nose.

Happy out.

No, I've seen some of my contacts claim it. Their new images pop up in my home page, i'll always have a peek. I only tried the search this morning after making this thread, looking for an example.

humberklog

Thecageyone wrote: »

No, I've seen some of my contacts claim it. Their new images pop up in my home page, i'll always have a peek. I only tried the search this morning after making this thread, looking for an example.

Oh.


Anyway...processing ftw!

DaireQuinlan

Thecageyone wrote: »

If you run a search on flickr for 'unprocessed' images, 1000's will come up, just select at random and I bet you'l find the claim in the description somewhere. Then you decide whether or not it's true. Some of them are genuine, that's fair enough.

so .... what you're saying here is that peoples, on the interwebs, are doing things that you don't like. So you go searching for it. Hmmm.

I think you're just being anal.

Thecageyone

humberklog wrote: »

Oh.


Anyway...processing ftw!

Yup, and just to show I have no bothers talking about processing, or trying to explain to anyone bothered enough to ask how I did something:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cagey75/4535210559/

I'm more likely to spill all on my processing than claim I didn't do any at all

Thecageyone

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

so .... what you're saying here is that peoples, on the interwebs, are doing things that you don't like. So you go searching for it. Hmmm.

I think you're just being anal.

I searched for an example, the one I found says it all.

Anal or not, it's at least sparked some discussion been a slow morning ... roll on the footy.

dakar

Thecageyone wrote: »

What's your point? I'm just saying how I've come across it, by searching images that I think look nice. Hearing how it was done is fine, already said that. but they're telling you it's not touched by any software, when you can just tell it was at times, other times the exif data reveals it.

But it has little to do with processing or anti-processing then, more to do with the fact that one feels cheated by those who would attempt to pull the wool over one's eyes when one's keen senses and detective skills will unmask their deception.

Borderfox

It seems to be an anti-thread, maybe if it didnt have such a negative/axe to grind feel to it then it would get the response you are looking for.

Slidinginfinity

I feel that this "discussion" is heading down this path - http://homepages.nyu.edu/~kmg357/pictures/xkcd2/xkcd22.png

Thecageyone

Borderfox wrote: »

It seems to be an anti-thread, maybe if it didnt have such a negative/axe to grind feel to it then it would get the response you are looking for.

Dunno where you get that from ... already said it's just to spark debate/discussion/been a slow morning. People read so much into simple opinion.

Thecageyone

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

I feel that this "discussion" is heading down this path - http://homepages.nyu.edu/~kmg357/pictures/xkcd2/xkcd22.png

yet you couldn't keep away from it? Most active thread in here the past couple of hours and all because people think it's uninteresting? hmmm.

Promac

I don't get why people are taking so long to understand what he's saying. I thought it was perfectly clear and reasonable.

And it's an open discussion forum, he's fully entitled to discuss whatever he wants if it's related to photography.

Thecageyone

Thanks promac, I did think it was something pretty clear and simple that might spark a bit of chat/discussion. No idea why these things get jumped all over. Maybe there's some false-claimers of un-processing in here?

Promac

Thecageyone wrote: »

Thanks promac, I did think it was something pretty clear and simple that might spark a bit of chat/discussion. No idea why these things get jumped all over. Maybe there's some false-claimers of un-processing in here?

Could be!

magicbastarder

i really enjoy these threads. it's *good* that people have an emotional reaction to these things. nothing more boring with a bunch of people sitting around respecting each others opinions and their right to do what they want.

Thecageyone

I'm all for it, I have responded to every response negative or not. That is what threads are for, discussion and 'banter' and opinion etc ... Don't think I should have to overly defend mine. It is just that after all. Said in the first post I'll probably get bashed for it