"No processing"

Organnyx said:
I've merely pointed out that it wasn't practical to do that using film
Click to expand...

Nonsense, people have spent and still do spend shed loads of time making prints and the results reflect the time they put in. I don't know of a single serious photographer who'd object to doing some post-processing if it gave him the results he wanted or generally improved the image. To claim such processing isn't practical if you're using film is just plain wrong.


Organnyx said:
we didn't actually need to
Click to expand...

No, you didn't want to. There's a difference.
 
Organnyx said:
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
Click to expand...

no - you've been arrogant for repeatedly and deliberately confusing sharpness and focus. As I said earlier its a shame you weren't around to explain to the darkroom boys they were wasting their time when they developed the technique as they didn't actually need to.

You've also been arrogant for assuming that because you don't understand PP no one else does either.

BTW - I didn't have to dig up anything - I was well aware of the origins of the USM because I understand what I'm doing to my images.

You regard over PP'ing something as bad, you'd not find many who disagree with you, but used well PP makes a good photograph great. Simples
 
Organnyx said:
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..........
Click to expand...
Dodging, burning, correcting colour casts, pushing, cross processing, using a specific developer, altering the enlarger exposure, fixing / developing timings, sharpening, choosing a paper with a specific tonal range or quality etc. etc...

Yes.. and I still shoot some film, and I professionally used film before digital
 
Last edited:
Organnyx said:
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
Click to expand...

Sharpness craziness is a modern phenomena, where we are now used to lenses that nail sharpness, and in general IQ is higher and cleaner. The advent of computer designed DX lenses that didn't need to be sharp from edge to edge started this.

However, in the good old days, to see your work properly, you got it printed, and that cost a lot, and additionally, you never really (usually) got it printed big. There wasn't a real equivalent tot he instant pixel peeping we do nowadays
 
Surely the simple answer to the original question (assuming that's what we're still talking about) is that neither post processing or straight out of camera is right or wrong.

I personally find that there are quite a lot of straight out of camera people who seem to believe they are doing something "right" compared to everyone else by not post processing.

There are a lot of good reasons why you *might* choose to pp. Doesn't mean it's always needed. If the shot is good straight out of camera it could mean you got more right when you pressed the shutter button. That's good practice. Still doesn't mean doing it afterwards is wrong or any less skilled. New technology has meant we have choices that's all.

There's a lot of old school elitism but it's going to fade away. Before long a lot of people wont even be taking individual shots. They'll be pulling single frames out of a 4k raw video. There will be lots of people who don't like that change either. Some people like old school, that's fine. I think there needs to be less snobbery about it though.
 
Last edited:
turnpike said:
Surely the simple answer to the original question (assuming that's what we're still talking about) is that neither post processing or straight out of camera is right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes yes yes yes! That's exactly it. It isn't a case of right or wrong, or losing artistic or creative value, or any other such nonsense. Whether we post-process or not doesn't give an image any more or less artistic or creative merit, it's totally irrelevant as long as you somehow arrive at the image you want.
 
Actually, if you shoot to JPEG, then technically your camera is doing the Raw conversion, and that's technically PP to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top