The "No Post Processing" Craze

Rainy Day · 06-23-2011, 03:57 AM

Incidentally, could anyone point me to any resources on Post-Processing either online or in book form, aimed at someone who doesn't know a whole lot on the subject?

TaoMaas · 06-23-2011, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

Yes, I shot slides in the days before digital ( do the '70s and '80s count?

). I've had a few scanned, but didn't like the result much.

Well, if the 70's and 80's don't count for you, then I guess they don't count for me, either. lol I say...yeah, they count.

I was asking because I've recently had a bunch of my old slides scanned for a showing. I was kinda suprised because I felt like they needed less touching up than my digital pics. I did work with them in PhotoShop, but in most instances, I went back to the straight scan. I was just curious what your experience was.

jstevewhite · 06-23-2011, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

Well, if the 70's and 80's don't count for you, then I guess they don't count for me, either. lol I say...yeah, they count.

I was asking because I've recently had a bunch of my old slides scanned for a showing. I was kinda suprised because I felt like they needed less touching up than my digital pics. I did work with them in PhotoShop, but in most instances, I went back to the straight scan. I was just curious what your experience was.

It's been several years since I tried. At the time, a couple of 35mm scans from the Nikon Coolscan were ok, but I wasn't shelling out the cash for that. When film scanners get to a price/quality I like, I'll pick one up and scan my own. Unfortunately, many that are reasonably affordable don't do 6x6cm, much less 4x5".

I might try again at rephotographing them with the K-5 and my 100mm macro. The K20D pushed the contrast too far; I'm thinking the K-5 might do a bit better. I need to find a piece of anti-newton glass, though

johnmflores · 06-23-2011, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Deimos

Hehe, but c'mon lets be straight here, the greatest PP of all is what happens in our brains anytime we "view" anything!

Does that mean beer and wine are "creative filters"?

Rocketvapor · 06-23-2011, 12:48 PM

They can even be PRE-processing filters

les3547 · 06-23-2011, 02:31 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rainy Day

Incidentally, could anyone point me to any resources on Post-Processing either online or in book form, aimed at someone who doesn't know a whole lot on the subject?

Of course, don't forget to check out the subforum here "Digital Processing, Software, and Printing."

As for me, I'm an unabashed lover of Adobe Lightroom 3. After trying a number of PP programs that disappointed me either by their limited abilities or difficulty to learn (and/or price), I tried Lightroom hoping it would be better. It has exceeded my expectations by miles, or should I say light years. It takes some time and study to learn all it has to offer, but the good news is that Lightroom is set up with sliders and buttons that make it easy to try, and then quickly see the effects of using it (plus it keeps a running history of all changes off to one side so that you can easily hop around to check out prior iterations). I learned a great deal about Lightroom that way before ever reading a book or watching instructional videos.

But Adobe has excellent tutorials available online for free too, such as these. If you look on the right of that page you'll see other training videos as well, and Googling for LR training will provide you with more options. If you watch some of the training videos they will show you what Lightroom has to offer.

When I was contemplating buying it, I balked at the price (you can usually find it on sale somewhere for under $200, such as here). To my way of thinking, that was enough money to help buy a new lens, or at least something more substantial than mere software that was only going to reside on my computer. Now I think it was some of the best money I've ever spent on a photography tool.

Finally, something I really like about Lightroom is that it feels like a photographer's tool. I never felt that way about Photoshop, for example, which always seemed more like a graphic artist's tool. To me Lightroom for digital photography is a perfect analogue of what the darkroom is to film photography, and so working in it gives one the sense one is doing photography from first picking up the camera to shoot all the way through to the finished image.

Rainy Day · 06-23-2011, 06:42 PM

I've been tossing up between getting Lightroom or Aperture (eventually). The only way I can justify it is when I get a new laptop, as the one I'm using now doesn't really cut it sadly...

Anyone used Aperture AND/OR Lightroom? And has anyone gotten opinions of the two softwares compared to each other?

Also, thanks Les!

adr1an · 06-23-2011, 06:52 PM

There is a 30 day free trial of Lightroom and of Photoshop CS5... Just click 'try' on the product pages at Adobe.

You could always test drive yourself and then get the only opinion that really matters - your own

normhead · 06-23-2011, 07:09 PM

Guess which one is the raw file....? And which one looks like the sunset I saw.

1.

or

2.

PP done in Aperture.... sorry I don't have Lightroom.

I guess if I was a better photographer, I could have fussed and fiddled and not PP'd and have a better image... but it's not something I'm going to fret about.

joe.penn · 06-23-2011, 07:26 PM

1 (i am guessing) is the raw file...

**Ash** · 06-23-2011, 07:39 PM

#1 is clearly less worked on (less 'processed') than #2, but neither can be a RAW image since all RAW files need to be processed in one way or another to be presented as a JPEG/GIF/TIFF etc...

Perhaps you mean 'which one has been converted to JPEG with all sliders on 0'?.

les3547 · 06-23-2011, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Ash

#1 is clearly less worked on (less 'processed') than #2, but neither can be a RAW image since all RAW files need to be processed in one way or another to be presented as a JPEG/GIF/TIFF etc...

Perhaps you mean 'which one has been converted to JPEG with all sliders on 0'?.

Well, you know what he means . . . he is speaking rhetorically about how to capture what one sees but which a camera doesn't necessarily record the same way. Underexposing to make sure highlights aren't blown, and then working with the file to bring up details seems to be a pretty common approach. In any case, a lovely finished picture.

**Ash** · 06-23-2011, 09:06 PM

Indeed Les, though there are some who think that the RAW processor's default setting means no PP applied (or unprocessed), which is not the case.

The usual technique of exposing for shadow detail and processing for highlights means that RAW images hardly come out looking like works of art on the camera or on the RAW processor.

TaoMaas · 06-24-2011, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I guess if I was a better photographer, I could have fussed and fiddled and not PP'd and have a better image...

You still fussed and fiddled...you just did it after the fact.

Here's a minimal PP'd sunrise. One shot...no bracketing (not necessarily a good thing)...graduated ND filter to hold back the sky. I probably should have used a filter that was one stop lighter, but it is what it is. I made a decision at the time to give up some of the highlights for more detail in the shadows. It pretty much captures what I saw.

les3547 · 06-24-2011, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

You still fussed and fiddled...you just did it after the fact.

Here's a minimal PP'd sunrise. One shot...no bracketing (not necessarily a good thing)...graduated ND filter to hold back the sky. I probably should have used a filter that was one stop lighter, but it is what it is. I made a decision at the time to give up some of the highlights for more detail in the shadows. It pretty much captures what I saw.

Very nice, for a second I thought you were showing us a Maxwell Parish print.

06-23-2011, 02:31 PM - 1 Like	#201
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by Rainy Day Incidentally, could anyone point me to any resources on Post-Processing either online or in book form, aimed at someone who doesn't know a whole lot on the subject? Of course, don't forget to check out the subforum here "Digital Processing, Software, and Printing." As for me, I'm an unabashed lover of Adobe Lightroom 3. After trying a number of PP programs that disappointed me either by their limited abilities or difficulty to learn (and/or price), I tried Lightroom hoping it would be better. It has exceeded my expectations by miles, or should I say light years. It takes some time and study to learn all it has to offer, but the good news is that Lightroom is set up with sliders and buttons that make it easy to try, and then quickly see the effects of using it (plus it keeps a running history of all changes off to one side so that you can easily hop around to check out prior iterations). I learned a great deal about Lightroom that way before ever reading a book or watching instructional videos. But Adobe has excellent tutorials available online for free too, such as these. If you look on the right of that page you'll see other training videos as well, and Googling for LR training will provide you with more options. If you watch some of the training videos they will show you what Lightroom has to offer. When I was contemplating buying it, I balked at the price (you can usually find it on sale somewhere for under $200, such as here). To my way of thinking, that was enough money to help buy a new lens, or at least something more substantial than mere software that was only going to reside on my computer. Now I think it was some of the best money I've ever spent on a photography tool. Finally, something I really like about Lightroom is that it feels like a photographer's tool. I never felt that way about Photoshop, for example, which always seemed more like a graphic artist's tool. To me Lightroom for digital photography is a perfect analogue of what the darkroom is to film photography, and so working in it gives one the sense one is doing photography from first picking up the camera to shoot all the way through to the finished image. Last edited by les3547; 06-23-2011 at 03:16 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images	tessfully	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	2199	1 Day Ago 10:28 AM
Sports "Highside Exit" took 1st Place in DPReview "Missed It by THAT much, Part 1" Challenge	MRRiley	Post Your Photos!	27	02-21-2010 08:26 PM
A common garden 17" CRT monitor vs an average 20-22" LCD monitor for image processing	bc_the_path	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	07-11-2009 02:28 PM
"Today's Post" query and "Hi from..." posts	deejjjaaaa	Site Suggestions and Help	11	02-04-2009 09:10 AM
Any canadian photo "product" processing companies?	Gadget_Guy	Photographic Technique	4	04-07-2008 06:00 AM

06-23-2011, 03:57 AM	#196
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134	Incidentally, could anyone point me to any resources on Post-Processing either online or in book form, aimed at someone who doesn't know a whole lot on the subject?

06-23-2011, 08:36 AM	#197
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by jstevewhite Yes, I shot slides in the days before digital ( do the '70s and '80s count? ). I've had a few scanned, but didn't like the result much. Well, if the 70's and 80's don't count for you, then I guess they don't count for me, either. lol I say...yeah, they count. I was asking because I've recently had a bunch of my old slides scanned for a showing. I was kinda suprised because I felt like they needed less touching up than my digital pics. I did work with them in PhotoShop, but in most instances, I went back to the straight scan. I was just curious what your experience was.

06-23-2011, 08:41 AM	#198
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by TaoMaas Well, if the 70's and 80's don't count for you, then I guess they don't count for me, either. lol I say...yeah, they count. I was asking because I've recently had a bunch of my old slides scanned for a showing. I was kinda suprised because I felt like they needed less touching up than my digital pics. I did work with them in PhotoShop, but in most instances, I went back to the straight scan. I was just curious what your experience was. It's been several years since I tried. At the time, a couple of 35mm scans from the Nikon Coolscan were ok, but I wasn't shelling out the cash for that. When film scanners get to a price/quality I like, I'll pick one up and scan my own. Unfortunately, many that are reasonably affordable don't do 6x6cm, much less 4x5". I might try again at rephotographing them with the K-5 and my 100mm macro. The K20D pushed the contrast too far; I'm thinking the K-5 might do a bit better. I need to find a piece of anti-newton glass, though

06-23-2011, 09:13 AM	#199
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Deimos Hehe, but c'mon lets be straight here, the greatest PP of all is what happens in our brains anytime we "view" anything! Does that mean beer and wine are "creative filters"?

06-23-2011, 12:48 PM	#200
Rocketvapor Senior Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Louisiana Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 102	They can even be PRE-processing filters

06-23-2011, 06:42 PM	#202
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134	I've been tossing up between getting Lightroom or Aperture (eventually). The only way I can justify it is when I get a new laptop, as the one I'm using now doesn't really cut it sadly... Anyone used Aperture AND/OR Lightroom? And has anyone gotten opinions of the two softwares compared to each other? Also, thanks Les!

06-23-2011, 06:52 PM	#203
adr1an Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Canberra Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 739	There is a 30 day free trial of Lightroom and of Photoshop CS5... Just click 'try' on the product pages at Adobe. You could always test drive yourself and then get the only opinion that really matters - your own

06-23-2011, 07:09 PM	#204
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Guess which one is the raw file....? And which one looks like the sunset I saw. 1. or 2. PP done in Aperture.... sorry I don't have Lightroom. I guess if I was a better photographer, I could have fussed and fiddled and not PP'd and have a better image... but it's not something I'm going to fret about.

06-23-2011, 07:26 PM	#205
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	1 (i am guessing) is the raw file...

06-23-2011, 07:39 PM	#206
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	#1 is clearly less worked on (less 'processed') than #2, but neither can be a RAW image since all RAW files need to be processed in one way or another to be presented as a JPEG/GIF/TIFF etc... Perhaps you mean 'which one has been converted to JPEG with all sliders on 0'?.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2011, 07:57 PM	#207
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by Ash #1 is clearly less worked on (less 'processed') than #2, but neither can be a RAW image since all RAW files need to be processed in one way or another to be presented as a JPEG/GIF/TIFF etc... Perhaps you mean 'which one has been converted to JPEG with all sliders on 0'?. Well, you know what he means . . . he is speaking rhetorically about how to capture what one sees but which a camera doesn't necessarily record the same way. Underexposing to make sure highlights aren't blown, and then working with the file to bring up details seems to be a pretty common approach. In any case, a lovely finished picture.

06-23-2011, 09:06 PM	#208
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Indeed Les, though there are some who think that the RAW processor's default setting means no PP applied (or unprocessed), which is not the case. The usual technique of exposing for shadow detail and processing for highlights means that RAW images hardly come out looking like works of art on the camera or on the RAW processor.

06-24-2011, 04:22 AM	#209
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by normhead I guess if I was a better photographer, I could have fussed and fiddled and not PP'd and have a better image... You still fussed and fiddled...you just did it after the fact. Here's a minimal PP'd sunrise. One shot...no bracketing (not necessarily a good thing)...graduated ND filter to hold back the sky. I probably should have used a filter that was one stop lighter, but it is what it is. I made a decision at the time to give up some of the highlights for more detail in the shadows. It pretty much captures what I saw.

06-24-2011, 07:22 AM	#210
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by TaoMaas You still fussed and fiddled...you just did it after the fact. Here's a minimal PP'd sunrise. One shot...no bracketing (not necessarily a good thing)...graduated ND filter to hold back the sky. I probably should have used a filter that was one stop lighter, but it is what it is. I made a decision at the time to give up some of the highlights for more detail in the shadows. It pretty much captures what I saw. Very nice, for a second I thought you were showing us a Maxwell Parish print.