Post production and the ism's?

[jerry12953]

I disagree. Photography has ALWAYS had an element of embellishment. Photographs back then were no more believable than they are now. It's all about context anyway. A landscape photograph that has had a sky replaced still has the potential to be beautiful. It's not necessarily pretending to be anything other than a beautiful scene and so what if telegraph poles have been removed or the sky has been replaced? The sky that was in the original photograph is unlikely to be the same sky as you'd see if you visited now, so by all means replace it if it makes for a more beautiful image.

My lips are sealed....

 

[Kev M]

I am proud of my work, but are you saying that it's perfectly sane to say that I am no longer a photographer because I may choose to use certain methods of post production?

If I use a camera and lenses but alter my photograph/image in ways that utilize unreality then I am now a 'digital artist' or something else equally ridiculous?



Sorry mate, but I can't see the point your trying to make here :shrug:

Relax. Who said that you would no longer call yourself a photographer? Not me. You've said yourself that you produce straight images for the likes of Getty and composite stuff for yourself and your clients so why do you have to pidgeonhole yourself as a photographer and nothing else? So what if you shopped the foreground, middleground and background from different images it doesn't take away the impact of the image but why must you call it a photograph? Why can't you call it an image, a piece of art or a digital creation? Do you think those descriptions de-value the work?

My point is, that as much as you don't agree or understand why the purists, traditionalists, and the evangalists get hung up on their methods you and plenty of others are hung up on the word photographer and photographs as I see it. That's no slight on you or the others, merely an observation, it might seem like I disagree with you and your principles but I'm a big fan of your portrait work.

No, I'm not. I am the OP and I'm far as I know, I'm still very much on topic.

While I was writing that there were about four responses seperating what I was referring to which is where Jerry seems to be going with the value of documentary photography over product photography etc. I'm not a big fan of the quote button because it just pads the thread out and is overused by a lot of folk round here but in such a fast moving thread I guess it's necessary.

Ok, is this not photography?

and this?:

I don't know is it? Was she blonde and 25st? Was he white? If that's the scene in the studio then I'd call it a photograph.

 

[Myky D]

I see a huge gulf between that sort of thing and what I had in mind.

I see.

Well - as marvellous as I am, I'm not actually telepathic, so I'm afraid I have to rely on what you tell us as opposed to what is going on in your head.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Relax. Who said that you would no longer call yourself a photographer? Not me. You've said yourself that you produce straight images for the likes of Getty and composite stuff for yourself and your clients so why do you have to pidgeonhole yourself as a photographer and nothing else? So what if you shopped the foreground, middleground and background from different images it doesn't take away the impact of the image but why must you call it a photograph? Why can't you call it an image, a piece of art or a digital creation? Do you think those descriptions de-value the work?

I am relaxed mate, I promise Interesting, I don't think it devalues the work at all and that's my point, there are some that do and I think it's just plain old silly.

My point is, that as much as you don't agree or understand why the purists, traditionalists, and the evangalists get hung up on their methods you and plenty of others are hung up on the word photographer and photographs as I see it. That's no slight on you or the others, merely an observation, it might seem like I disagree with you and your principles but I'm a big fan of your portrait work.

Cheers What I'm addressing is how silly it can get, why must they condemn and deny? I'm basically asking to be convinced otherwise I suppose and the more argument I hear in defensive of close minded and claustrophobic methods the more I believe that I'm not damaging myself from thinking so. I still leave this open though.

While I was writing that there were about four responses seperating what I was referring to which is where Jerry seems to be going with the value of documentary photography over product photography etc. I'm not a big fan of the quote button because it just pads the thread out and is overused by a lot of folk round here but in such a fast moving thread I guess it's necessary.

No worries, I gotcha

I don't know is it? Was she blonde and 25st? Was he white? If that's the scene in the studio then I'd call it a photograph.

Now funny as you make it, this is drawing very closely to my points, when you look at the examples, whether you think they are crap or great, they are photo's or 'images' let's say for the more argumentative.

If after the discovery that the subjects were blonde an 25 stone, and indeed the chap was white, they suddenly lose all value or become utterly worthless to some folk as they feel conned or cheated because it's not real.

They will always have worth to me but that's not what I'm driving at.

 

[Kev M]

If after the discovery that the subjects were blonde an 25 stone, and indeed the chap was white, they suddenly lose all value or become utterly worthless to some folk as they feel conned or cheated because it's not real.

They will always have worth to me but that's not what I'm driving at.

Tomas, just forget trying to convince people or understand why they are the way they are. Just leave them to it.

But it kind of goes back to my earlier point you rubbished in that if a 'photo' rather than an image becomes devalued to an observer becuase of the work that has been done on it then perhaps it would be better for all if we abandoned the term photo and referred to them as images/art/whatever and just appreciate it for what it is rather than how it was made.

Also, perhaps the observer has the right to feel cheated if someone were to represent an image as fact when it isn't. If the image isn't fact does it matter if it is enjoyable? No, so don't hide behind it, be up front and say that it's a composite etc.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Tomas, just forget trying to convince people or understand why they are the way they are. Just leave them to it.

Mate, it's not about convincing them, I'm really not trying to do that at all.

But it kind of goes back to my earlier point you rubbished in that if a 'photo' rather than an image becomes devalued to an observer becuase of the work that has been done on it then perhaps it would be better for all if we abandoned the term photo and referred to them as images/art/whatever and just appreciate it for what it is rather than how it was made.

I'm sorry if it seemed i was rubbishing your point, I really don't want to give that impression so apologies, I just disagree, why should terms have to be changed or things explained in special ways for the benefit of folk who have obscure issues or can't accept something for what it is?

 

[Kev M]

I'm sorry if it seemed i was rubbishing your point, I really don't want to give that impression so apologies, I just disagree, why should terms have to be changed or things explained in special ways for the benefit of folk who have obscure issues or can't accept something for what it is?

Did you miss the winkie smiley in my post? Perhaps the terms should change because the game is changing? Things are moving on but people are clinging to traditional terms, perhaps because they think the link with tradition gives more kudos or something? Everyone is embracing new technology and techniques but they're afraid of using new terms to go with it.:shrug: Perhaps they're worried that by not calling an image a photograph they are devaluing it themselves?

In your last bit from obscure issues onwards I think becomes two issues. The first is people with issuses over what they think should be done and the latter is something else. The latter I think comes down to what you are asking them to accept and how it is represented which again comes back to being up front about what you have produced and how you produced it.

 

[AlexW]

I haven’t looked this up but as I remember it a photograph is formed by mechanically capturing a scene on a light sensitive medium. If you do this you are a photographer. The captured images are photographs.

Now I could use these photographs to create new composite images. Are these new images photographs? Or are they pictures/images that use photographs as their source material? My first reaction is go with the later definition, but as has been said above it starts to get murky when specific examples are used.

I really like the example fontmoss used re singlespeed bikes: Some times It’s just nice to feel like you're part of a subculture within a subculture. Its also nice to do things simply some times, and if you’re not the first up the hill you’ve got a good excuse. A bit like the ‘no pp’ disclaimer.

Hmmm apologies, don’t think I’ve added much light there

 

[Myky D]

Some times It’s just nice to feel like you're part of a subculture within a subculture.

No I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

It's exactly like with music: "I liked them before they were famous"/"I don't like commercial stuff"/"I don't like mainstream rock/rap/jazz/white metal industrial grindcore noize" etc.

Essentially it's posing, and holds absolutely no practical value, as its entirely subjective. What one CAN do, however, is claim everyone in the group "likes music", just as one can claim everyone using a camera is a "photographer" and that the images produced from that camera are "photographs".

For example - THIS TO THE PANEL - what is this - just "an image", or "an image containing a photograph"? You will need to show your working and justify your answer:

 

[jerry12953]

I see.

Well - as marvellous as I am, I'm not actually telepathic, so I'm afraid I have to rely on what you tell us as opposed to what is going on in your head.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone so...

Photography means different things to different people. When people talk about photographers, I think about people like myself. But I'm probably in a small minority who go out into the landscape and try to make pictures. And it really matters to me that those pictures have good light, correct exposures, landscape interest, and usually, documentary value.

It's probably true to say that the vast majority do different things and have different priorities . So I suppose that's why we have different opinions, and don't necessarily agree with each other.

I don't work in a studio, I hardly ever set shots up, I don't use flash, I don't like doing too much PP, my subject matter is "out there". It bothers me that anyone with photoshop could replace a boring sky with a better one, for example, because for me it's more valid to just be there and make that picture in one go. And I worry that the photoshoppers are taking over.

So perhaps I am a bit of an elitist?

 

[welly]

My lips are sealed....

So be it!

 

[Xarra]

I used to think PP was 'cheating', but then I started using it, and I can make a dull indoors scene shine - I did today for work... I'm not a pro (only been doing it as a hobby for 6 months!) but I view PP as a tool, like a tripod or a flashgun... It enhances a picture to what we saw rather than just some rather bland spots of light on a sensor which the camera can't interpret like our brains can...

There's OTT processing, then there's a nice mono conversion, or a colour pop or just making someone's eyes sparkle and leap off the paper... I've done conversions to vintage-style which the people I did them for loved - I'd not count them as 'true' photographs though...

What I'm trying to say is PP is a tool to bring back the reality to a shot - at the end of the day a sensor isn't our eyes and it's what our mind and eyes see that I want to capture...

 

[Tyke Tiler]

It bothers me that anyone with photoshop could replace a boring sky with a better one.

Incorrect, not everyone with photoshop knows how to use it and it does take skill to make convincing examples. Fact. Does anyone who owns a book on quantum physics know how to harness it?

because for me it's more valid to just be there and make that picture in one go. And I worry that the photoshoppers are taking over.

Everyone wants to get the best frame they can, what if time was an issue and the opportunity to return to the scene is not possible? Why should this rule apply to everyone?

Anyway, I addressed this earlier but you decided not to answer.

So perhaps I am a bit of an elitist?

If you believe that your way is the way and any deviants are in the wrong then it could be a possibility.

Riddle me this, you can show me some of your best pictures, I can appreciate the effort and the thought that has gone into their creation, now I show you some of my best pictures, what do you do?

Can you appreciate the work and effort that has gone into them, knowing that I do not always obey rules?

 

[ChrisMClark]

Incorrect, not everyone with photoshop knows how to use it and it does take skill to make convincing examples. Fact.

Tell me about it, I'm ****ing useless with CS3.

 

[welly]

I'm as guilty of this as anyone so...

Photography means different things to different people. When people talk about photographers, I think about people like myself. But I'm probably in a small minority who go out into the landscape and try to make pictures. And it really matters to me that those pictures have good light, correct exposures, landscape interest, and usually, documentary value.

It's probably true to say that the vast majority do different things and have different priorities . So I suppose that's why we have different opinions, and don't necessarily agree with each other.

I don't work in a studio, I hardly ever set shots up, I don't use flash, I don't like doing too much PP, my subject matter is "out there". It bothers me that anyone with photoshop could replace a boring sky with a better one, for example, because for me it's more valid to just be there and make that picture in one go. And I worry that the photoshoppers are taking over.

So perhaps I am a bit of an elitist?

If I was to go out and take photographs but then take them into my office and photoshop the balls out of them, I'd still consider myself a photographer as opposed to a digital artist or a graphic designer or whatever else. I don't believe that photographs must or should have documentary value and I don't believe that "images" can't have documentary value as well. I'm not sure you're being elitist and you're obviously free to have your opinion but I can't help in thinking you're being a little close minded as to the potential of photography. I almost, but not quite, enjoy the post processing of images (not that I make a habit of, or have ever, replaced the sky in a photo) and enjoy creating interpretations of scenes I've photographed. But at the end of the day, despite what I do at home in front of my computer (with regards to the images I've captured! :nono, I'm still a photographer and proud to call myself one.

 

[jerry12953]

If you believe that your way is the way and any deviants are in the wrong then it could be a possibility.

OK, that's one thing I've learned today then....

I just don't want to get into any personal argy-bargy. Life's too short.

 

[Myky D]

People have "post" processed photography since it was born!

It's not called "Photo" "Shop" for nothing - it replicates what happens in a "Photo" "Shop" - ie - all the techniques and processes that used to take place in a dark room, and more. Its called evolution. It happens.

Personally I love photoshopping all hell out of images to get certain styles. I'm still a photographer, and they're still photographs - they're just heavily processed photographs. They've been "drawn" with "light" (sort of, inasmuchas one can "draw" with light).

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I view PP as a tool, like a tripod or a flashgun... It enhances a picture to what we saw rather than just some rather bland spots of light on a sensor which the camera can't interpret like our brains can...

Very interesting way of putting it

 

[jerry12953]

Tomas, I haven't followed the line of your arguments in the minutest detail, but on reflection it seems that you have an anything goes philosophy, which, in its way, is fine.

Problem is, it seems from your posts, is that those who have principles of some kind are elitists or purists or just plain wrong!

Personally, I'm a bit old school, having learned most of my PHOTOGRAPHY skills on film.

And I do dislike feeling that I'm on trial for something, especially as nobody has told me what it is.

That is DEFINITELY my last word!

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Jerry,

It appears that you have an interest in this thread, an interest in the topic of the discussion but are taking the content a little too personally.

I have not accused you of anything and neither are you on trial.

We are taking part in a debate/discussion, you put your points across and I put across mine.

I appreciate your thoughts, I truly do, believe it or not your helping me out.

I must admit it is a little frustrating when having a discussion, points that I see are quite relevant to the subject selectively ignored or avoided and then the argument re-instated minus my points!

I apologize if you feel threatened, I do not wish this at all and struggle to see anything threatening in the discussion.

Tomas, I haven't followed the line of your arguments in the minutest detail, but on reflection it seems that you have an anything goes philosophy, which, in its way, is fine.

Yes, I believe that you haven't been following this as much as I would have liked and misunderstand a fair amount of what I'm talking about.

Problem is, it seems from your posts, is that those who have principles of some kind are elitists or purists or just plain wrong!

You have this quite wrong here. I would be most grateful if you would read the first post again.

Also, you brought up elitism, not I:

So perhaps I am a bit of an elitist?

and my reply:

If you believe that your way is the way and any deviants are in the wrong then it could be a possibility.

Riddle me this, you can show me some of your best pictures, I can appreciate the effort and the thought that has gone into their creation, now I show you some of my best pictures, what do you do?

Can you appreciate the work and effort that has gone into them, knowing that I do not always obey 'rules'?

You still haven't answered that question, I'm still very interested in hearing what you have to say.

I have looked at your website numerous times since this discussion began, I love it's content, I love Wales, I spent a proportion of my childhood there.
I appreciate and respect the effort, work and enjoyment you have put into it, you've even published books! It's fantastic!

This has driven me a little more to discuss this subject with someone such as yourself but when you dismiss some of the points, the more pertinent ones especially, it's a little unbalanced don't you think?

Personally, I'm a bit old school, having learned most of my PHOTOGRAPHY skills on film.

Your photography is not under attack here, don't take it so personally, it's the methods which I choose to implement that are under attack, not that it would ever stop me, I'm simply trying to discuss the mechanics of how and why.
To me it's ridiculous prejudice that, no matter how much it's debated, appears to have no sense or logistics, it seems to promote counter production, defeatism and has very little prospects. But! This is an attitude I see a lot of but previously have chosen not to be involved in discussions of, hence the thread.

And I do dislike feeling that I'm on trial for something, especially as nobody has told me what it is.

That is DEFINITELY my last word!

If you wish to no longer participate then that's a shame but I will respect your decision.

T.

 

[mr_pants]

Following on from the above, I am not a 'purist' in any kind of way, although I do appreciate the benefit of getting the results you want from the camera in the first place. I have no problem whatsoever with someone who wants to adopt a 'purist' (for the want of a better term) stance. After all, we are all free to pursue our hobby/interest/art in the way that pleases us.

Just as long as nobody from either side of the 'debate' (there's an awful lot of inverted commas here, isn't there?) looks down on the other. There's room for all, really, I say.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Just as long as nobody from either side of the 'debate' looks down on the other. There's room for all, really, I say.

That's one of the points, see the first post.

 

[CT]

If Beethoven were around today you can bet both your nads he'd have a digital synthesizer and he'd love it. If Ansell Adams hadn't fallen off the perch, he'd be welcoming Photoshop with open arms and he'd be an expert on it.

Whether the most hairy arsed out there care to admit it or not - we're all trying to express something through the media of photography. Whether the camera produces the finished product or the start of a process, who really cares - we either like what we see or we don't, regardless of the process in getting there.

 

[ChrisMClark]

If Beethoven were around today you can bet both your nads he'd have a digital synthesizer and he'd love it.

Funny you should say that, because a program called Sibelius caused quite a stir when released, as it took musical score writing off the manuscript and pen and on to a computer.

PPing is all well and good, I have no problem with it, and I think it can go a certain stretch to allowing people to put a little more of their own stamp on a photograph. Everyone has their own style of PPing, just as everyone has their own style of togging. It's evolution. I personally don't like doing much in PS, and use it mostly for RAW development, but I can fully appreciate the crazy things some people go for.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

If Ansell Adams hadn't fallen off the perch, he'd be welcoming Photoshop with open arms and he'd be an expert on it.

Whether the most hairy arsed out there care to admit it or not - we're all trying to express something through the media of photography. Whether the camera produces the finished product or the start of a process, who really cares - we either like what we see or we don't, regardless of the process in getting there.

Nice one CT, I guess that's one of the axes I'm merrily grinding at, I do try to express myself through the media of photography but then there's all this hoo haa:

'It's not photography, that's not a photographer, it's my way or the high way, the photo-shopper's are taking over, I'm being conned and where is the reality?!'

I can't help but find it odd and also interesting, I just like to know more of the how and why is all. The method behind the 'madness'

Sometimes I have a hunch that it's fear of change, fear of progress or fear of inadequacy that is responsible and then other times I feel that it's some kind of elevated perspective, to have a principal where others do not, when really, there are no principals or morals truly at stake.

Surely it's preferences and not principals?

It's all a bit long in the tooth it seems, I appreciate work that is created by purist methods but fail to understand why a purist or anyone else has to condemn other methods outside of their own.
How can they arrive at the conclusion, logically and rationally, that skill, knowledge, artistic license, creativity and imagination do not exist with photographers who choose to implement post production tech?

It's almost like a child's game sometimes, deny a photographer of the title 'photographer', deny their work the title of being a 'photograph', rob them of value and send them to the pits of 'digital art' because they have no limitations or do not blindly follow rules.

These definitions are not obstacles nor will they prevent me from making the decisions I make, but they exist, I see them regularly, I see the debates and arguments and it just spins right out of control.

I remember reading somewhere that if there is a make up artist present, applying make up to a model then reality is no longer present and that is another suitable form of cheating, the photographer is a liar and promotes unreality so therefore is no longer a real photographer.

It really is so strange.

It's still photography and when camera's and lenses are used you/they/I are still photographers, with preferences on how they wish to express themselves.

I'm open but am having trouble seeing it any other way

Funny you should say that, because a program called Sibelius caused quite a stir when released, as it took musical score writing off the manuscript and pen and on to a computer.

Good point Chris, so basically the notation program was a sign of evolution and would I be right assuming that it was not met with open arms? Tell me more!

 

[CT]

The arguments were always there pre-digital anyway Tomas. There were those who threw up their hands in horror at the thought of cropping an image which then had no credibility for them as it wasn't conceived and composed entirely in camera. Curiously, this attitude still persists even with digital with some people. I can 'sort of' see the argument with some subjects - landscape being an obvious example, but even then who's to say the image wasn't taken with a view to cropping due to not being able to get close enough or simply not having the right lens at the time?

I think the biggest nay sayers are probably those die hards still waving the Union Jack in the desert when everyone else has ****ed off.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

The arguments were always there pre-digital anyway Tomas. There were those who threw up their hands in horror at the thought of cropping an image which then had no credibility for them as it wasn't conceived and composed entirely in camera. Curiously, this attitude still persists even with digital with some people. I can 'sort of' see the argument with some subjects - landscape being an obvious example, but even then who's to say the image wasn't taken with a view to cropping due to not being able to get close enough or simply not having the right lens at the time?

I think the biggest nay sayers are probably those die hards still waving the Union Jack in the desert when everyone else has ****ed off.

I'd really like to take you out for dinner

How about a nice carvery when I'm next back on home soils? (Moseley man I was)

 

[haggisuk]

I used to think PP was 'cheating', but then I started using it, and I can make a dull indoors scene shine - I did today for work... I'm not a pro (only been doing it as a hobby for 6 months!) but I view PP as a tool, like a tripod or a flashgun... It enhances a picture to what we saw rather than just some rather bland spots of light on a sensor which the camera can't interpret like our brains can...

There's OTT processing, then there's a nice mono conversion, or a colour pop or just making someone's eyes sparkle and leap off the paper... I've done conversions to vintage-style which the people I did them for loved - I'd not count them as 'true' photographs though...

What I'm trying to say is PP is a tool to bring back the reality to a shot - at the end of the day a sensor isn't our eyes and it's what our mind and eyes see that I want to capture...

For me this sums up my whole experience with Photography, the camera, flash etc etc are just tools to enable me to capture and display a memory to the best of my ability.

I love tinkering in Photoshop to get the image to be as close to what I remember seeing, or sometime to try something like a lith print effect etc.

I personally would not swap a sky out of an image just to make it look better, but that's my choice, however I would certainly not stop you from doing it.

 

[jerry12953]

Jerry,

It appears that you have an interest in this thread, an interest in the topic of the discussion but are taking the content a little too personally.

I have not accused you of anything and neither are you on trial.

We are taking part in a debate/discussion, you put your points across and I put across mine.

I appreciate your thoughts, I truly do, believe it or not your helping me out.

I must admit it is a little frustrating when having a discussion, points that I see are quite relevant to the subject selectively ignored or avoided and then the argument re-instated minus my points!

I apologize if you feel threatened, I do not wish this at all and struggle to see anything threatening in the discussion.



Yes, I believe that you haven't been following this as much as I would have liked and misunderstand a fair amount of what I'm talking about.



You have this quite wrong here. I would be most grateful if you would read the first post again.

Also, you brought up elitism, not I:



and my reply:



You still haven't answered that question, I'm still very interested in hearing what you have to say.

I have looked at your website numerous times since this discussion began, I love it's content, I love Wales, I spent a proportion of my childhood there.
I appreciate and respect the effort, work and enjoyment you have put into it, you've even published books! It's fantastic!

This has driven me a little more to discuss this subject with someone such as yourself but when you dismiss some of the points, the more pertinent ones especially, it's a little unbalanced don't you think?



Your photography is not under attack here, don't take it so personally, it's the methods which I choose to implement that are under attack, not that it would ever stop me, I'm simply trying to discuss the mechanics of how and why.
To me it's ridiculous prejudice that, no matter how much it's debated, appears to have no sense or logistics, it seems to promote counter production, defeatism and has very little prospects. But! This is an attitude I see a lot of but previously have chosen not to be involved in discussions of, hence the thread.



If you wish to no longer participate then that's a shame but I will respect your decision.

T.

!!!!!

 

[Tyke Tiler]

!!!!!

?????

 

[jerry12953]

?????

.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

.

:baby:

 

[Werecow]

I'm as guilty of this as anyone so...

Photography means different things to different people. When people talk about photographers, I think about people like myself. But I'm probably in a small minority who go out into the landscape and try to make pictures. And it really matters to me that those pictures have good light, correct exposures, landscape interest, and usually, documentary value.

It's probably true to say that the vast majority do different things and have different priorities . So I suppose that's why we have different opinions, and don't necessarily agree with each other.

I don't work in a studio, I hardly ever set shots up, I don't use flash, I don't like doing too much PP, my subject matter is "out there". It bothers me that anyone with photoshop could replace a boring sky with a better one, for example, because for me it's more valid to just be there and make that picture in one go. And I worry that the photoshoppers are taking over.

So perhaps I am a bit of an elitist?

Jerry, i've seen you extolling the virtues of graduated filters and polarizing filters.. and i quote directly from one of your posts... "But a polariser will cut through scattered light in the atmosphere to give you much better skies."

Now that to me is enhancing a sky beyond what the human eye sees a lot of the time, and in some cases makes it look like a totally different sky in the photo from the real-life sky.

You're keen to point out that you perform little POST-production in your photos, but you are performing PRE-production to alter a scene beyond what it looks like to the human eye.

I fail to see the difference when it comes down to the finished product (the photo), beyond being chuffed with yourself you did it in a certain way?

 

[CT]

I'd really like to take you out for dinner

How about a nice carvery when I'm next back on home soils? (Moseley man I was)

Sounds like a plan!

 

[cowasaki]

I try and get things right in the camera too BUT if I have to mess with PS I will do. I have taken many photos that were OK then realised that with a different crop I get a much better picture or alternatively I am shooting for WB on a sunny day and walk into the shade etc etc.

Then there are the times when I get a really nice picture but there is a rubbish bin just in the wrong place - I will happily clone it out and it is THIS part that I think is the step SOME people think is going too far. I took a picture of a church not too long ago and removed a couple of bins then closed the front gate! (One gate was open the other closed and it spoiled the balance).

Horses for courses.......

 

[nigelcampbell]

For me each image is different.

I try to capture the feeling of the shot (yes I know that sounds pretentious - I'm OK with that). What I want to show is the thing that made me stop and look in the first place.

Sometimes that can be captured in camera and only a minimal amount of PP is required. I'm old school and started with film, so I know that prints don't print themselves - you make test strips and then you probably still do some dodging and burning to get the best image.

For other images some more work will help to bring out what interested me - I am trying to guide the viewer to notice what I noticed. This might mean that I darken other areas, or crop the image a certain way.

If you shoot an image of a bird in a tree - would you not try to blur / remove any elements that detract from the bird if that is your subject?

Way back when I taught photography - I always made more progress and got more out of my students when I got them to think and talk about what made them choose the subject - what were they trying to achieve?

This should then drive their decisions regarding shooting and post-processing. I'm happy to discuss technical points but I'd far rather talk about creative decisions.

So to cut a long story short - never doing any PP is fine if that's your thing - but that is an affectation - not a creative decision. The same way that if you apply the same processing to all your shots - that's a style, but it may not suit all your subjects.

The exception comes when you shoot only certain subjects in a certain style with the same PP. Then it becomes your own personal style.

My point being that it would be great to see more discussion on the why's of subjects choice, composition, shooting and processing rather than the hows.

 

[TheBigYin]

Well – I suppose I’m going to come down on the Anything Goes side. I’m definitely non-professional here, Photography is a hobby to me, not a revenue stream. As such, I’m really out there to satisfy one person. Me. All I really want is to produce a good quality picture. To this end, I take a great deal of care to get things as right as I can in the initial shot. However, occasionally there are things that you can’t do anything about – the obtrusive bin / brand new shiny chain/padlock on rustic gate etc. that spoil the otherwise spot-on (to MY eyes) composition. For these things, I’m prepared / happy to edit them out, much as I would if I was painting a picture of the scene. I may not be an Artist, but I’m still happy to use their Licence…

I started out with film – initially taking photos to document hill walks / climbs etc. I’d done. These started out in colour, then swapped to black and white, mainly as my climbing mate had started shooting colour slides, and I wanted something that contrasted with his work. This led to quite a bit of messing about in darkrooms, and an enjoyment of the “wet” post-production side of things.

Eventually, real life caught up, earning a crust and all the other impedimenta that time brings meant that my 35mm cameras were gathering dust in the loft. I still wanted to document the occasional walking foray though, so I bought a digital Point-and-Shoot, and away I went.

As I went along, I found I was taking the Ixus with me everywhere, and shooting more pictures than I ever did with film. This in itself made my photography progress, to the extent I was bumping more and more into the limits of the camera. It also meant that to get around some of these limits I was learning the power of digital post-production – Photoshop. I even revisited some of the things I shot on film, scanned and altered them, doing a few things that would have been pretty much impossible back in a wet-process.

Last Christmas I finally bit the bullet and bought myself another SLR – this time a digital one. I’m happy – I’m enjoying taking photographs, and making pictures. Only problem I have now is I’m running out of space on my study wall for displaying the stuff I’ve taken.

 

[Kev M]

I think one of the problems here is grouping all PP into the same basket, there are varying degrees of PP from working with what you have to splicing shots together, to creating something from scratch.

Jerry doesn't like any PP and such is his right, I'm kind of with him to an extent and to explain why I'll give you an example of enhancing a sky.

If a sky is a bit bland, dodge and burn some interest into it, work with what is there. That's fine for a photo as far as I'm concerned.

Replace the sky with one which wasn't there and it's no longer a photo for me but an image (by my definition). Now I have no problem with people who do this, I've got much bigger things to worry about but FFS don't try and pass it off as the genuine article.

As for filters and polarisers, well for me that's the same as the first description, you're working with what you have at that time in that place, it's still a photo (by my definition). It's no more of a criminal than HDR (speaking of which I've not seen Pete round here for a while, is he still alive?).

People shopping skies in because it's a quick fix and easy is just another extension of the digital age in my opinion. I have a lot more respect for those that will visit somewhere time and time again until they have the sky or light that they want.

 

[jerry12953]

I think one of the problems here is grouping all PP into the same basket, there are varying degrees of PP from working with what you have to splicing shots together, to creating something from scratch.

Jerry doesn't like any PP and such is his right, I'm kind of with him to an extent and to explain why I'll give you an example of enhancing a sky.

If a sky is a bit bland, dodge and burn some interest into it, work with what is there. That's fine for a photo as far as I'm concerned.

Replace the sky with one which wasn't there and it's no longer a photo for me but an image (by my definition). Now I have no problem with people who do this, I've got much bigger things to worry about but FFS don't try and pass it off as the genuine article.

As for filters and polarisers, well for me that's the same as the first description, you're working with what you have at that time in that place, it's still a photo (by my definition). It's no more of a criminal than HDR (speaking of which I've not seen Pete round here for a while, is he still alive?).

People shopping skies in because it's a quick fix and easy is just another extension of the digital age in my opinion. I have a lot more respect for those that will visit somewhere time and time again until they have the sky or light that they want.

Actually, if you read my first post you'll see that I don't object to PP. If you count converting RAW files into the best possible image you can using basic controls in Lightroom, I do it all the time.

I don't have a problem with grads or polarisers - in fact I use the latter a lot, and despite the fact that it does change the image from what the eye can see.

Nor would I have a problem with HDR if I knew how to do it and if the intention was to replicate the scene without losing details in highlights or shadows.

I do have a problem with people adding or subtracting elements within a scene. In a way I wouldn't even call that post-processing. I don't actually agree with your definition of an image, Kev, as a photo which has been "photoshopped", but there is a qualitative difference at that point.

I'm certainly not a "purist" but I think you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

People shopping skies in because it's a quick fix and easy is just another extension of the digital age in my opinion.

Quick? Easy? :shake:

I have a lot more respect for those that will visit somewhere time and time again until they have the sky or light that they want.

I have respect for that approach as well as practice it myself but I also have respect for anyone who can convincingly add elements that were present only in their imaginations too.

I think it just could boil down to whether you marvel at reality or un-reality, I appreciate both and like to dabble in both when it comes to my photography.

Nor would I have a problem with HDR if I knew how to do it and if the intention was to replicate the scene without losing details in highlights or shadows.

Just buy photomatix or at least download a trial, it's a very simple program and even allows exposure blending as an alternative to high dynamic range.

I do have a problem with people adding or subtracting elements within a scene.

Is this just in terms of landscape photography or photography in general?