"No processing"

PMN said:
You missed my point. They generally try make the images look neutral rather than giving them a specific style, hence my high contrast high saturation example. ;)
Click to expand...

But in your earlier post you are ridiculing the view that JPEG's are tailored and clearly they are.
 
I think there needs to be a distinction here between "no processing" which when taken literally is impossible which ever format you shoot, the none literal meaning of the phrase ie "straight out of camera" and the most important of them "getting it right in camera".

The first two have been amply covered here, ie no processing is bull, all shooting whether digital or film requires processing of some sort.
In the second instance again well covered as it depends to a degree on the camera's processing engine.

The final aspect though is getting it right in camera and I don't think there's anything wrong with someone striving to get their exposures correct in camera, in fact I think its something we would all aspire too, this coupled with a camera that has a good processing engine that produces excellent jpg's means you can minimise processing of the image to that which has taken place in the camera itself in converting to jpg.
Of course even then if taking shots that are important to you its prudent to shoot jpg + raw just in case the white balance or exposure aren't as desired when you download the images to the computer, doing so gives you that safety net.

One thing that does bemuse me is those that continue to shoot raw only and struggle to produce an image as good as the out of camera jpg, yet dogedly refuse to concede.
The classic example is those shooting the Fuji's, the raw converters just aren't that grand as fuji wont release full details of the algorithms they use in their jpg engine.

I'm not elitist, or a numbskull, if shooting raw offered me advantages over jpg with the fuji I would shoot raw as I always did with the canon set up I had, but in general the jpgs for me are better images than I can produce from the raws, the exception being as said when its an important shot or one where I'm concerned about having white balance issues.
Its also reduced my post processing to mainly a contrast boost when I've shot through the window (as it tends to reduce the contrast of the shot) and cropping/re-sizing where needed as I shoot with primes and I cant move to re frame a shot.
 
PMN said:
In which case you're processing and doing exactly the same stuff some people say is cheating if done in PS
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If you want to see photographs from the king of pasting in a different sky, search for Frank Hurley. He was the photographer on Ernest Shackleton's Endurance Antarctic expedition and was not averse to printing in a more exciting sky.

In fact, if you don't know the story of the expedition, look it up and read it.

He did the same thing with his battlefield shots too. Many were often staged too.

Here's one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NZpVp4MD7tw/ThXZbQ5fDLI/AAAAAAAAFsE/yW8MdIOdCpE/s1600/zonnebeeke.jpg


Steve.
 
I sometimes like to call it developing instead of processing as even the word is harsh :)

Obviously if you can get it pretty much right straight out of camera, all the better, but chances are you can improve on it and recreate what you "saw" instead of what the camera recorded.

Ian on my Fuji x100 I always shoot RAW and primarily I do so so I can sharpen and blur selectively. Even if the jpgs are good, I'd rather make all the decisions afterwards not during.
 
PMN said:
I have to admit that's the most bizarre way of looking at this I've ever read. DSLR designers don't sit there and think... 'Hmm... Well I personally like high contrast highly saturated images so that's what I'm going to make this DSLR's default output look like'. No artistic control whatsoever has been taken away from you by not processing; it's still you clicking the shutter release, still you producing the image and still your fault whether it's good or crap. All the camera designers have done is give you a tool in order to do that.
Click to expand...

Jumping back a bit but.. this is not at all bizarre to me. It's quite a common suggestion and I agree with it. Different cameras produce different images even on "neutral" settings. Also neutral is arguably not accurate or creatively pleasing. If you don't change anything, you are handing over part of an enjoyable process to someone involved in building the camera or at best leaving your shot "flat".
 
turnpike said:
If you don't change anything, you are handing over part of an enjoyable process to someone involved in building the camera or at best leaving your shot "flat".
Click to expand...

Not everyone may enjoy that part of the process and jpgs straight from my camera are not flat, so no.
 
turnpike said:
Jumping back a bit but.. this is not at all bizarre to me. It's quite a common suggestion and I agree with it. Different cameras produce different images even on "neutral" settings. Also neutral is arguably not accurate or creatively pleasing. If you don't change anything, you are handing over part of an enjoyable process to someone involved in building the camera or at best leaving your shot "flat".
Click to expand...

Different cameras do indeed produce different results when set to neutral, but the thing I have great difficulty accepting is how that in any way takes any of the art or creativity away from the photographer.

Let's use a musical analogy. My Fender Precision bass has an inherent tone and character that remains however I play it but by using different techniques I can alter that tone to suit what I'm doing - my technique is 'post-processing' the sound of the instrument but the instrument is giving me a starting point. If the sound that comes out of the amp/sound rig/recorder isn't what I want then I'm either using bad technique or I've chosen an inappropriate bass for the job. The point being both those things are my fault; Leo Fender didn't take any artistic choices away from anyone when he designed the bass to sound the way it does, he just gave a starting point for players to work from.

I don't really see photography as being any different. The camera is giving you a starting point for your image but you're still taking the photo, I genuinely don't see how any of this robs the photographer of creativity.
 
Last edited:
Well obviously saying it's enjoyable is just my opinion :)

I should have said *possibly* leaving your shot flat. Obviously sometimes they come out great. I really meant flat to mean "as is".
 
PMN said:
The camera is giving you a starting point for your image but you're still taking the photo, I genuinely don't see how any of this robs the photographer of creativity.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it robs you of creativity necessarily. It's just that there is a step you can choose to do which I feel allows you to, in some cases, more accurately produce what it is you saw and/or what it is you want to convey to the viewer.

Depends what your aim is.
 
ernesto said:
Don't agree. It is rarely raised seriously and whenever it is it is soon knocked back. Bit of a non-issue based on that.
Click to expand...

I see it all over the place. Every day. People knock images due to "over processing" when they are not over processed at all, just "processed at all" in fact.

Just 10 minutes ago I saw a post on reddit for example with the subject starting "No filter! No edit!" Like that matters. The thread creators question was why is no processing often considered a good thing. It's entirely valid to ask that and interesting in my opinion.
 
turnpike said:
there is a step you can choose to do which I feel allows you to, in some cases, more accurately produce what it is you saw and/or what it is you want to convey to the viewer.

Depends what your aim is.
Click to expand...

Which is essentially what I said earlier, process as little or as much as necessary to get the results you're after and don't worry about it. :)
 
turnpike said:
I see it all over the place. Every day. People knock images due to "over processing" when they are not over processed at all, just "processed at all" in fact.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they are over processed but in a way you like?

Nore sure how people would even know they were processed if it wasn't obvious and if it is obvious they could actually be over processed.
 
PMN said:
Different cameras do indeed produce different results when set to neutral, but the thing I have great difficulty accepting is how that in any way takes any of the art or creativity away from the photographer.

Let's use a musical analogy. My Fender Precision bass has an inherent tone and character that remains however I play it but by using different techniques I can alter that tone to suit what I'm doing - my technique is 'post-processing' the sound of the instrument but the instrument is giving me a starting point. If the sound that comes out of the amp/sound rig/recorder isn't what I want then I'm either using bad technique or I've chosen an inappropriate bass for the job. The point being both those things are my fault; Leo Fender didn't take any artistic choices away from anyone when he designed the bass to sound the way it does, he just gave a starting point for players to work from.
Click to expand...
But that's not quite the whole truth, is it? You'll select an amp that you want to use. You'll set the tone controls on your bass to a sound that pleases you. You'll adjust the bass, mid and treble on your amp, and the gain, until you get the tone you want for whatever style you want to play. You might even use an fx pedal or six.

In fact your last clause there is more or less what I've been saying. The camera gives you a starting point that you, if you want, can exercise control over. If you opt not to, it doesn't subtract anything from your creativity - I've said nowhere that it does - but exercising this level of control does add to the creative input you've had over the image. You've taken the decisions about RAW conversion back from the manufacture.

Just because I'm arguing that taking control of your own pp adds artistic merit doesn't mean that I'm arguing that not doing so leaves your image with no artistic merit.
 
ghoti said:
But that's not quite the whole truth, is it?
Click to expand...

Actually yes it is, at least sometimes. For larger gigs I don't use an amp in the traditional sense and my signal into the rig is a DI straight out of my valve pre-amp, I rely purely on selecting the right bass and playing technique to create the sound. I don't need to 'post-process' it any further in that situation, so I don't.

If I'm playing through a little amp in a pub then I'll probably use a bit of EQ on whatever amp I'm plugged into. In that case I am 'post-processing' a little because it helps. Either way, as long as I'm ending up with what I (or the sound engineer) want/need then it's totally unimportant how I get it. I have a starting point, I'm just doing whatever I have to do from that point to get the required results.

Again, it's no different to photography. If I get what I need right out of the camera then I won't touch it any further but if I do need to tweak it then I will. It's so mindblowingly simple as a concept it's almost beautiful.


ghoti said:
If you opt not to, it doesn't subtract anything from your creativity - I've said nowhere that it does
Click to expand...

What's this then? :thinking:

ghoti said:
The question is: does this make a "straight from camera" shot actually less artistically worthy?
Click to expand...
 
PMN said:
For larger gigs I don't use an amp in the traditional sense and my signal into the rig is a DI straight out of my valve pre-amp, I rely purely on selecting the right bass and playing technique to create the sound.
Click to expand...

And trust that your sound engineer does what you want.


Steve.
 
PMN said:
Actually yes it is, at least sometimes. For larger gigs I don't use an amp in the traditional sense and my signal into the rig is a DI straight out of my valve pre-amp, I rely purely on selecting the right bass and playing technique to create the sound. I don't need to 'post-process' it any further in that situation, so I don't.

If I'm playing through a little amp in a pub then I'll probably use a bit of EQ on whatever amp I'm plugged into. In that case I am 'post-processing' a little because it helps. Either way, as long as I'm ending up with what I (or the sound engineer) want/need then it's totally unimportant how I get it. I have a starting point, I'm just doing whatever I have to do from that point to get the required results.

Again, it's no different to photography. If I get what I need right out of the camera then I won't touch it any further but if I do need to tweak it then I will. It's so mindblowingly simple as a concept it's almost beautiful.

What's this then? :thinking:
Click to expand...
Less artistically worthy than if you choose to process it yourself. That's not the same thing as saying you have removed worth from the image. Maybe it was a bad way of phrasing it though. I don't think you can subtract from the creative input you have into an image that you have sitting in your camera, but you can add to it. Even if you 'ruin' it, at least it's your own work.

And if you DI your bass you (or the soundman) are presumably making decisions about the tone on the desk or the P.A.? Are you telling me that you just leave every single thing downstream of your instrument flat and so does your soundman?
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
As a sound engineer myself that isn't something I worry about too much, the people mixing when I do gigs like that know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat as you. I am a gigging musician and occasional live sound engineer.

If I am playing a big enough event to be put through the PA, I usually know who is going to mix it.

It's no different to trusting a lab to print your pictures the way you want them. You don't have to be in complete control of every process.


Steve.
 
ghoti said:
Are you telling me that you just leave every single thing downstream of your instrument flat and so does your soundman?
Click to expand...

If things don't need any further treatment then yes, of course everything's left flat. Why mess with something unless it needs it? If the FoH guy feels the need to tweak my channel then that's what he's there to do, the point is by not piling a load of crap onto my signal at the stage end I'm giving him the purest starting point possible.

Key words there again... Starting point...

I'm a bit reluctant to make this point again as you've conveniently ignored it every time I've made it but here goes - I do as much processing as I need to for the situation I'm in. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually though just as a point of interest, I've mixed countless gigs where the vast majority of channels on the desk have been left flat. If the system's well set up then you shouldn't have to butcher channel EQ.

Steve Smith said:
I'm in the same boat as you. I am a gigging musician and occasional live sound engineer.
Click to expand...

I'm actually the other way round, mixing bands is my job and playing occasionally is. :)
 
PMN said:
If things don't need any further treatment then yes, of course everything's left flat. Why mess with something unless it needs it? If the FoH guy feels the need to tweak my channel then that's what he's there to do, the point is by not piling a load of crap onto my signal at the stage end I'm giving him the purest starting point possible.

Key words there again... Starting point...

I'm a bit reluctant to make this point again as you've conveniently ignored it every time I've made it but here goes - I do as much processing as I need to for the situation I'm in. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually though just as a point of interest, I've mixed countless gigs where the vast majority of channels on the desk have been left flat. If the system's well set up then you shouldn't have to butcher channel EQ.

I'm actually the other way round, mixing bands is my job and playing occasionally is. :)
Click to expand...
I've not ignored it at all. I said explicitly that I agreed that it was a starting point.

I've never said that photos straight out of the camera aren't worth anything. I've said that the idea that this is the purest form of the art is silly and ironic.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Because the analogies you're employing are, in my opinion, poor.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree, with the bass analogy I'm talking about precisely the same principle. The bass gives me a starting point to work from just the same as the camera, if you need to tweak things further down the line then do so and if you don't then leave them alone.

It's a perfectly appropriate analogy, you just fail to grasp the basic concepts behind it.
 
ghoti said:
Why is this often considered a good thing? That presenting a photo that hasn't been manually processed is somehow pure and to be strived for?
The important word here is "manually", and this leads me to my main point: ALL digital photos are "processed". If you shoot jpg, the photo is processed in camera using "safe" settings determined by the manufacturer. If you shoot RAW and run your picture through a default in a converter the picture is "processed" using settings determined by the software designers.
Manual processing (if you shoot RAW - jpg slightly different as that is processed automatically) puts you in control of that process. I don't understand why this is artistically impure. Surely it's worthier to do it yourself? You might make a dog's dinner of it, but it's your image. If you go "straight from camera" part of your image's worth belongs to your software manufacturer.
"Straight from camera" is the digital equivalent of taking your film to Boots when you have your own photo-lab right there in your house. Even more than that, having RAW conversion software (especially curves and saturation &c) is a bit like being able to design your own film. Why is this not a fantastic thing? Why isn't "straight from camera" the strategy that should be sneered at?

Talking purely of basic processing here. Actual manipulation - cloning and all that - is a different debate.

In summary: ALL of your photos are processed. It's just a question of whether you processed them yourself or whether you let Mr Nikon or Mr Canon and their cronies do it for you.
Click to expand...

Whilst not disagreeing about your in-camera processing points, I have seldom seen folk saying "straight out the camera" and never seen anything about this being a "good thing".

For me, I too think this is not an issue.
 
PMN said:
I completely disagree, with the bass analogy I'm talking about absolutely precisely the same principle. The bass gives me a starting point to work from just the same as the camera and if you need to tweak things further down the line then do so.

It's a perfectly appropriate analogy, you just fail to grasp the basic concepts behind it.
Click to expand...
It's not precisely the same principle, though, because you process the sound manually from the minute you plug the bass in. Every decision you make - baseline volume, tone, downstream kit, etc - is under your control. I've not met a serious musician yet who doesn't want input into these processes.
With the camera it's more like these decisions are happening within the bass itself.
Now, as I've said, if you're happy to delegate that control to your software (or, in the bass analogy, a soundman) that's A OK and may constitute a creative decision of sorts in itself. My point is that it's silly to say this is the artistically purest way of doing it.
 
PMN said:
Actually though just as a point of interest, I've mixed countless gigs where the vast majority of channels on the desk have been left flat. If the system's well set up then you shouldn't have to butcher channel EQ.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. When I started in the late 80s, a lot of tweaking was required as you were fighting against the inadequacies of the equipment (at least, the stuff we had!) but now, systems are a lot better, especially I've found with line arrays which are about as hi-fi as you can get at high power and for the most part, flat is fairly close to where it wants to be.

We do still find the odd engineer who likes to be constantly micro adjusting things with no audible change. Probably just to make himself appear important!


Steve.
 
ghoti said:
I've not met a serious musician yet who doesn't want input into these processes..
Click to expand...

:bang::bang::bang::bang:

Of course I want an input to it, that's why I've spent thousands of hours learning technique. That's why I don't butcher the sound I've worked so hard to create with unnecessarily with processing. That's why I make sure the guy at FoH is someone I know and trust.

Seriously, just stop worrying about unimportant stuff and go take some photos.
 
ghoti said:
I've not met a serious musician yet who doesn't want input into these processes.
Click to expand...

Short of using a digital desk with an I-pad onstage controlling it, there are some things you have to leave to someone else. And you really dont want to control your front of house sound from the stage as you can't hear what's going on.

Having an FOH engineer adjusting your sound is no different from using a competent lab to print your pictures. Hopefully you can find one who prints them the way you like them.

Cartier Bresson always trusted others to print his negatives and no one is going to claim that he was any less of a photographer because of it.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Short of using a digital desk with an I-pad onstage controlling it, there are some things you have to leave to someone else.
Click to expand...

You don't even need a desk surface with some systems, if you have a separate processing rack and control surface you can usually plug a laptop into the rack or connect via a wireless router and do the whole thing from the computer. As you say though, it's far from ideal for mixing! :LOL:
 
Steve Smith said:
Short of using a digital desk with an I-pad onstage controlling it, there are some things you have to leave to someone else. And you really dont want to control your front of house sound from the stage as you can't hear what's going on.

Having an FOH engineer adjusting your sound is no different from using a competent lab to print your pictures. Hopefully you can find one who prints them the way you like them.

Cartier Bresson always trusted others to print his negatives and no one is going to claim that he was any less of a photographer because of it.

Steve.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing nobody here is saying that making these sorts of decisions makes you any less of a photographer. The argument is that post processing does not make you any less of a photographer and, in fact, takes control of certain aspects of your image back from a third party - which is always a good thing, creatively.

Although it is possible to control your own FoH sound with a long enough lead or radio unit. I've done this frequently myself, especially when using an in-house engineer. Not always convenient though, hahaha.
 
Last edited:
My experience so far is purely analogue desks but I plan to sit in on a few events and learn to use the Yamaha digital desk this year. I'm sure I could use it as a straight FOH desk right now but it's all the other features like effects sends on faders, etc. which I need to learn.

But we're veering off topic now. Lets talk about processing pictures again!

ghoti said:
It's a good thing nobody here is saying that making these sorts of decisions makes you any less of a photographer. The argument is that post processing does not make you any less of a photographer
Click to expand...

If it's an argument as you state, then someone must be making that claim.

ghoti said:
Although it is possible to control your own FoH sound with a long enough lead or radio unit. I've done this frequently myself, especially when using an in-house engineer. Not always convenient though
Click to expand...

Usually easier just to talk to him. The usual request is to make everything louder than everything else!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
STILL you're missing it!

I'll say this once more and that's it - how you arrive at the end result doesn't matter as long as you arrive there. I'm not saying either processing or not processing makes you any less or more of a photographer, I'm saying you need to do however much or little processing as you need to achieve the results you had in mind when you took the photo.

I'm assuming when you shoot you already know how you want the end image to look and you're not just sitting there messing with sliders for the sake of it hoping a magical image will suddenly pop out of the screen at you?
 
Images have been post processed for as long as there has been photography. It's nothing new.


It's not whether you post process that matters... it's whether you do it well, and know when to stop before it looks like something Walt Dysney would do while on acid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top