Questions of a neophyte

[rymel]

I'm fairly new to the DSLR world and have been spending quite a bit of time improving my skills at actually taking the photo, but very little time on post processing. I have a couple of questions in this regard:

1. What % of digital photos are 'post processed'. By that I mean, outside of a simple crop or brightness adjustment, what % of the photos in the 'typical' gallery have been enhanced. Obviously, no one can know what everyone else is doing. Just looking for personal experience and/or general thoughts.

2. What is the optimal split between excellent at taking pictures and excellent at processing the image. I know you can't create a good photo from a bad one. But is it 60/40? 90/10?

3. Finally, I've been measuring my skills based on comparing my photos to others posted here. With very little post-processing, is this an apples-to-apples comparison. Pretty much the same questions as before but put a little differently.

Thanks for the feedback,
Rymel
http://www.pbase.com/rymel

[dharden]

Good questions! And none are easy to answer either

1. Nearly all of my landscapes are shot in RAW and post processed. I see it as a two stage process - the camera providing the basic shot and the processing adding the 'finish'. Other people will have their own preferences - it's a very personal thing. Other shots may well (ie my band pics) be JPEGs virtually straight from the camera, with just a few light tweaks on levels if necessary and a smidge of a sharpen (i tend not to sharpen much in camera if i can help it)

2. It helps if you can do both! :d The most important thing is to get the exposure right. Whilst you can pull a dark shot up it will increase noise levels, particularly in the shadows. At the other extreme, an overexposed shot will lose the highlights and they can't be recovered once they've gone to "full white", so get the exposure as you want it first! Get your focusing and depth of field right in camera as well and exclude distractions just as you would with a film camera. Of course you CAN now remove vapour trails from the sky and other annoyances....
I'm constantly trying to improve both my pre and post processing techniques as I have uses for both!


3. I do the same (and often find myself quite lacking!). I think you ARE comparing apples to apples - my personal view is that an image is an image and ultimately the viewer doesn't care how it was made (unless they're a photographer!) as long as they get something out of seeing it.

hope that is useful in some way!

Dave

[agroni]

Personally i don't like that much post processing. For a part of a skulled photographer is the one who masters the camera and knows the techniques to capture the scene at the place. If you want to be a good tech in photography than it wont be any problem for you to shoot analog . I shoot manual and JPG. If i am not sure about a exposure of a photo, than i take two, three, four.... photos. I do this just to improve my skills since i am also shooting with a film camera.

1. 80% of my photos in my gallery are not post processed. The only post processing that i do is brightness adjustment.

2. I think it's better to take a good photo and than with less post processing as possible to make it look good

3. I checked your gallery and your photos look good. Just keep up the good work

cheers

[marxz]

1:Our photography teachers drilled in the maxum "a photograph is not a photograph until it is a photograph" meaning "it's nothing until it's a print" (now days a print or screen image) in turn meaning "the art of photography is from visualisation to rendering and all of the various techniques that involves"

apart from "snap shots" - 100% of my images are post processed beyond simple brightness and cropping - masking, dodge/burn, colour adjustments, etc etc etc done in PS are just like traditional "wet dark room" techniques - as much a part of the artistic expression as the technique of capturing the original image probably more so.

2: maybe 80/20 capture/post processing as a minimum for a "street" and documentary style photography up to say 40/60 for more "artistic" composite and montage styles

You still have to capure the image as best you can... 90% of my images are post processed with basic adjustments (curves, colours, and some masking and sharpening that can be achived with a resonably small amount of post processing skill others will have 10 or more adjustment layers, duplcated layers masked layers etc.

ie>http://www.pbase.com/marxz/image/79739499
Just 1 layer with levels/colour adjusted then sharpened, the extra layers are just duplicates of that said same layer blended to increase perceived dynamic range.

This can be done with curves keeping things down to 1 single layer (or with an adjustment layer) but I prefer this way as it can be tweaked more.


I re-edited this to pull more focus on the texture of the statue - still a reasonably simple edit going from one (effective) layer to 8 (effective) layers

http://www.pbase.com/marxz/image/79739500

still.. you need the original capture to be good - no small or reasonable amount of tweaking is going to save this image:
http://www.pbase.com/marxz/image/79739498


3: a good composition is a good composition is a good composition - and you may not know about art but you know what looks good to you

so compare away

if an image has a composition that gives it a dynamic/strength/story that is appealing to you - borrow or steal that persons ideas.

if an image has post production colour, dynamic range, effects that pushes all the right buttons for you then see how you can emulate this as well.

[madlights]

Back in film days...I think most of the people shooting film would have given their eye teeth for Photoshop(or). I think anything a person can do in a tasteful way to strengthen the intent of the photo is valid. To do things just to do them is not. My DSLR being a 10d almost has to have some post-processing as do many others. Also for example, to shoot with contrast set low in jpg's can help from blowing highlights so post processing might help there...Anyone shooting RAW almost has to post process more than a little. I do think the line between painting and photography is getting more obscured...and some on the far sides of that imaginary line are intent on preserving the "purity" of their art form. I would ask a painter why they aren't still using berry juice on a stick, or a photographer why not use glass plates and get a mule to carry around their gear...? I know in black and white I use an action (free one I found) that uses about 7 or 8 layers to convert everything from brightness, to curves, to individual colors (filters) to overall tonality. All it does is mimic filters and developing techniques, but it works slick. Maybe the end justifies the means?
That's just my take. Have fun.

[marxz]

Back in film days...I think most of the people shooting film would have given their eye teeth for Photoshop

you got that in one mate, got that in one....

In the 80's I worked as a darkroom tech for a motor vehicle photography studio and quit that due to the insane pressure of the post production deadlines - 5 to 10 minutes to print, develop, etch and prep for bromide each picture . I eventually burnt out and ended up getting out of photography completely - even as a hobby for almost 20 years.

I got in to IT in the mid/late 80's... of course I came across Photoshop quite early (version 1 or 2), and even in those primordial no layers, no "undo" function days (and on a Mac LC that could only show 256 colours) it's creative/workflow impact was obvious to me.

I think I can honestly say my jaw dropped and I stood and stared at this wonderful program for 10 minutes just thinking "OH MY GOD if only we'd had this? imagine the work we could have done"

I think I could, almost, happily go back to shooting on film (with a good scanner) but - personally - I'd NEVER, EVER, go back to a wet darkroom.

[dharden]

I've never used a 'wet' darkroom and never fancied it either . However photoshop is right up my street, as they say. I can (i think) see the processes that i would have had to do (well, some of them) and I can see why lots of people say they'd never go back.

I still think that whether you post process or not is an individual choice that plays a big part in defining your style and there's no right or wrong. If you're happy with straight from the camera results then there's nothing wrong with that at all. But equally there's nothing wrong with PP either - it's the final print that counts and even that will be liked by some folk and not by others.

I think madlights made some great points about the line between photography and painting becoming obscured. And hey - why not? Progress happens and photography is constantly developing (sorry - pardon the pun!). And the "Have fun" comment is absolutely spot on in my view. If you're having fun then that is the most important thing isn't it?

I wonder what Ansel Adams would have made of Photoshop (I reckon he'd have loved it but i'm no expert). If he hadn't post-processed his shots from the original negatives then they'd have looked VERY different......

I agree with the comment that digital SLR images are quite 'flat' straight from the camera as a rule. In fact RAW files are DESIGNED to be post-processed aren't they? For me i find it an exciting and satisfying part of the process and the final image feels more like what i "saw" at the time of pressing the shutter.

When digital started to take off I was very against it because of all the photoshop possibilities. Now I LOVE it and it's partly because I can make the creative process my own......

[dougj]

Most sensors in digital cameras use an anti-aliasing filter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

One result of the AA filter is an obvious softening of the image. Images out of the camera in JPG format, most noticeably from the non-DSLR type, apply sharpening algorithms to improve the image by contrast sharpening. Images that have not been sharpened in the camera generally require some sharpening in an image editor, the degree of which is dependant on the sensor + AA filter, type of image, e.g. portrait vs. landscape, and the lens used.

The automatic white balance in most cameras can be poor, particularly when the scene/subject is illuminated with mixed light sources of different temperatures, e.g. fluorescent & tungsten lights. This may give an overall yellow, green, etc. cast to the image and may require correction in post processing.

Based on the type of sensor and its output, some images may ‘improve’ with a little adjustment to saturation and contrast as well.

The general rule, as several folks have posted, is to get the shot right from the beginning. And then there may be a need for adjustment in post-processing, particularly sharpening. However if the composition, exposure, etc. are correct from the onset there is minimal post processing required. I think all P&S do in camera processing, and more DSLRs include this with ‘shooting styles’.

Shooting in RAW format produces images with essentially no in-camera processing or compression, and these will require post processing. There are a few advantages to shooting in RAW, but this format may not be necessary and will depend on one’s shooting style and needs.

There are techniques such as High Dynamic Range (HDR) in which the photog wants to produce an image that exceeds the dynamic range of the camera. This may require multiple shots with different exposure settings and merging the shots in PP. High Key and Low Key are other techniques that also depend on PP.

It may be interesting to note that Ansel Adams, in addition to being a superb photographer, was a master in PP but it was darkroom based - both optical & chemical. Drop a roll of film off at any developer and the technician or computer will adjust the print parameters to suit the image needs. It’s still post processing.

[jellophoto]

1. I suspect on pbase most are not post processed, as many posters just use it as a place to upload. Also there is no such thing as a typical gallery on pbase, there is great variation.

2. For me the aim should be to excel at both. You master the tools at your disposal, and post processing is just another tool, a wonderful tool, saving much time and mess, but still a tool to be mastered.

3. Apples and oranges in my opinion, as some will be pp and some will not.

Finally there is a lot of snobbery talked in photograhy. For some post processing is seen as cheating, ie if you are a good photographer then you do not need to post process, get it right in the camera etc, keep processing to a minimum bla bla bla. Utter rubbish. It depends what you want to do. For me returning from a field trip and 'digitally developing' the image is a wonderful voyage of exploration. I look forward to seeing what comes out at the end of the process, sometimes by taking an unexpected direction the end result is better than expected.

To me the secret is to keep an open mind and take your inspiration from as many sources as you can.
Regards John