Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How Much Post Processing Do You Do?
- Thread starter acearchie
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Well said! I don't see why people complain about using photoshop, etc... these people talk like Apple's competitors... always banking on what the worked in the past and not advancing. I believe that most modern successful photographers PP their photos to some extent.
I can almost guarantee that they all do. I shoot for many to publications and it's simply the standard now.
While you pointed it out, you did not actually bring up examples of extremes. This makes it seem like you're intentionally putting down the 'make the shot'-type under the guise of jesting; "oh, he's so busy photographing trees that he can't recognize a fantastic photo, what a typical hunter, we gatherers are much more intuitive..."
Edit: I like to think of it more in terms of directors <-> documentors, to use a less primitive analogy. The extreme of a director would control every aspect in the picture, while the extreme of the documentor takes a picture of anything and everything. I'm the director-type myself, but I still take pictures at the spur of the moment.
For me, 'getting it right in the camera' is a big component of learning about photography (and not just a throwback to the world of film). I appreciate that some branches of photography - fashion, cars, etc - rely on artifice and PP, because they tend to be about selling things and/or fantasy. But for many other genres of photography, getting it right first time round represents a desire for excellence, rather than the more usual "that's good enough... I'll sort it out in Photoshop".
It's not some abstract concept of excellence either; I can see the results in the pictures themselves. Over-processed pix look weird... replete with spurious visual 'effects' that are seldom used with discretion, but, rather, laid on with a trowel. Rescuing poorly-seen, poorly-executed pix is a skill in itself, no doubt, but it can come at the expense of genuine photographic skills.
'Sorting out' defects in Photoshop may be part of a learning curve, but, IMO, it may be the wrong learning curve. Improving as a photographer requires a tightening up of vision and technique, and not settling for second-best. It means working harder, being more patient and way more observant, pre-visualising pictures before pressing the shutter, 'going the extra mile' (literally or metaphorically): the kind of disciplines that really make a difference to the pictures themselves...
It's not some abstract concept of excellence either; I can see the results in the pictures themselves. Over-processed pix look weird... replete with spurious visual 'effects' that are seldom used with discretion, but, rather, laid on with a trowel. Rescuing poorly-seen, poorly-executed pix is a skill in itself, no doubt, but it can come at the expense of genuine photographic skills.
'Sorting out' defects in Photoshop may be part of a learning curve, but, IMO, it may be the wrong learning curve. Improving as a photographer requires a tightening up of vision and technique, and not settling for second-best. It means working harder, being more patient and way more observant, pre-visualising pictures before pressing the shutter, 'going the extra mile' (literally or metaphorically): the kind of disciplines that really make a difference to the pictures themselves...
Last edited:
I am definitely with Doylem on this. I deliberately DON't have Photoshop installed. Aperture does have clone tools which works to get small blemishes out and the curves adjustments with saturation and sharpening are enough 95% of my time. I totally dislike those HDR photos that you can CLEARLY see (that makes about 99% of all HDR photos) that they are over processed. If you want to get a nice shot, get it right when you see it, not take a quick snapshot because you know later on in Photoshop you can do whatever you want with it.
One other factor is time. When you spend 1 hour on a photo in Photoshop to make it look awesome because you couldn't hack it when you took the shot, it adds up quickly to an insane amount of time that you could have spent getting it right the first time.
When I learned Photography (sorry, when got started.. you never stop learning), my mentor pro photographer told me that for every shot that I touch up in photoshop I have to present 2 shots that are just as good but hadn't been touched up. Yes you will need more equipment, more time and more thought into your shots (grad filters, flashes etc. but a properly exposed shot is easier to fix and more subtle fixes are needed to make it perfect than a crapshot where you need to use 50 photoshop filters to get the light back!
just my 2 c.
I agree, when I press the shutter release button I want to get the best possible 'digital negative'. I try and get the best framing and good colour balance. Ideally all I want to do in post processing is tweak exposure, hue and levels-curves, but of course it's stupid not to use straightening, cropping, which are all things available in a old-school darkroom. I now shoot exclusively with a 50mm/f1.8 because it forces me to move around my subject and compose my shots.
I also respect the work of people like Orlando Etcheverria above, that's a classy way of touching up pictures and nothing like cracking up the HDR filter to 11.
Last edited:
yes, you are right, they all do. Every single one I know does. But it comes down to the extent of PP. Many publishers provider their photographers with their color profile which is set to match the paper and printers they use. Based on that profile I know quite a few Photographers who made presets in LR or Aperture and some Photoshop actions to adjust and match the profile.. the occasional removal of a blemish is part of any PP but that's pretty much it. Nowadays Photographers don't have the time really to sit forever retouching their mistakes. It's slight adjustments but yes you are correct, they all do PP. It's the benefit of the digital age...
Yes, or else they hire someone to do it for them. There are exceptions, but they are few.
What continues to surprise me in discussions about post-processing is the persistent notion that it is essentially a way to compensate for shortcomings at the moment of capture--that the "opposite" of post-processing is "getting it right in camera." In my view, the 'development' end of things is an essential part of the whole process, regardless of how well the actual capture turned out.
I guess I disagree, then. I think the "second nature" of most visually-oriented people is to respond to visual stimuli. We all tend to start off wandering around with a camera, looking for something to catch our eye. Some of us ultimately become more disciplined after realizing that a bit of planning can increase our odds of getting something good.
Thanks for the nice compliment, but I don't think either term works well for me, especially as you've defined them. If I'm "most comfortable" going out after having done some research on a location, it's not because it's in my "nature" to do so. I was very much a willy-nilly shooter when I started out, but then I learned how to tip the odds in my favor. Now I try to make sure that I put myself in a good place at a good time, but once I get there, the name of the game is definitely "seeing."
I do appreciate the essence of what you're trying to say, but the way you happened to define those terms was pretty uneven; your Hunter was far more extreme than your Gatherer. They're cute terms, and there is a lot of truth to the idea, if you treat both ends fairly.
Yes, there are people who become stubbornly focused on a goal and are completely uninterested in anything else (like your friend who will shoot trees but not seals)--but that's not a general tendency of people who incorporate more planning into their outings. And there are also people who refuse to treat photography as a primary activity and are stubbornly opportunistic: if a shot happens to present itself, great, but for them, putting any effort into researching a location is too much work.
This discussion is very much related to the topic of post-processing because it too is one of those realms of effort that some people see as being too much work. The extremes on this spectrum might be labeled "Maker" versus "Taker." The Taker just wants to take pictures and can't be bothered to work with with them on the computer any more than is absolutely necessary. The Maker just wants to play with whiz-bang software in the comfort of his Aeron chair and is too lazy to put in much effort with the camera itself. Of course most people lie somewhere in between and lean more one way or the other on different days.
Hi Phrasikleia
,I don't think PP is bad, it's a great tool that in the days of film was not around. People like Orlandotech use it for good work as you can see because he has the shot mapped out. In those cases I definitely agree that things work VERY well BUT, in most cases people see those nice car shots and then think that they can achieve the same with less real work but more PP. In that case I disagree. Any PP should be part of your photo development, not the most part. Orlando, sorry I am using you as an example here. If you look at his shots he takes the shots and gets the most ion blur right in camera, selects the skies and makes shire he has the right angles to make a combination. This works very well. Then you look at most of the HDR shots out there and you can see that they are overdone over processed etc.
So essentially I guess the amount of PP depends on the shot and in order to do effective PP you have to a) know what you need and b) know what kind of shots you need to get IN camera... right?
//f
I think trying to "get it right in the camera" is the approach most photographers try to shoot for. However, sometimes what your eyes see and what the camera sees are different. Or the elements or time of day conspire against you. Or no matter what angle you try to approach a subject, "that darn telephone pole wire is still in the @$!! way!" It is these circumstances that PP comes in handy to help you create what you intended to capture when you first composed your photo before you took your shot, IMO. Granted PP can be an enticing crutch when you first start out on the learning curve of photography and can too easily lead to a lazy habit when taking photos.
True... but isn't this the essense of photography: understanding how the camera 'sees' and records... and how this differs from the way our eyes take in the same scene?
Erm... they don't "conspire". Maybe the photographer picked the wrong time of day, or got unlucky with the weather. But luck favours the prepared mind, and unproductive days are the price we pay for being 'out there' when the light is wonderful.
This is my problem with relying too much on PP; it leads to lazy thinking, maybe a lack of ambition.
What I meant by this is you happen to be out and you have your camera with you and suddenly come upon a spontaneous moment that you want to capture, but it is not during golden light, or you haven't researched the shot, etc. You still want to capture the moment.
Perverse, I know, but I'm quite proud of the pix I haven't taken... precisely because the light was unrevealing. If the light is good, I overshoot (and then edit down); conversely, if the light is poor I may not take a single shot. It may seem like an extreme stance to take, but it suits me...
I've recently had a cull of my picture collection. It was good to trawl through loads of pix and delete a lot of the stuff that really wasn't up to scratch (yes, including most of my ill-advised experiments with HDR
). The only pix I keep, which aren't effectively lit, are family shots and 'souvenirs'. Otherwise I'm happy to be unsentimental...
Really nice work there. Besides the final result I like the way you presented it.
Perverse, I know, but I'm quite proud of the pix I haven't taken... precisely because the light was unrevealing. If the light is good, I overshoot (and then edit down); conversely, if the light is poor I may not take a single shot. It may seem like an extreme stance to take, but it suits me...
I've recently had a cull of my picture collection. It was good to trawl through loads of pix and delete a lot of the stuff that really wasn't up to scratch (yes, including most of my ill-advised experiments with HDR
The only pix I keep, which aren't effectively lit, are family shots and 'souvenirs'. Otherwise I'm happy to be unsentimental...
I am still at the phase of my photographer's learning cycle where I am still trying to improve on seeing a potential picture from a scene in front of me, framing it, and trying to "get it right in the camera." Although, I guess all photographers no matter how experienced can say the same. Oftentimes I am taking pictures when my day job and personal life allow me to so they are not always in ideal lighting conditions. I am still taking the photo knowing this so that I can see how it was shot (what I did to frame the photo, what settings I used on the camera-was it in aperture priority, did I choose to use shutter speed, did I purposely try to master manual setting). So of all of the pictures I take, I will only select a few and if I like what I have taken, then and only then do PP and see what I did in PP to make the photo better so that next time out, my camera settings would hopefully be adjusted accordingly.
I guess it comes down to each person's personal choice as to what he or she gets out of taking pictures and what their ultimate goal is. PP is a useful tool but as we both agree it can be a very enticing temptress that can make us too lazy or indifferent if we want to strive to be better at capturing the amazing world around us.
I don't want to further hijack an excellent thread on PP - I will just say that I never intended the H/G analogy to imply one was better than the other. I apologize for any implied "judgements."
I will think on your comments some more, and perhaps start a new thread where it can be discussed further. H/G, Director <-> Documentor, Right Brain <-> Left Brain, etc. Without distracting from this one.
Regarding: PP
When does PP become an act of creation that stands on it's own? That is to say - when the image is no longer the original image, tweaked - but a whole new image? For example, is the watermill image by Dionysus Diserrano (and posted earlier) an image tweaked in PP, or have they created something new, and distinct from the original?
Hi Phrasikleia
I don't think PP is bad, it's a great tool that in the days of film was not around.
Post-processing was around in the days of film. Just like today some used it to fix flaws in shooting, others to have the scene match their artistic vision and some for a bit of both. Dodging, burning, filters on the enlarger, making internegatives- all aspects of post-processing. Not to mention what you could do while processing- push the film a stop, pull the film, use a high-actuance developer... If you ever get a chance to see an Ansel Adams exhibit you can usually find a wonderful example or three of what differences variable-contrast photographic paper made by examining a couple of prints made 10 or 20 years apart from the same negative.
Master printers didn't simply exist because people couldn't ever "get things right in camera," thinking like that is limited and dumb- no scene always matches the photographer's vision for the image and post-processing tools help to do that. You can get it all exactly "right" in camera and still need to post-process it to get the best possible image or to match your vision. Nature may provide a scene without as much contrast as you'd like, or your recording medium may not quite have the range to record the entire scene the way you see it, or you may wish to expose for the maximal amount of information and then process to fit the "mood" you envision- none of those entail "getting it wrong" in camera as most detractors seem to imitate must happen to want to post-process.
Back in the film days in the fine art print world, pretty-much nobody went with a straight print off the original negative except folks selling contract prints from 8x10 and larger view cameras.
Take a look at Ansel's "The Print" for examples of film-based PP work.
Today, if you decide that you want to have the most information possible for a scene, you may decide to "expose to the right," to get it- if you do that, then it's "right" in camera when you take the exposure, but you may wish to say bring down the highlights to make the scene moody in the print, or you may wish to make multiple prints from the image with different moods. You may wish to add contrast, enhance shadow detail or drop shadow detail to match your vision- none of that requires you get it "wrong" in camera, just that the camera's exposure not match your vision for the print.
I sometimes find that for small prints (8x10 and below) I need to lose about a stop to a stop and a half of shadow detail to "strengthen" the image. There's simply too much distraction in having detail there that's not "big enough" for examination by the viewer to my eye. I could probably drop some dynamic range by shooting at higher-ISO, but why would I do that and lose the ability to make a 20x24 image which has "interesting" detail when viewed closely?
Paul
...As much as i feel the photo needs depending on my vision for it as the final outcome.
This was an interesting little read:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2011/archives/20260
This was an interesting little read:
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2011/archives/20260
I've said for a large number of years that the difference between a good photographer and a great photographer is in the images they DON'T take. I've traveled 200 miles to photograph something and not taken a single shot because the light wasn't right.
Paul
I have actually had hefty discussions with my wife about this. I wanted to go to a location, we drove for a long time there and then i decided not to take a photo because the light was not working that day.. her comment: Just take one and fix it, I am not driving here again...
I drove there alone a weekend after
Getting it right in camera is a strange concept that some people see differently from others.
I always try to get it right in the camera for exposure and composition. Most of the time these mistakes are uncorrectable.
The key for these things are a decent eye, a decent lens, and proper metering. Some form of manual shooting too Tv, Av or M. For me single shot auto focus and a recompose is absolutely fine. You know when you need to turn auto off.. there will always be a situation where its unusable.
On the other hand, Every shot I take I have half a mind on what I will do in Aperture afterwards.This may mean I decide to overexpose for what I have in mind.
I shoot in raw, and there is no such thing as getting it right in the camera for contrast and things, as those setting are related only to jpeg shooting.
You HAVE to adjust these things in pp.
To get white balance right in the camera means the constant use of a grey card as the light changes. Far easier to fix this in pp as you're there anyway. You store your photos within a whole pp based package, so its really designed to go hand in hand.
Lots of people use the film v digital comparison. Its a bit moot in this example, just as film was designed as a film/darkroom combo..digital is designed to be a cf card/digital darkroom combo.
You had to pp film to get what you really want and you have to pp digital to get what you really want
I always try to get it right in the camera for exposure and composition. Most of the time these mistakes are uncorrectable.
The key for these things are a decent eye, a decent lens, and proper metering. Some form of manual shooting too Tv, Av or M. For me single shot auto focus and a recompose is absolutely fine. You know when you need to turn auto off.. there will always be a situation where its unusable.
On the other hand, Every shot I take I have half a mind on what I will do in Aperture afterwards.This may mean I decide to overexpose for what I have in mind.
I shoot in raw, and there is no such thing as getting it right in the camera for contrast and things, as those setting are related only to jpeg shooting.
You HAVE to adjust these things in pp.
To get white balance right in the camera means the constant use of a grey card as the light changes. Far easier to fix this in pp as you're there anyway. You store your photos within a whole pp based package, so its really designed to go hand in hand.
Lots of people use the film v digital comparison. Its a bit moot in this example, just as film was designed as a film/darkroom combo..digital is designed to be a cf card/digital darkroom combo.
You had to pp film to get what you really want and you have to pp digital to get what you really want