How Much Post Processing Do You Do?

[MattSepeta]

I process every picture. As much as it's nice to "get it right in camera", we now have RAW files which let you get about the exact same image quality as if you did "get it right in camera". for someone who shoots events (weddings, music) that you can not "re-do", processing is essential.

Also- sometimes camera's do not capture the image as we "see" it. Example I used:

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

I did a piece that has been a good money maker for me and I think it's because post has become so versatile in todays industry. The before and after is pretty cool.

Before Post:

After Post:

 

[fitshaced]

I think post processing helps you learn how to get better in-camera shots. If you adjust the contrast for a particular type of shot, such as a product shot, you can adjust this setting in your camera next time. So, instead of relying on post processing to finish the work, you can use it to better educate yourself on your cameras capabilities/limitations.

 

[fitshaced]

I did a piece that has been a good money maker for me and I think it's because post has become so versatile in todays industry. The before and after is pretty cool.

Before Post:

Image

After Post:

Image

Thats excellent. I love the way you even got the reflections right. No idea where to begin in figuring out how to do that.


But it proves the point, post processing doesnt stop this being a photograph. Just a distant (and better looking) cousin of the original shot.

 

[h00ligan]

I did a piece that has been a good money maker for me and I think it's because post has become so versatile in todays industry. The before and after is pretty cool.

Before Post:

Image

After Post:

Image

Money maker how? As fine art or to sell condos etc? I'm curious as to what you meant.

The tough thing about post work is different strokes for different folks. For me, the after shot is too artificial, bearing in mind I like manipulations, but the white vignette, the blue accents, and the blown whites leave me out. I cannot suggest something is good or bad, and I frequently take criticism on exactly the same points. I think it's tough because sometimes people want ntural...so development post is quite different in that respect than artificial manipulation.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

Thats excellent. I love the way you even got the reflections right. No idea where to begin in figuring out how to do that.


But it proves the point, post processing doesnt stop this being a photograph. Just a distant (and better looking) cousin of the original shot.

Thanks fit, it's really not hard at all, you could do it.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

Money maker how? As fine art or to sell condos etc? I'm curious as to what you meant.

The tough thing about post work is different strokes for different folks. For me, the after shot is too artificial, bearing in mind I like manipulations, but the white vignette, the blue accents, and the blown whites leave me out. I cannot suggest something is good or bad, and I frequently take criticism on exactly the same points. I think it's tough because sometimes people want ntural...so development post is quite different in that respect than artificial manipulation.

Money maker in the arena of distribution: it was made into a postcard, wall frame and some photoshop education publications over seas.

Yes everyone has different taste, but thats just the way the ball bounces. But a different from the norm is what I try to always go for.

 

[h00ligan]

Thanks for the explanation and taking my comments in the constructive way they were intended. One thing digital imaging has done is open the realm to all sorts of different tastes by making it all more accessible.

 

[bocomo]

here is an example from some of my fine art

quite a bit of post processing...

i consider what i capture to be raw materials

 

[acearchie]

I agree that many people think this what PP is for. I think there are all shades of types of PP.

SNIP

Great post. Really enjoyed reading it and although I did know there was a lot of post work in the film era but I had never really actually considered what that involved! I also thought you had a good view on the different types of PP and when you would use them.

It all depends on how well I manage the original exposure, which is what I shoot for (pun intended). I use Aperture, and find that the highlights and shadows (fill light) can really be helpful. This is my nephew during a visit to Kalamazoo a while back. Just a quick shot to capture the moment, and the exposure sucked. Enter A3.

EXIF Summary: Canon XSi 1/60s f/4.0 ISO100 Tamron 28-75f/2.8@54mm

Dale

This has a slightly HDR feel to it for me. Since he was obviously in shadow in the original exposure I would have increased the exposure on him but still left some of it in shadow. Of course this again shows the versatility of RAW allowing for several different looks even in Aperture!

I process every picture. As much as it's nice to "get it right in camera", we now have RAW files which let you get about the exact same image quality as if you did "get it right in camera". for someone who shoots events (weddings, music) that you can not "re-do", processing is essential.

Also- sometimes camera's do not capture the image as we "see" it. Example I used:

I think your second picture is a perfect example of during event photography how you can snap a photo and maybe not quite realise the expression until afterwards and therefore cropping is extremely useful.

Also during event photography you don't have time to review every shot as the next one is just about to happen. In this sense RAW is very powerful allowing the equivalent of bracketing shots as RAW easily allows 2ish stops in either direction although if a highlight is blown there is not a whole lot you can do!

here is an example from some of my fine art

quite a bit of post processing...

i consider what i capture to be raw materials

Whilst I think the selective focusing is a bit too strong I love the colours you have selected which gives the scene a really great mood.

 

[jackerin]

Thats excellent.

To be honest I found the postprocessing in that case to be atrocious and a prime example of what to avoid. But as said, you can't please all the people all the time and if it makes him money then it works.

 

[fitshaced]

To be honest I found the postprocessing in that case to be atrocious and a prime example of what to avoid. But as said, you can't please all the people all the time and if it makes him money then it works.

So its not an example of what to avoid then?

I was impressed with the addition of the pics on the wall and the building as well as their inclusion in the reflection.

 

[h00ligan]

Neither of those are difficult in photoshop at all. Some basic video tutorials should allow you to accomplish the same.

If you like the effects he applied, then they are right for you. If you didn't, they are not. Nobody can really assert what to avoid.

I can say that overblown HDR is turning into the blink tag of photography.. and that a large percentage of photographers think opening things up to the point of halos is not a good idea. Opening shadows can be really helpful, doing it too much can be very ugly.

Here is an example of processing I felt was appropriate that may be too saturated for some. Ignore the CA, it was left in this shot (which is uploaded already which is why I link it) on purpose to illustrate something.

I'm sure plenty of people don't like this shot while I also received some positive feedback.

Whereas this one was processed completely differently for a different feel

It's all a learning process and taste. There are things I need to improve upon, but in both of these cases they are shots that came out as they were in my mind, and nobody else would have taken the same shots - vs shooting jpg.

Here is one with very conservative processing. HDR would have been inappropriate imo for this shot.. and whilst I opened up some shadows due to a contrasty day... I think it turned out very natural.

 

[peepboon]

I think the phrase 'get it right in the camera' is a tad silly. Even if it has been perfectly taken, there are still tweaks that can be done to make it look so much better, I like to refer to it as "Bringing out it's true potential". BUT by taking the shot correctly will make it easier later on while PP

 

[snberk103]

I think the phrase 'get it right in the camera' is a tad silly. Even if it has been perfectly taken, there are still tweaks that can be done to make it look so much better, I like to refer to it as "Bringing out it's true potential". BUT by taking the shot correctly will make it easier later on while PP

I would agree. Obviously, you do have to get it right in the camera, in as far as capturing all the information one needs for the print or the final usage. But what is in the camera is not the final usage.

Ansel Adams - who almost became a concert pianist - once said (more or less) that the negative was the score, and the print the performance. He was referring to B&W photography, at the time. I think digital photography has made that true now for all photography.

In order to make good music, one has to start with a good score. So, it is important to take the picture to the best of your ability, and the equipment's ability as well. But the score is not the photograph, it's the PP that creates the performance.

How's that for a cracked metaphor, eh?

imho, of course...

 

[Phrasikleia]

I have a friend who likes to say, "you have to know where to go, know what to do when you get there, and know what to do when you get home." He's obviously a landscape photographer, but I think his simple mantra sums things up pretty well.

 

[snberk103]

I have a friend who likes to say, "you have to know where to go, know what to do when you get there, and know what to do when you get home." He's obviously a landscape photographer, but I think his simple mantra sums things up pretty well.

Well, darn. I spend most of my time being lost....

All of this is, imho, of course ... and just for the sake of a fun discussion....

I like to categorize photographers by where they are on the Hunter <--> Gatherer spectrum.

Hunters like to prepare for a shoot. Like your friend, they like to know where they are going, and what they are going to do when they get there. They like to pre-visualize what the image will look like, sometimes before they even leave the house. They know what time sunrise/moonrise is (if they aren't studio shooters), and where the sun or moon will rise. If they have an iPad they have an iPad for that.

They will set up where they need to be, before they need to be there. They will be ready when the scene unfolds and opens up.

Gatherers look outside in the morning, notice the light is good and start throwing things into the camera bag to get out while the light is still good. If they are really organized they looked at the weather report the night before, and prepacked most of their camera bag. Except for the batteries they put into the charger that night. In the morning they will normally remember to pull the batteries out of the charger. (I'll put my car keys next to the charger to make sure I don't go anywhere without a spare set ).

Gatherers will typically wander more or less at random, or with a barely defined notion of where they want to go.

Gatherers rely on "seeing" things in front of them to capture. To see how a scene unfolds, while they are there and present. Sometimes they will even recognize that where they are will become a great photo in an hour. Some will even hang out there until they get the photograph. Some will try and come back.

Gatherers are very good at seeing a great photo in unusual circumstances and locations. They see photos everywhere. But they couldn't tell you the phase of the moon if their life depended on it. But if something interesting is happening, they will see it. If they happen to be there.

Hunters will often trip over a great opportunity, without ever seeing it. They are focussed on the image they are hunting, and often miss anything else. If they are photographing the fall colour in a forest, they won't even see the sasquatch having lunch behind them.



Most photographers have elements of both, and the best photographers have the best of both.

I tend to be a gatherer outside, and a hunter in my studio.

 

[Phrasikleia]

snberk103, I don't know anybody who neatly falls into your "hunter" category. That's a rare breed, indeed: somebody who knows what they want but can't recognize a gift when they see it? That's one sorry photographer.

And why isn't your gatherer so pigeon-holed? The opposite extreme of that blind hunter would be a gatherer who ambles about in the mid-day sun without a second thought about the fact that the light is going to be all wrong for the next five hours. He snaps away at whatever looks sort-of cool and then wonders later why other photographers who shot at that very location did so much better, without realizing that those other photographers figured out the right time of year and time of day when that general location would come to life.

 

[snberk103]

snberk103, I don't know anybody who neatly falls into your "hunter" category. That's a rare breed, indeed: somebody who knows what they want but can't recognize a gift when they see it? That's one sorry photographer.

I have friend who shoots trees. That's it. They are beautiful trees, and he sells them as fine art. Three or four times a year they go on trips so that he can capture the colours he wants. Patagonia, Yukon, Colorado, etc. He was set up on a beach in Tofino, waiting for the light to silhouette a tree on a island, and a sea lion humped its way onto the rocks, about 5 meters away. It wasn't a tree, so he didn't even break out his spare camera.

Extreme example of course....

And why isn't your gatherer so pigeon-holed? The opposite extreme of that blind hunter would be a gatherer who ambles about in the mid-day sun without a second thought about the fact that the light is going to be all wrong for the next five hours. He snaps away at whatever looks sort-of cool and then wonders later why other photographers who shot at that very location did so much better, without realizing that those other photographers figured out the right time of year and time of day when that general location would come to life.

I'm naturally a gatherer, so I'm a bit more sympathetic.... but I wanted to highlight good photographers at either extreme. A good gatherer knows that the noon day sun is not great. But if they are on the beach for the rise of the harvest moon behind the fireworks, it's only because they just happened to be there to watch the fireworks. Not because they had any notion that there was going to be a moonrise at all that night.

And this is meant to be tongue in cheek. I've read enough of your posts to guess that you are a hunter (primarily - not exclusively).

 

[Phrasikleia]

I'm naturally a gatherer, so I'm a bit more sympathetic.... but I wanted to highlight good photographers at either extreme.

But you didn't present "either extreme." You gave us an ideal middle ground versus a straw man. The extreme of a gatherer would not exhibit the best qualities of a hunter (going out in good light and returning to a location to get it right = HUNTING).

A good gatherer knows that the noon day sun is not great.

No, a good photographer knows that. A hypothetical "extreme" gatherer might know it but wouldn't care.

I've read enough of your posts to guess that you are a hunter (primarily - not exclusively).

The vast majority of my photos are of scenes I "gathered" by putting myself in opportune situations, but they capture compositions that I did not know I would find before I got there. I do, however, have a few photos that I could not have achieved without a lot of planning. Nonetheless, those tend to be off-the-cuff to some regard. For example this one, which I took on a whim while driving back from a weekend trip to another destination. I had visited this location three times before, each time coming away disappointed. But on that last visit, I was merely driving within striking distance of that location and realized that the weather was shaping up for exactly the shot I had envisioned all along. I detoured off the road to reach this spot and nailed the shot I had been trying to get for years. Is that hunting or gathering?

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

Thanks for the explanation and taking my comments in the constructive way they were intended. One thing digital imaging has done is open the realm to all sorts of different tastes by making it all more accessible.

There was nothing in your comments or questions that seemed condescending at all. It seemed like you were just asking for a clarification of comments that would help the forum. However, I do understand what your saying! I have seen people on the forum go off on someone and be ridiculous over the simplest of questions or comments

 

[jackerin]

A good gatherer knows that the noon day sun is not great.

Whether it's great or not depends entirely on the picture you want. And I would argue that someone who pre-visualizes knows if that's what they want or not; as would anyone having experience with studio shooting as that is all about setting up lights and playing around with hard light and soft light and seeing what effect it has.

 

[snberk103]

I'm sorry this has gotten so serious... I really did mean it to be a light-hearted post.

I was talking about the extremes (and did point that out initially.) In my personal observations, while most photographers are clustered nearer to the middle than the ends they will also tend to more comfortable with one style. Doesn't mean that can't work the other way... just that it's not second nature.

I am a Gatherer by nature. Sometimes extremely so. Doesn't mean I can't plan a shoot. @ Phrasikleia: You talked about the work you do, about a year or so ago, in a different thread on this board. Plus, iirc, you posted some sample images - (but I could be wrong about that.) When I observed that I thought you were primarily a Hunter, it was based on how you described your work. Doesn't mean that you can't Gather - just that you appeared be most comfortable as a Hunter. Thank you for sharing the link to your images - regardless of whether they were Gathered or Hunted, your images are amazing.

I never meant anyone to feel slighted, or insulted. There is no "better" way to shoot, Hunter vs Gatherer. I just think it's useful to know where one sits on spectrum in order to improve their skills. They can work to strengthen the areas that they are less comfortable with, and become a well rounded photographer.

That's all I meant to convey.

But you didn't present "either extreme." You gave us an ideal middle ground versus a straw man. The extreme of a gatherer would not exhibit the best qualities of a hunter (going out in good light and returning to a location to get it right = HUNTING).



No, a good photographer knows that. A hypothetical "extreme" gatherer might know it but wouldn't care.



The vast majority of my photos are of scenes I "gathered" by putting myself in opportune situations, but they capture compositions that I did not know I would find before I got there. I do, however, have a few photos that I could not have achieved without a lot of planning. Nonetheless, those tend to be off-the-cuff to some regard. For example this one, which I took on a whim while driving back from a weekend trip to another destination. I had visited this location three times before, each time coming away disappointed. But on that last visit, I was merely driving within striking distance of that location and realized that the weather was shaping up for exactly the shot I had envisioned all along. I detoured off the road to reach this spot and nailed the shot I had been trying to get for years. Is that hunting or gathering?

Whether it's great or not depends entirely on the picture you want. And I would argue that someone who pre-visualizes knows if that's what they want or not; as would anyone having experience with studio shooting as that is all about setting up lights and playing around with hard light and soft light and seeing what effect it has.

I didn't say "can't take a picture" - but I will rephrase it as "Noon Day sun is not generally ideal".



Tough crowd tonight, eh?


I will say that I have known, and do know, a great many photographers - a number of whom are nationally/internationally recognized. I don't pretend to be nearly as talented as they are, but I am absolutely confident in the Hunter/Gatherer theory. I am also not the inventor of it... but I can't remember where I first saw it "Luminous Landscapes?). I just remember thinking that it fit very well with what I was seeing in my circle of photographic friends.

 

[Orlandoech]

Depends on the pictures and my creative direction.

 

[GoCubsGo]

Coming from using film, I've tried to get it right in camera. However, I love having the ability to "fix" a shot in post processing or enhance it. I'm not opposed to post processing, these days why not take advantage of technology? If you want to increase the amount of time you spend on your photography then that's your choice.