Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-08-2014, 03:31 AM   #121
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
Hint: reverse GND filter

---------- Post added 05-08-14 at 09:02 ----------




I have acked your workflow. I said that your way is one of the ways but it's not the only way and probably not the best way. I have not contradicted your post at all. Like I said you shoot accordingly and post processing is closely tied to your shooting. It means you intentionally commit "mistakes" at click time to accommodate processing. Key word is "intentionally". Not process to fix mistakes.

The shot above with the sun rays is an example. He intentionally underexposed knowing that he can push the shadows later. But even then there are easier, better ways of accomplishing the same results.
I did not happen to have a GND with me at the time, although I did have a K5 and DA 15. I often have a camera with me in my vehicle when I am driving around, but not a whole lot of other gear, but if I see a shot I want, I will take it. I am not a professional photographer, so I suppose I can be forgiven for not always having gear with me. But as to why using a GND on your camera is "OK," but applying one in Lightroom after the fact is not, is beyond me. Both alter the image in such a way as to allow more dynamic range to be revealed. And if the end result is similar, why quibble about the way you got there?

---------- Post added 05-08-14 at 06:37 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I've just seen a supposed "photograph" on Flickr taken about a mile away from my home, in which a tourist has taken a tree and a stone cross about a hundred yards apart and digitally combined them into a single impossible image that makes them look like they are right next to each other. It's gathering admiring comments from viewers around the world who have no way of knowing that it's an utter fake, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets explored.

If that's what photography means in the 21st century then I don't want anything to do with it any more. And I'm not going to link to that particular abomination because I don't want to feed it with more views.
I think if you are trying to do photo journalism, then moving objects, or heavy cloning is not a good idea. I personally don't move things around in my images, but there is a fine line between photography and graphic art. A lot of Flickr images fall more into graphic art (heavy HDR, moving objects, etc) rather than straight photography. No one would be upset with a painter who altered from the "reality" of a scene in order to paint an image that is more powerful. In the same way, I think as long as it is pretty clear that it is not intended to be journalistic in nature, heavy post processing is OK (although I am not a fan of it).

05-08-2014, 04:19 AM   #122
Loyal Site Supporter
Tom S.'s Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: S.E. Michigan
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,238
Folks, I'm calling a Time Out here.

The forum encourages discussion to obtain various points of view and stimulate our thought processes. However when these discussions reach the level of personal attacks, we draw the line. Please keep the discussion informative and forgo the insults and attacks.
05-08-2014, 05:12 AM   #123
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,274
QuoteOriginally posted by Macario Quote
Why is it so bad? because you know the rock and tree? Does it make it a bad photo (or picture) because of that?.
It smacks of deceit to me. It's something that doesn't exist being passed off as a photo of something that does exist (or so I believe from his post). As Imageman has mentioned the intent to mislead is a very important issue here.

I'm fine with rampant editing and fakery (outside of journalism or other restricted areas of course) but at some point you've crossed the blurry line that divides 'photography' from 'digital art', and I think the viewer is owed an honest disclosure of the process involved in making the image if it isn't readily obvious. I don't mean detailed secrets need to be revealed, but radical composites should at least be labelled as composites. It's little different to me than taking photos of captive animals and trying to quietly pass them off as wildlife. Have respect for the viewer, don't try to fool them, let them admire your image as well as all the creativity that's behind it.

It's a very blurry line though, and probably no two people will agree on what counts as a photograph and what doesn't.
05-08-2014, 07:57 AM - 1 Like   #124
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
Photography has always been part craft and part art. From the craft point of view, I think we have to understand that photography is constantly evolving and changing. Thirty years ago you may have read about digital photography in the same way that we read about time travel. Today it's a reality. The equipment to create images, the tools to process them, and the resulting images are very different. Film photography has its advantages and disadvantages and photographers who use that medium exercise their skills within those conditions. Digital photography has its own operating conditions. Photographers exercise their craft knowing what tools they have available to them and according to their skills. Do I deliberately make mistakes in digital photography and tell myself that I can correct it in PP? No, I don't. What I do is deliberately take the best shot with the equipment I have at the moment and with my growing skill sets knowing that I can compensate for a lot of the compromise in post. Post processing is a tool just like a filter, a flash, and tripod. It's a tool. Sometimes I learn something in post processing that I know would have helped me during the shot. I take that lesson learned and put it into the pre-processing step.

Film photography also has been enveloped by post processing. There are lots of people starting to scan their film and process it. I am exploring this space myself and find it fascinating. The trick there is to understand that scanning film captures the best and worst of both analog and digital realms. There are a mixture of tools to exercise in creating the image.

Do what you can in pre-processing with flashes, filters, and exposure settings. Finish the job in post processing. I have been discovering that photography is much like food. Season it to your taste. If you're happy with your dish then you shouldn't care what other's say about it. After all, you're the one eating it. Who care what the person next to you at the table says? Let them enjoy their meal like you're enjoying yours.

05-08-2014, 08:22 AM   #125
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 751
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I think the viewer is owed an honest disclosure of the process involved in making the image if it isn't readily obvious.

Yes! I think you've found the crux of the matter right there.
05-08-2014, 02:57 PM   #126
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Yes! I think you've found the crux of the matter right there.
I agree with this - if it's posted in a context or on a site where most all photos are assumed not to be doctored, then there should be a disclosure.
05-08-2014, 04:10 PM   #127
Senior Member
Fire Angel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
To get back to the original question: This question is akin to asking why you should bother to manually print from film; it makes a better print. Most of the time the process of post-processing is the digital equivalent of manually printing a developed film instead of letting a machine do it. You adjust contrast, colour balance, maybe curves etc. until the image produces the best possible print from the data available.

Digital post processing software also makes other things possible, like manually removing objects by painting them out, overlaying multiple images to emulate multiple exposures etc. Most of these can actually be done with film, but it's vastly less effort to do them digitally. Some of those are digital manipulation to me, not just post processing, and I see the two differently. Everybody should do post-processing to some extent if they want decent results, digital manipulation is something that should be done only on some images. I actually think digital manipulation should be illegal in news images, but post-processing is fine. Digital manipulation and digital painting can be a whole new art form and I love to see it well done but I don't see it as an essential skill for a serious digital photographer, whereas post processing I do. I think that's a clear statement of my view on this subject anyway, so I will be interested to see what others think.
05-11-2014, 09:20 AM - 1 Like   #128
Pentaxian
wildman's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,308
Just another thought on the in camera vs PP thing.

It was, after 40 years of messing about with primarly BW film, a
revelation to shot digital RAW and leave final PP for later in
Photoshop.

I have always, ideally, wanted to concentrate my attention exclusively
on the scene right in front of me and on the purely creative side of producing
an image. In other words I despise anything that gets in the way of
concentrating on the creative process.

RAW+PS was a giant leap forward in that direction. No longer do I have
to think about creating both a technically finished image and a
esthetically compelling image at the same time. Now it's basically just
get the hgram where you want it, fire way, and leave the rest for later.
No thought on final exact exposure, shadows or highlights, sharpening,
WB etc. In fact now I don't think of the camera so much as capturing an
image as just capturing the maximum amount of editable data for later PP
in Photoshop. Go out, collect data, bring it home and see what you have
when you have the time to deal carefully with the purely technical side
of the image.

In fact I really don't think of a digital camera as capturing an image
so much as just a sort of data bucket.

I know this isn't for everyone but for me it suits my work flow almost
perfectly.

05-11-2014, 07:06 PM   #129
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
Another thought about post processing came to mind to me here...

Post processing is also useful in making up for some deficiencies and limitations of your image sensor. If your sensor lacks some dynamic range then you can stretch out colors, add saturation, and increase vibrancy to compensate. Careful, though! It's easy to overcook it too.
05-13-2014, 05:40 AM   #130
Pentaxian
Oldbayrunner's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Havre de Grace, MD
Posts: 1,219
Interesting read;
Art photography: When 'reality isn't good enough'
05-13-2014, 11:30 AM   #131
Senior Member
Fire Angel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by Oldbayrunner Quote
Somehow that link is messed up and it doesn't lead anywhere; since it's an interesting read to you it is likely to interest a lot of us here so I'd love to see it working

---------- Post added 05-13-14 at 07:48 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Another thought about post processing came to mind to me here...

Post processing is also useful in making up for some deficiencies and limitations of your image sensor. If your sensor lacks some dynamic range then you can stretch out colors, add saturation, and increase vibrancy to compensate. Careful, though! It's easy to overcook it too.
Most of us will overcook it when we start. However messing up a few (or a lot of) images is part of the learning process; you can always go back to the raw images later and process them again once you learn better. I hope everyone starts by trying to get the best possible results in camera and then also learns as fast as possible to perform good, restrained post-processing. If they're interested in digital manipulation as well, then start as soon as you know you want to learn it. Waiting for some mythical day when you're worthy to progress that far is a waste of good learning time.
05-13-2014, 12:34 PM   #132
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I've just seen a supposed "photograph" on Flickr taken about a mile away from my home, in which a tourist has taken a tree and a stone cross about a hundred yards apart and digitally combined them into a single impossible image that makes them look like they are right next to each other. It's gathering admiring comments from viewers around the world who have no way of knowing that it's an utter fake, and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets explored.

If that's what photography means in the 21st century then I don't want anything to do with it any more. And I'm not going to link to that particular abomination because I don't want to feed it with more views.
There are many reasons for post processing, what makes it acceptable (or not) is a function of the use of the photo.

If the photo is art, then almost anything goes, providing that everyone recognizes it as art. Where things get muddled is the in between where post processing is done to make it "better" but better might also be misleading. Where to draw the line???

The real problem is that the ultimate post processor is the human brain, Cameras are instruments, they measure and record reflected light and colours much more accurately than we do. Unfortunately when we see the result, things like white balance look wrong, because our eyes know what white is, and compensate for color balance before we even see it. Same with many forms of visual pollution. How many of us take photos and comment about hydro lines etc, that we never saw when we took the shot. The mind shows us what we want to see, or imagine, not what is really there, which is why people make such bad witnesses


Me, I'm still holding out for the development of MINDREAD.EXE
05-13-2014, 01:06 PM   #133
Pentaxian
wildman's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,308
QuoteOriginally posted by Fire Angel Quote
Somehow that link is messed up and it doesn't lead anywhere; since it's an interesting read to you it is likely to interest a lot of us here so I'd love to see it working
Here you go...

Art photography: When 'reality isn't good enough' - CNN.com
05-13-2014, 03:25 PM   #134
Senior Member
Fire Angel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
Thanks, that's better!

It is an interesting article, and some of the comments are interesting too. It's good that nowadays an artist can realise their vision in more ways than ever before; sometimes almost all the tools you need are in your camera, and sometimes almost all the work is done after that in PhotoShop. Whichever you choose, it's your vision that matters most. I do like to see people getting a good result straight out of the camera, and I aim to learn how to do the same. I also like seeing the amazing creations of skilled PhotoShop artists, both those who use photographs as source material and those who make purely digital paintings.
05-16-2014, 03:18 PM   #135
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,912
Skipping past the pages and pages of arguing, so if I repeat a theme here, I apologize.

This is why you post process:

Sometimes the original image was crap either deliberately (in this case, I was using a bean bag slung over a car window frame, there simply was no way I was going to be able to level it let along pull out the colors properly to match what I was seeing out in the field) or by pure accident, but it has something salvageable within that needs a push to bring out.




Post processing exists to repair or fix a blemished or incomplete original. I tend to shoot night shots and landscapes, usually both. At the very least I'm going to go in and tweak a crooked horizon or massage the vibrancy levels to make a shot look right for me.

My hobby is a hobby that is for me, and how I go about my hobby is really nobody else's business. If someone doesn't like my work, then its not a huge deal. People have different tastes. Life goes on, and all that kind of stuff.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adams, beginners, bit, camera, colour, curve, dont, duncan, effect, fb, film, image, ken, pentax help, photo, photography, pm, post, post-processing, process, processing, responses, result, shot, slide, slides, wb
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to post-process photos? kcobain1992 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 7 11-30-2012 08:05 PM
People A post-process dilemma mikolotko Photo Critique 3 08-08-2012 01:56 PM
how to post process trevorgrout Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 08-10-2010 04:56 AM
Cityscape Post Process on a photo miss_alexx Photo Critique 6 12-18-2009 03:48 PM
how not to post-process mattdm Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 43 10-28-2007 05:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top