[hollywoodfred]

Looking for some guidance/recommendations here so I can keep within the spirit of this thread. Recently I posted a shot with some PP, to include removing some unwanted powerlines. When I originally posted the shot, I figured "yeah, it's film. I can post it here". But now having a few days to think about it, I'm having second thoughts.

Even though the original shot was film, with the post production modifications have I strayed too far to the digital side for this shot to be truly a film shot with respect to this thread?

I'm not looking for comments on the shot itself, but I would like to know if there is an acceptable level of PP for the images we post here?

[stevebrot]

Looking for some guidance/recommendations here so I can keep within the spirit of this thread. Recently I posted a shot with some PP, to include removing some unwanted powerlines. When I originally posted the shot, I figured "yeah, it's film. I can post it here". But now having a few days to think about it, I'm having second thoughts.

Even though the original shot was film, with the post production modifications have I strayed too far to the digital side for this shot to be truly a film shot with respect to this thread?

I'm not looking for comments on the shot itself, but I would like to know if there is an acceptable level of PP for the images we post here?

I sometimes do a fair amount of PP on my film shots and think of it the same as if I had done similar manipulation in a wet darkroom. It is not a crime...rather it is one of the benefits of a "figital" workflow. I think it is up to you. If the image is mostly Photoshop work (say a digital solarization rather than the real thing), you might want to add a comment explaining how you did it. That approach leaves room for other people to ask you additional questions.


Steve

[michael markey]

Pentax ME Super,120/2.8,TriX.

[Nesster]

I sometimes do a fair amount of PP on my film shots and think of it the same as if I had done similar manipulation in a wet darkroom. It is not a crime...rather it is one of the benefits of a "figital" workflow. I think it is up to you. If the image is mostly Photoshop work (say a digital solarization rather than the real thing), you might want to add a comment explaining how you did it. That approach leaves room for other people to ask you additional questions.


Steve

I would agree. I chatted with an architect friend who told me about the photography in art school - I don't remember the teachers but they were very famous names in photography in the 60s-70s, people we've all heard of. Anyway the ethic taught and enforced at the time: NO post processing at all, and that includes spotting and cropping. Print the full frame, very large. The students spent hours getting the last bit of dust off the negative, as a result. I'm sure the thing had a certain integrity and for certain there was tremendous technical quality.

As counterpoint, Berenice Abbott cheerfully encouraged cropping, tilting of the easel, and any other darkroom manipulations necessary to make the picture. But then she was Man Ray's darkroom wizard.

Me, I'm with Berenice and Steve

[Digitalis]

would agree. I chatted with an architect friend who told me about the photography in art school - I don't remember the teachers but they were very famous names in photography in the 60s-70s, people we've all heard of. Anyway the ethic taught and enforced at the time: NO post processing at all, and that includes spotting and cropping. Print the full frame, very large. The students spent hours getting the last bit of dust off the negative, as a result. I'm sure the thing had a certain integrity and for certain there was tremendous technical quality.

This was the style of photography my grandfather trained me in, he had a great fondness of the f/64 group and he held strict standards on photographic technique, which is where I get my admittedly ruthless attitude to those with less technical competence. However my grandmother was the opposite to my grandfather, where he would be toiling in the darkroom producing the finest platinum prints possible, my grandmother would be doing cibachromes or dye transfer prints - the louder the colours were the happier she was with the result*. My grandfather would be carrying a hefty folding 8X10 view camera and two lenses, my grandmother would be running around japan,paris or berlin with a 35mm camera with several lenses. It was amazing my grandparents ever got married because their photographic styles couldn't possibly have been more divergent. My grandmother was more of a do-anything-you-can-to-get-the-shot kind of photographer she was strict with printing her images but she was still more flexible in her printing ethic than my grandfather was, but I suppose that is with dye transfer and cibachrome you can alter the look of the print much more than what is possible with platinum prints.

*strangely she didn't like velvia all that much- she used kodachrome most of the time. She often said the colours from velvia looked "wrong".

[womble]

Looking for some guidance/recommendations here so I can keep within the spirit of this thread. Recently I posted a shot with some PP, to include removing some unwanted powerlines. When I originally posted the shot, I figured "yeah, it's film. I can post it here". But now having a few days to think about it, I'm having second thoughts.

Even though the original shot was film, with the post production modifications have I strayed too far to the digital side for this shot to be truly a film shot with respect to this thread?

I'm not looking for comments on the shot itself, but I would like to know if there is an acceptable level of PP for the images we post here?

I nearly always tweak the image in Lightroom/photoshop a bit. Although this is a "film" thread, we are, in fact, looking at digital images even if the method of capture is a scanner rather than a digital sensor in a camera. Often the commercial scans I use for posting on the web don't contain any true black and so I nearly always end up changing the black point. Also, whereas with digital I usually apply some variation of an S curve correction, for the commercial scans it is usually more of a U. One advantage of commercial scans done when the film is developed is that they are 'clean'. When I do them myself I always have to dust spot. (My scanner doesn't have ICE.) I'm more interested in how you got to the final image rather than any draconian interpretation of what is allowed, but then this isn't 'my' thread.

Ansel Adams employed an assistant whose job was to dust spot his prints for him. He dodged, burned, played with films, developers and papers as much as anyone. If it was good enough for Adams, it is good enough for me!

K.

[eddie1960]

*strangely she didn't like velvia all that much- she used kodachrome most of the time. She often said the colours from velvia looked "wrong".

I can see this actually. I love velvia but only for landscapes for the most part. Kodachrome OTOH was the best slide film i ever used. (Still mourning it, but what can you do)
Sadly Kodak just killed their remaining slide films leaving only the Fuji.
I used to shoot a lot of agfachrome in the early 70's particularly for Sea and Ski situations. the blues just popped

[Digitalis]

I used to shoot a lot of agfachrome in the early 70's particularly for Sea and Ski situations. the blues just popped

My grandmother was also a fan of agfachrome - She made a series of dye transfer prints from photographs she took in Scotland using exclusively agfachrome on a Haselblad 6X6, the blues certainly did pop. Some of those images are among my favourites in the rather extensive collection of photographs my family has accumulated.

[hollywoodfred]

@Steve,@Nesster, @Digitalis, and @womble - I appreciate the feedback. I'll definitely apply this for future posts here. I had two reasons for posing the question: first, I consider myself novice, and I don't want to misrepresent my abilities. Second, because this has been such a popular thread, I wanted to ensure I was "in bounds" with respect to the images posts so as not to detract from that popularity.

Generally, for my own photos I lean to the purist side - no post processing except for maybe cropping. If I've done an adequate job of composition and exposure, then PP shouldn't be neccessary (scanning issues aside). But my current skills are a long way from the level of "absolutely no PP required". Of course, my purist leaning is all contrary to the shot I posted. The tools available today provide for easy correction and adjustment, and I'm noticing the more familiar I become with the tools, the more I go to them to tweak my results.

thanks again,
Fred

[michael markey]

I rarely do any post processing because I am more interested in how a particular lens renders the image.
I`m not that interested in making the picture.

When not using a Pentax I use manual cameras so may adjust the exposure if I`s a tad out ...I may also crop.
Most of my non Pentax lenses are uncoated or single coated to render a low contrast image.

[stevebrot]

To quote Ansel Adams:

"The negative is the score, the print the performance."

There is judgement, interpretation, and craft at each phase of generating a viewable image. Choice of lens, film, focus, exposure, and composition is only the beginning. Development technique continues the process and managing the print/scan finishes. PP for the most part is nothing more than accounting for the deficiencies of the scan and/or applying adjustments to approximate the original visualization.

It might be interesting to start a new thread featuring before/after images to show just how much PP goes into the photos we post here.


Steve

[michael markey]

Pentax ME Super ,120/2.8 SMC, XP2.
Any dust and scratches removed in PS.

[michael markey]

Leica M2, Nikon 35/1.8 in Leica screwmount ,XP2.
This was a basket case of a lens loaned to me for a day by a dealer.
Falling apart but he still wanted a lot of money for it.

[maverickh]

LX Pentax A 50 f/1.2 @ f1.2 fuji reala film ISO 100

[maverickh]

LX pentax 50 f/1,2 @ f1.2 fuji reala film ISO 100