"No processing"

Organnyx said:
The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) was that there is a lot of difference between what I'd call "optimisation" (exposure and colour balance for instance) and hard-core "image manipulation", much of which to my mind is as unnecessary and as ineffective in making good images as "over-darkroomed" or "over-cokined" photos in the days of film. Certainly many aspects were easier back then - it was either sharp or it wasn't - no sliding scale, it was in or out..........
Click to expand...

See thats where you show your lack of knowledge. The Unsharp Mask in photoshop came from a darkroom technique developed in Berlin in the 30's. Sharpening has been around in art since atleast the 15th century. If you mean it was 'either in focus or it wasn't' thats not changed. But sharpening isn't focusing.
 
I'm fully aware of the technique, nowadays a facsimile of it is available with a bit of computer manipulation - if you insist, I'll be pedantic, down here in the real world of commercial photography using film, effectively you were in or out of focus - you didn't have the time nor inclination to either "faff" yourself, or pay a lab a small fortune to do it for you - it was "in or bin" (hence the need to "get it right in camera") - I've read involved dissertations on the matter, and find that a lot of what's discussed is about "perceived" sharpness, and involves such things as contrast - in my usual cavalier manner "why faff?" - it's either in or out of focus - choose the level of sharpness you want as a preset in the optimisation process, job done.........:D

As loads of people will assert, yes we do "process" our images to some extent or another, but I prefer as far as possible to "optimise" and leave it at that - if many of us choose the simple route, why should we be condemned for it?
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
I'm fully aware of the technique, nowadays a facsimile of it is available with a bit of computer manipulation - if you insist, I'll be pedantic, down here in the real world of commercial photography using film, effectively you were in or out of focus - you didn't have the time nor inclination to either "faff" yourself, or pay a lab a small fortune to do it for you - it was "in or bin" (hence the need to "get it right in camera") - I've read involved dissertations on the matter, and find that a lot of what's discussed is about "perceived" sharpness, and involves such things as contrast - in my usual cavalier manner "why faff?" - it's either in or out of focus - choose the level of sharpness you want as a preset in the optimisation process, job done.........:D

As loads of people will assert, yes we do "process" our images to some extent or another, but I prefer as far as possible to "optimise" and leave it at that - if many of us choose the simple route, why should we be condemned for it?
Click to expand...

I'll say it again for you, sharpening is not focusing. An OOF photo is an OOF photo. Nothing can rescue that. No pedantry about that. Until you understand some of what the basic PP techniques actually do then really you're just arguing from a position of ignorance.

The only person condemning what other people do is you. Mainly cause you don't understand it.
 
Somewhat arrogant and patronising (to put it mildly) - I do understand what I view as "bad" images, and have quite reasonably expressed a preference for "lightly processed" images, and a dislike for over-processed images, that is my prerogative, and I get heartily sick of people trying to assume the high ground because they presumably enjoy "faffing".

I do "understand" it, but it doesn't suit my style of photography or what I choose to do in the way of working - just because something is "possible" doesn't make it obligatory (or desirable). Time after time people present work for criticism on this site - in a great many cases, they've chucked the entire kitchen sink at a picture in the way of PP - if it started off as a good photo, it may well have ruined it, and all the manipulation in the world can't make a good image out of a bad one.......

There is nothing "wrong" in choosing "a bit of light optimisation" and leaving it at that.........
 
Organnyx said:
Somewhat arrogant and patronising (to put it mildly) - I do understand what I view as "bad" images, and have quite reasonably expressed a preference for "lightly processed" images, and a dislike for over-processed images, that is my prerogative, and I get heartily sick of people trying to assume the high ground because they presumably enjoy "faffing".

I do "understand" it, but it doesn't suit my style of photography or what I choose to do in the way of working - just because something is "possible" doesn't make it obligatory (or desirable). Time after time people present work for criticism on this site - in a great many cases, they've chucked the entire kitchen sink at a picture in the way of PP - if it started off as a good photo, it may well have ruined it, and all the manipulation in the world can't make a good image out of a bad one.......

There is nothing "wrong" in choosing "a bit of light optimisation" and leaving it at that.........
Click to expand...


No more arrogant and patronising then you have been. And I'm certainly not occupying the high ground - You're already there :shake:

I actually agree with you about light processing and over processed images,

But you very readily condemn essential processing. Your condemnation of sharpening being something to replace focusing shows that quite nicely I'm afraid. Every digital photo will benefit from a degree of sharpening. Thats just because every digital sensor has an AA filter over it to stop Moire effects. Thats nothing to do with focus.
 
boyfalldown said:
Thats just because every digital sensor has an AA filter over it to stop Moire effects.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true as there are cameras available with no AA filter, and presumably (I don't know) the images from them also need a bit of sharpening because of other aspects of the digital process besides AA filter?
 
"Every digital photo will benefit from a degree of sharpening" - yes, it's a "complication" that came along with digital - effectively you were "in or out" with film whereas now "sharpness" can be dialled in and out, so we have to either accept the camera's version by using the (often very effective) inbuilt algorhythm, or by choosing our own preferred level from "RAW" images, but as I said, if you were used to the simpler film way of doing things, it's another level of "faffing" necessary with digital (hence my comment about using a preset)
 
ernesto said:
Not strictly true as there are cameras available with no AA filter, and presumably (I don't know) the images from them also need a bit of sharpening because of other aspects of the digital process besides AA filter?
Click to expand...

true - they're fairly few and far between. The images still benefit from a little sharpen though
 
My impression is that the "straight from camera" approach is a hang over from the pre-digital photographers who feel that digital processing allows for/encourages photographers to be less attentive to getting the photo right at the point the shutter is pressed rather than afterwards on the computer where one can correct just about everything these days from poor exposure to all sorts of things.

BUT even pre -digital photographers played around with "processing" in their darkrooms to create different results and effects.

So for me the issue is whether the processing is "remedial" of flaws in skills at the point of firing the shutter or "creative" of artistic enhancement. The former should be avoided whilst the latter should be encouraged! IMHO.
 
"BUT even pre -digital photographers played around with "processing" in their darkrooms to create different results and effects" - No, a great many of us didn't..... when "learning" I used a darkroom a lot, anyone experienced in film processing should know, the difficult bit is getting consistency of results - as for "results and effects" as I've said, you chose the film for it's inherent characteristics, and I chose very "straight" processing thereafter - I viewed "effects" as being essentially naff, and "not for me" (and the advent of digital hasn't changed that view)

I think there's a lot of "snobbery" about PP these days, the assumption is made that you aren't a "proper" photographer unless you're happy to spend hours with pp programmes - I'm of the opposite persuasion, and prefer to do as much as possible "in camera", and keep pp to a minimum - my choice! (And before someone leaps on me and starts muttering about my not being very good with Photoshop, I agree, I wasn't any good with soft focus and the worst excesses of Mr Cokin either! (I chose not to use them)
 
Organnyx said:
"most photographers being unaware of the level of post processing that took place in the days of film.
Basically you were sold a simple process that limated the effort involved and you look to talk down any process that involves more effort"

Essentially, cobblers! Got the t-shirt of film processing, spent hours in darkrooms "faffing", so am all too aware of what was possible - yes, some people did a great deal of darkroom work, but I frankly didn't enjoy the "faffing" involved (hence used a lab to do the boring stuff).
I wasn't "sold" anything, I had a free choice, and chose to leave the boring process of processing to someone who was paid to do it. Rather than spending hours in a darkroom I was then released to do what I was paid to do - take pictures! If people want to spend hours at their computers, that's absolutely fine, but please don't tell me it's "essential" for all of us - there always were keen photographers who would spend hours dodging, burning and toning, they are probably the same ones glued to their computers nowadays.
Click to expand...

That you admit you dislike post processing and then talk down the results of it does create the impression theres self justifcation going on to me.

The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully) was that there is a lot of difference between what I'd call "optimisation" (exposure and colour balance for instance) and hard-core "image manipulation", much of which to my mind is as unnecessary and as ineffective in making good images as "over-darkroomed" or "over-cokined" photos in the days of film. Certainly many aspects were easier back then - it was either sharp or it wasn't - no sliding scale, it was in or out..........
Click to expand...

Personally this seems at cross purposes, you say you preffer corrective to creative editting then decry it.

Whenever you introduce an extra layer of creativity to an art/craft your always going to introduce an extra layer of subjectivity aswell. If that sounds too wooly and "modern aritish" I do personally think theres "bad post processing" but I'm not sure how that translates to all post processing/filter use being "bad".

Again to me the tone many take in this thread hints strongly at defencive self justifcation, the original question has largely been ignored and instead the focus has been on a strawman arguement that a lack of post processing is inately less creative.
 
Organnyx said:
"Every digital photo will benefit from a degree of sharpening" - yes, it's a "complication" that came along with digital - effectively you were "in or out" with film whereas now "sharpness" can be dialled in and out, so we have to either accept the camera's version by using the (often very effective) inbuilt algorhythm, or by choosing our own preferred level from "RAW" images, but as I said, if you were used to the simpler film way of doing things, it's another level of "faffing" necessary with digital (hence my comment about using a preset)
Click to expand...

I do wish you'd learn to use the quote button, it makes threads much easier to follow.

You'll forgive me, but that makes no sense. What do you mean when you talk about being in or out with film?
 
"That you admit you dislike post processing and then talk down the results of it" - as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, I think there's been a muddying of the waters over "PP" - by the very nature of digital, we all have to indulge in some PP (if only to choose some presets), BUT a great many people to my mind "over egg the pudding" and overdo their use of it.
Yes I dislike doing PP (my prerogative surely?), but only dislike the results when they're over the top" - which sadly, in my view, many are.......
 
"What do you mean when you talk about being in or out with film?" - you go out with your camera, and shoot a masonic ladies night using film - you go to your friendly local processor and demolish a bag of fish and chips while he processes your film into a set of 8x6s for flogging later, and "set the world to rights" while he does so - on the question of focus/sharpness, it's either "is or isn't" - if it's in focus, you keep it, if it ain't you bin it............:D
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
Yes I dislike doing PP (my prerogative surely?), but only dislike the results when they're over the top" - which sadly, in my view, many are.......
Click to expand...

No-one's saying you should process; if you don't want to then don't, I'm fairly sure no-one here really cares which you choose but you're essentially rubbishing a huge part of the creative process simply because, from what I can see in your posts, you can't be bothered with it or consider yourself to somehow be 'above' it.

The simple fact is that some images, film or digital, benefit from a degree of post-processing and that post-processing is just another part of the process of taking photos.
 
Organnyx said:
"What do you mean when you talk about being in or out with film?" - you go out with your camera, and shoot a masonic ladies night using film - you go to your friendly local processor and demolish a bag of fish and chips while he processes your film into a set of 8x6s for flogging later, and "set the world to rights" while he does so - on the question of focus/sharpness, it either "is or isn't" - if it's in focus, you keep it, if it ain't you bin it............:D
Click to expand...

you seem to have missed this bit - Sharpening isn't focusing, yet again.

Which is why you don't make sense. If you try to sharpen an OOF image you'll get a mess. An OOF image is OOF regardless of the medium its shot in, film or digital. Nothing pulls that back.

An image that will benefit from sharpening is an image that will benefit from sharpening regardless of medium its shot in, film or digital (or for that matter a 15th century painter in Italy). It only increases local edge contrast. It can't focus an image thats OOF

Theres the whole issue for you. I get, and respect you don't like PP. But to belittle things you have no understanding of (and its evident by your comments you don't) is just tedious.

And learn to use the quote button
 
Last edited:
As I said, it used to be the accuracy of focus, and the quality of equipment used dictated sharpness in the days of film - nowadays it's "choose what you want", which is a function of digital imaging and computer processing, am I not allowed to prefer the old way?

I used a practical example to illustrate why it was "in or out" of focus (or the bin.........) - someone asked what I meant, I explained.......

Back in the balmy (and by now very attractive) land of film there was no "digitising", there was no use of photoshop, no artifices like computer enhanced "sharpness" - and in the hard commercial world there was no time or economic sense in indulging in arcane techniques....as I said, you hit or missed focus, upon which "sharpness" was based......
 
Organnyx said:
As I said, it used to be the accuracy of focus, and the quality of equipment used dictated sharpness in the days of film - nowadays it's "choose what you want", which is a function of digital imaging .
Click to expand...

Um, no, it's STILL the former. You can't sharpen an out of focus image.
 
Organnyx said:
As I said, it used to be the accuracy of focus, and the quality of equipment used dictated sharpness in the days of film - nowadays it's "choose what you want", which is a function of digital imaging and computer processing, am I not allowed to prefer the old way?

I used a practical example to illustrate why it was "in or out" of focus (or the bin.........) - someone asked what I meant, I explained.......

Back in the balmy (and by now very attractive) land of film there was no "digitising", there was no use of photoshop, no artifices like computer enhanced "sharpness" - and in the hard commercial world there was no time or economic sense in indulging in arcane techniques....as I said, you hit or missed focus, upon which "sharpness" was based......
Click to expand...

sadly it seems you really don't understand what sharpening is, and what it always has been. Right from the very beginning all those centuries ago. Its never ever been related to focus. I don't get why you think it is :wacky:

Sharpening cannot create additional detail. Hence it cannot, and never has been able to pull OOF images into focus. All it does is increase edge contrast. If those edges aren't there it cannot improve them (like for example in an OOF image). I'm not sure why you are getting confused by this.

Just because something was more trouble in the darkroom doesn't make it a technique thats just come along with the advent of digital.And again just because it was not viable for you to do it (due I imagine to the darkroom time required) doesn't mean nobody did.

Just because you choose not to do something, doesn't mean its invalid. I suspect you had little idea what the darkroom techs did while you ate your chips
 
"You can't sharpen an out of focus image" - precisely, "in the old days" you there was no issue about degrees of "sharpness" (unless you missed focus), there was no facility to "dial it in" - it was intrinsic in the equipment used -there were no "degrees of sharpness", it was or it wasn't "sharp".......(which is what I was attempting to explain.......)

"I suspect you had little idea what the darkroom techs did while you ate your chips" - mostly they were very adept at "driving" a minilab - they'd set the machine for the film used, peer into the viewer and "guess" the exposure compensation needed for each frame (at which point you'd "leave them to it" as they were concentrating) - they'd then press the "print" button -they'd check them as they came out of the other end, and remove any that were "out" by a smidgeon, and process new copies. "Sharpness" was a function of whether or not the focus was correct (or not) in the first place, and the machine correctly adjusted - as I said "hit or miss".....
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
" it was or it wasn't "sharp".......(which is what I was attempting to explain.......)
Click to expand...

pity those guys way back in the '30s then. They went to all that trouble creating unsharp masks so they could selectively sharpen their photos and decide how much sharping to apply. All the time, had you been there you could of explained they wasted their time
 
Those guys in the 30's would spend hours on one stunning print - in the context of churning out sometimes hundreds of prints in an hour or so, no way was it practical, sensible or economical - following the advent of digital we have an easy way of "adding extra sharpness" to digital images - "way back then" it was NOT done on any scale at all.....
 
Organnyx said:
Those guys in the 30's would spend hours on one stunning print - in the context of churning out sometimes hundreds of prints in an hour or so, no way was it practical, sensible or economical - following the advent of digital we have an easy way of "adding extra sharpness" to digital images - "way back then" it was NOT done on any scale at all.....
Click to expand...

regardless of scale..in your arrogance you seem to be missing the key point, that sharpening does not, never has, and never will be a way to improve focus.
 
"in your arrogance you seem to be missing the key point - it's not me missing the point - I have never claimed that it does "improve focus"..........as I've carefully pointed out umpteen times, if we are talking about "perceived sharpness", it used to be a product of being "in focus" (in the real word, without indulging in frankly esoteric practices impractical in the context of hundreds of photos), both when taking and printing the image -there were no "degrees of sharpness" that could practically be applied - as I said, you hit or missed it........
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
"in your arrogance you seem to be missing the key point - it's not me missing the point - I have never claimed that it does "improve focus"..........as I've carefully pointed out umpteen times, if we are talking about "perceived sharpness", it used to be a product of being "in focus" (in the real word, without indulging in frankly esoteric practices impractical in the context of hundreds of photos), both when taking and printing the image -there were no "degrees of sharpness" that could practically be applied - as I said, you hit or missed it........
Click to expand...

cough - re-read your posts, you've repeatedly said things like

it used to be the accuracy of focus,
Click to expand...

and
you hit or missed focus, upon which "sharpness" was based......
Click to expand...

sharpening is not focusing. You get that. Right?

For some reason you seem to regard all darkroom techniques you didn't use as black magic, and something which wasn't used often. Incidentally you could control the amount of sharpening applied to the photograph by controlling how the mask was developed. Computer based PP has made it a lot easier but thats it. As I said, because you didn't use it, or understand it doesn't mean its wrong or arcane or nobody else was doing it. To think thats the case, is as stated just arrogance.

ps QUOTE button is great - try it. It makes your posts load easier to read
 
Let's try one last and final time to "get through" to those on "planet digital" - I know full well that any digitised image can have it's apparent "sharpness" altered, very easily, and using all sorts of differing ways of achieving an "enhanced" sharpness. (Are we together thus far?)

What I had said was that "sharpness" was intrinsic in the process used in film - you focus it right, you end up with a sharp negative - you print it right (with it in focus) you end up with a sharp print. Now you could try all sorts of techniques to increase the apparent sharpness, by using special B&W developers and fiddling with the contrast, but for the general "run of the mill" colour prints as I said, you either hit or missed it! There was no "choice" of differing types and amounts of sharpness processing available.

The whole point is that if you did it right, you got cracklingly good sharp prints, nowadays you are faced with a bewildering array of "choices" in "sharpness" alone, and I haven't noticed great leaps forward in photography as a result.

Perhaps I was "spoilt" in being able to "leave it to the processor" - nothing to do with being "above it" at all - I preferred the part with the camera - darkroom work left me "cold", so I concentrated at what I was best at, and entrusted my processing to those who were good at it, and enjoyed that part of it. As I said, I've found Photoshop a pain to learn as it's so unintuitive, perhaps I'm not driven to learn beyond the basics, as I'm not keen on "over processed" images however they're arrived at.......
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with just hitting the quote button, Martin? Trying to figure out who you're replying to is really, really irritating.
 
Organnyx said:
"You can't sharpen an out of focus image" - precisely, "in the old days" you there was no issue about degrees of "sharpness" (unless you missed focus), there was no facility to "dial it in" - it was intrinsic in the equipment used -there were no "degrees of sharpness", it was or it wasn't "sharp".......(which is what I was attempting to explain.......)
Click to expand...

Photographers have been artificially sharpening images for decades and decades.

What part of that are you missing?
 
I know enough to be able to mimic what my film processor did, others may choose to spend hours faffing - that's their prerogative (as many chose to spend hours in a darkroom), but it doesn't float my boat at all - please accept that there are many of us who choose minimal pp as a choice - I've tried to honestly answer "why" many of us prefer a relatively "straight out of the camera" image - it's our preference to work that way.

Even if I were incredibly proficient with Photoshop (which I'm honest enough to admit that I'm not), just because it's there, why should we be forced into using it?

My comment about planet digital was a fair one - many people on the forum appear to have no conception of what it was like to make a living using film - many have been reared on digital and make untrue assumptions about what it was like..........
 
Organnyx said:
Let's try one last and final time to "get through" to those on "planet digital" - I know full well that any digitised image can have it's apparent "sharpness" altered, very easily, and using all sorts of differing ways of achieving an "enhanced" sharpness. (Are we together thus far?)

What I had said was that "sharpness" was intrinsic in the process used in film - you focus it right, you end up with a sharp negative - you print it right (with it in focus) you end up with a sharp print. Now you could try all sorts of techniques to increase the apparent sharpness, by using special B&W developers and fiddling with the contrast, but for the general "run of the mill" colour prints as I said, you either hit or missed it! There was no "choice" of differing types and amounts of sharpness processing available.

The whole point is that if you did it right, you got cracklingly good sharp prints, nowadays you are faced with a bewildering array of "choices" in "sharpness" alone, and I haven't noticed great leaps forward in photography as a result.

Perhaps I was "spoilt" in being able to "leave it to the processor" - nothing to do with being "above it" at all - I preferred the part with the camera - darkroom work left me "cold", so I concentrated at what I was best at, and entrusted my processing to those who were good at it, and enjoyed that part of it. As I said, I've found Photoshop a pain to learn as it's so unintuitive, perhaps I'm not driven to learn beyond the basics, as I'm not keen on "over processed" images however they're arrived at.......
Click to expand...

Those of us on planet digital realise that most of the tools available in most post processing software came out of the darkroom and techniques there. It does sound like you had no clue what your processors did. But you wish to belittle those who wish to understand and use what's available.

Incedently, if you're right nobody would have invented sharpening :)
 
Organnyx said:
please accept that there are many of us who choose minimal pp as a choice - I've tried to honestly answer "why" many of us prefer a relatively "straight out of the camera" image - it's our preference to work that way.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you won't find anyone here in this thread who disagrees, sometimes I shoot with a specific aim to do minimal if any post-processing and if you don't want to tweak images then that's perfectly fine. It isn't fine however to storm in with this 'you digital people know nothing' attitude and have total blind ignorance of such basic principles.

It seems clear to me that your hatred of post-processing stems from the simple fact you don't understand it and have no wish to learn. That's fine; do what you want, but don't give others all this patronising "planet digital" crap just because you don't understand something and can't be arsed learning it.
 
For the very last time - could you kindly explain to a simple soul like me how the hell you would have churned out hundreds of colour prints with "enhanced levels of sharpness" in a couple of hours (using techniques that took hours per print) - in an affordable way?

The fact is the prints were sharp, without the "advantages" of digital pp. As for the continued claim that I didn't know what the processors did is frankly nonsense, I "did my apprenticeship" in a darkroom, helped out a local pro with his (pretty basic but effective) colour processing, and sat and watched proficient people using a minilab processing my work - I'm not belittling anyone, just pointing out that many of us choose to minimise pp where possible.......
Mr Cokin "invented" all sorts of wondrous filters, didn't make their use obligatory or desirable...
 
Organnyx said:
For the very last time - could you kindly explain to a simple soul like me how the hell you would have churned out hundreds of colour prints with "enhanced levels of sharpness" in a couple of hours (using techniques that took hours per print) - in an affordable way?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything? We're talking about techniques and their origins, why do you keep raising this totally irrelevant question?
 
The suggestion appears to have been made that I'm some form of arrogant idiot for daring to point out that we achieved high levels of sharpness without the "advantages of pp" - then people start digging up the origins of the "unsharp mask" - I've merely pointed out that it wasn't practical to do that using film - we didn't actually need to..........(if you did it right it just was sharp.......):D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top