Nikon Digital Learning Center / Discuss

b.clarke    says:

I think it would be wrong to say that post pro is 'the demise of professionalism' - I mean, we still had some form of post-pro in the darkroom in the days of film - the difference now is that anyone, of almost any level of computer skill, can apply post pro to an image.

At the same time, I have a great deal of respect for photographers who do not use post pro - to me, it means that much more thought has gone into the initial composition of the image, getting the framing right, etc (although I realize there are situations that make this impossible)

To me, the mark of 'good' post processing (if I can make a subjective judgement) is it should not be obvious. To use an audio analogy, you should not be able to pick out effects being added to a music mix - however there is something different (and better) about the sound once they are there. Post processing is a tool to better enhance the good qualities of the image, but even the best post pro in the world cannot compensate for a lack of skill/expertise on the part of the photographer.

So, I say the camera work makes the photographer, not the post pro.
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
b.clarke edited this topic 54 months ago.

WintrHawk    says:

It all depends on what you're looking to achieve. An image developed straight from from RAW with no tone curves applied, no levels adjustments, no sharpening, no contrast adjustments, etc... is a pure image... as seen by the sensor.

However, the sensor of a camera does not behave the way the human eye does. For many people who post-process, the aim is to extract an image in the form of how they saw the scene. It will never be perfect. Afterall, we see the world in three dimensions (in actuality we see the world in four dimensions) and a picture is a two-dimensional slice of that. But we as photographers try our best. Another thing about the sensor of a camera is that it is rather limited.

Take dynamic range for instance. The human eye can detect a wider dynamic range to begin with but also is automatically capable of integrating multiple "frames" into a single "still" image. This is because we see the world in video but can integrate that video mentally and record it as a still in our memories. Taken together, the way we view the world can far exceed the dnamic range of a sensor which at best can capture around 9EV. It's usually accepted that we see a scene with around 20EV of range and if one were to consider a long temporal factour as part of the mental integration, our brains are capable of compositing an even higher range. The human eye and brain is a remarkable HDR machine.

So how do you represent that in a picture? You obviously can't do it without some form of manipulation of the light data that was recorded by the sensor. Some people resort to multiple images composited together (ala HDR) to try and represent what the eye (and mind) can see.

It is because the capture method, the recording medium and the display is more limited than what our own eyes are capable of when we view that scene that there exists a need to post-process. The act of post-processing is the act of throwing out the "cruft" that doesn't matter and extracting the "stuff" that does because we only have so much room in our presentation medium to work with and we have to figure out a way to represent it to another human being in such a manner as to accurately convey the scene as we saw it at the time we took the picture.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

ClaudeC. [deleted] says:

I only do minimum PP to my pictures, nothing more than what was done by photolabs when we were shooting 35mm because at the time, we did not see the results on a screen but only when they were developed.
To me this is photography but, with all those great performing softwares available today, a lot of people are turning an ordinary photo into a piece of art and to me that becomes a software expert.

I would say that most of the pro's don't really have a choice if they want to keep up with the market and get contracts because everybody else does it and their customers are always looking for that special effect that is going to make their publicity campain pup-up but that a different world and the pro's are not to blame for that.

All that being said i can admire some people's work with evething they can acheive with a software even if not my cup of tea for my own pictures but to me it becomes an art and not only photography but you still need a good photo to start-up with.

I think it is simply a matter of vision and choices and in all cases i
see great work being done and a lot of people having fun.

In all respect to everybody's view of what photography is !
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

MysticalJ    says:

This is a very good question! Have been thinking about this for a long time.. To sum up i think the photographer who take a shot..prints it straight away without any PP is a pro! because he knows the ways of the aperture the shutter speed etc.. You have to feel the atmosphere via temperature before a shot ..lighting also plays a major role..all these factors are brought into the photo using the correct aperture and teh shutter speed...the one who decideds the aperture and teh shutter speed in a split second to freeze a moment, I call a professional photographer!!
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

david_michael_allen    says:

@janantha.......and I call that a paparazzi photographer..... I'm also glad Ansel wasn't afraid of PP !!

Everyone has an opinion. ; )
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Imageenthusiast says:

Being a Baltimorean, I am a big fan of A Aubrey Bodine. I had some of the same reservations about PP until I read his biography here.
www.aaubreybodine.com/

It seems Aubrey kept some plates with generic clouds on them that he would insert into his photos. He apparently got caught once having one type of cloud in the sky and another type reflected in the water below.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Steve SJ Collins    says:

I believe there is a place for both minimal and extended PP. With minimal I mean brightness, contrast and crop, that's about it. With extended PP I mean the photog intends to change the image in such a way it no longer represents the exposure he/she captured, at which point I would begin to consider it photographic art. For example, HDR, the eye certainly does not see in HDR. And I would consider Ansel Adam's work to be photographic art. I say this with the upmost respect to his work. However, as we are well aware, what is considered art is subjective.

Having cut my teeth in the days of film, I was instructed to get it right with lighting, composition, etc (still working on this) before capturing the exposure, therefore if an exposure requires extended PP, the photog is either creating a work of art, or they didn't get the exposure correct to begin with.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

A. C says:

Well, I try to get right in the camera. I know what your talking about though. I have Photoshop CS2, and I've messed around with photos for my own amusement, but I know they are altered and I don't feel right about it. I wouldn't sell one unless I told the buyer and they were alright with it.
I've seen the rules for some photo contests that state just a basic adjustment is allowed. ( sharpening and levels )
Photoshop is cool, but I don't like what I see going on. A photo contest should be just that, not a photoshop contest.
AC
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

.jasper says:

what exactly are these 'overprocessed' photos winning? flickr group 'awards'? where do you draw the line between art and photgraphy?
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

WintrHawk    says:

SJ Collins says:

For example, HDR, the eye certainly does not see in HDR.

Daniel E Bruce    says:

I prefer to post process and bring out the BEST in the image as much as possible.. I want the person to have no blemishes flawless, I consider photographers apart of the art community but rather set apart.. What we do is capture an image of what we think is thought to be very beautiful or unique. why not take the time and make what you invisioned in the frame of ur eye and lense, come to life... I stand with the qoute " A picture paints a thousand words" and Photography, as a powerful medium of expression and communications, offers an infinite variety of perception, interpretation and execution.
Ansel Adams Quote

so wether you post process or not, the digital world is ours why not master it...

a little bit of green color saturation upon my sons allready green eyes..

post processing .. our little secret?

This IMAGE , that I dreamed up.. in my mind.. would not have been possible without post processing...



SUPERMAN would not have been able to fly.. without the famous green screen and "DIGITAL ARTIST"
be urself


This image was shot in our living room.. with a white backdrop a little bit of make up and wham!! we have snow here in Florida.
Thank God for post processing
catch my drift???
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
Daniel E Bruce edited this topic 54 months ago.

mag379    says:

This is one of my most populal photos and I feel a fraud

This is not the original but taken at the same time

The sunset effect was easily achieved just using curves and I have vowed not to pp to this extent again
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Zeroneg1 says:

For me it depends on the subject matter as well as IF i feel there is aneed artistically to change it via post-processing.

In almost all my shots it is basically 'straight photography' using exposure changes and composition. I am however also open to post-processing IF I am dealing with fashion and some portraiture.

Ansel Adams and Minor White specially Edward Weston after all did do post processing in the darkroom and out in the field via exposure and development controls. Also W. Eugene Smith also did change his shots and made photo essay 'montages'.

I think the main problem today is relying MORE on post processing to get the FINA IMAGE of effect instead of getting it all 'in camera'. There are cases in the fashion industry where they wil book the image editor/retoucher before a photo shoot is scheduled!
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
Zeroneg1 edited this topic 54 months ago.

WintrHawk    says:

I've never understood the term "getting it all in camera" when it comes to digital images and especially when it comes to shooting RAW. In the old film days, we choose the type of film which effectively determined things like noise/grain, colour balance/response/saturation, contrast and white-balance. We performed re-exposure of the negative when it came time to develop to print which made us recompensate for all the things we did by choosing the film.

There is no image-direct-to-print. Several processes are involved. Light gets recorded to a medium but light is recorded and represented not as light. We don't capture and hold the light. It gets converted into some other transmittable signal characteristic. In order to view the data, you need to process it first into a format that the human eye can see and interpret. I see the four basic steps to photography as:

[1] Composing
[2] Exposing
[3] Processing
[4] Printing

The photographer handles #1. The camera as a basic lens/lightbox/recorder handles #2. #3 is handled separately either in a darkroom if you're dealing with film or through software tools. Sure cameras have built-in image processors but I see that as more of an auxiliary function and not the main function of the camera. It's still handled through software. And finally, #4 involves outputting that image onto a media that is viewable by humans. This is handled through the use of an enlarger for film or with software and photo printer for digital. There is no getting around post-processing.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

JAMAIZ - jamespatephotography.com    says:

I'm with WintrHawk on this, I fail to to see why I would have the software and not use it to optimize an image. One of my main sources of study for post process work flow is "Photoshop Artistry" by Haynes, Crumpler and Duggan.
Regards
James
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
JAMAIZ - jamespatephotography.com edited this topic 54 months ago.

Daniel E Bruce    says:

yeah back in middle school, I dreaded the long wait of the darkroom.. and see the slow results eh. And with the RAW being available as the DIGITAL NEGATIVE.. The digital darkroom is my new hangout =)
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
Daniel E Bruce edited this topic 54 months ago.

mcarneybsa [deleted] says:

I find that whenever I use PP for anything more than cropping I feel a little bit... dirty. I feel strongly in getting as much right TTL as possible (this makes any PP necessary minimal). I do agree however that somethings are not possible without PP and it is fine to use in these cases. That being said, not every photo needs to be selectively desaturated, please!
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
mcarneybsa edited this topic 54 months ago.

cali_cobra    says:

I believe photography allows oneself to stretch the imagination and artistic flare... a post processed terrible pic is a terrible pic normaly... but if it enhances the image to what you saw or wanted to see and you share the image, what matter of it to those who enjoy and wish to buy. a painting is not a perfect snapshot.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

cornelius crab    says:

WintrHawk said a lot of what I was going to say... except I'd add that from click to print it's all just plain old processing, no "post" involved, and either you do it yourself or you hire someone else to do it for you (the film lab, or the engineers who wrote the digital camera's built-in processing algorithms). There is no such thing as an "unmolested" image and how much is too much depends on if you want to be Robert Capa, Ansel Adams or Jerry Uelsmann.

I think curves and levels adjustment in PS are no different than what you or the lab tech would do when printing from negatives. It's not cheating by any stretch, it's just overcoming the limitations of the camera's built in processing algorithms. And if you do get great photos straight out of a digital camera that's at least as much down to the camera's firmware as it is to the photographer.

A lot of photoshop effects are overused but with film so were a lot of fancy special effects filters and gimmicky developing and printing tricks. Just have a look at all the cross-processed junk in the Lomo groups. There's nothing new about bad taste.
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
cornelius crab edited this topic 54 months ago.

reno_fog says:

This is a great discussion.
mag379 wrote

The sunset effect was easily achieved just using curves and I have vowed not to pp to this extent again

A lot of photoshop effects are overused but with film so were a lot of fancy special effects filters and gimmicky developing and printing tricks. Just have a look at all the cross-processed junk in the Lomo groups. There's nothing new about bad taste.

cornelius crab    says:

What I meant is that heavily manipulated images are nothing new, and cross-process is a currently trendy example of a film-based photographic trick that has nothing to do with digital or Photoshop (there just happen to be a lot of examples in the Lomo and toy camera groups, it seems). Like any technique it can look good, but often it's just done for its own sake and comes across (to me at least) as gimmicky. Like when I discovered solarization in high school, and for a while I was solarizing everything I shot because I thought it looked so cool.
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
cornelius crab edited this topic 54 months ago.

shottwokill    says:

I don't see it as a demise in professionalism. It's a tool. The pro will use the tool just as he used the tools of the Darkroom. The less experienced will use it as a crutch. The snapshooter will always play with it and have fun. I think as long as one is willing to disclose how they created the photo, including equipment, settings, tricks of the trade and all post pro used to create the image, there is nothing wrong with Post Pro.

Where does the tradionalist draw the line? Is cropping with a S/W application considered PP and if so is it the same violation of professionalism as adding an object to the image. They both happen after the image capture. I've done both in the darkroom and the computer.

I'm sure the client that is paying big money for a special shot doesn't care if you PP as long as he gets his money's worth. I'd be willing to bet that the wedding couple would not complain if their photos were just a little richer in color. I think the real question should be the ethics of using PP S/W applications. If you are a novice and use it to portray yourself as something else that is all together different than a pro who uses either darkroom or computer to provide the best product a client is paying for. I do believe there is and will always be a higher respect for someone that can take a good image based on talent and ability.

The real shame today is someone that would never enter a darkroom to modify a photo will now jump on the computer and make change after change to an otherwise poor image and claim to be a photographer
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

reno_fog says:

shottwokill wrote

The real shame today is someone that would never enter a darkroom to modify a photo will now jump on the computer and make change after change to an otherwise poor image and claim to be a photographer

3dchris89    says:

Post-processing has been done since the beginning of photography. The only difference now is that it's done digitally (just like making photos).
It was useful back then, it's useful now.

I don't see why you people even want to discuss this.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

david_michael_allen    says:

I agree with 3D and the others that understand that PP is a huge part of photography....by definition photography is "the process or ART of producing images of objects....."

Shouldn't even be a discussion.....and btw mag379, you could have captured both of those images without any PP by simply adjusting your exposure....would you still have considered yourself a fraud ?

Some would say you didn't expose the shot properly in the first place....photography is subjective.....very very subjective.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

photopath    says:

In the "good old days" there were master printers who only ever worked on images in the darkroom - that was their skill and they could always get the best from a negative. Photographers would mark up a contact print with some suggestions for processing and they would work their magic. Photoshop has handed us all the ability to be both photographers and master printers. Getting it right in the camera is just the first step.
I think the skilled use of all the tools at our disposal - whether it is a simple levels/curves/colour/sharpen or a much more complex PS work-out - is just more processing along the way to realising the image which you thought you were capturing, or which you imagined, as you pressed the shutter.
HDR, Panorama, BW conversions or even a more abstract use of the original photograph - provided the end result was what was in our mind at the time of capture then I think it's just evolution, not revolution.
If you disallow post processing then where do you stop? You let the camera do the JPG conversion for you? Do you switch off any in-camera processing? (almost impossible) Or refuse to consider any digital black and white images? (there's not been a greyscale dSLR on the market for a LONG time)
You can't embrace digital technology and all it involves and still take a Luddite view of advances in processing software. They are so closely allied that you can't really have one without the other.

So what if some people don't have the same taste as you and produce what you see as "over-processed" images? If they are doing it deliberately (and probably getting them into "explore" as well!) then good luck to them. Photography exhibitions, Camera Club competitions, Salons and Galleries have been full of awful (in my opinion) over saturated and over processed photographs for years - long before Adobe came on the scene. If you don't like it - pass on by. If you think it's pants and it keeps winning "print of the month" at the camera club then it’s time to go and find another club!

Maybe we should post our "original" image in with the processed images as well – just to see how far we have pushed it?

They say the camera never lies -- it’s just as well we all know better!
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Get Closer! says:

I agree with WintrHawk's posts and think he makes a number of very good points, as do some others here. Editing software is just another tool, like cameras, lenses, flashes, etc., to be used as and when appropriate. If you are shooting documentary, journalistic, or forensic images, any processing after the shot needs to be carefully considered. That doesn't mean you can't make some basic adjustments, but even some simple curves and levels adjustments could change the perception of the scene and would have to be evaluated on that basis, the same as a choice of a particular lens and camera position can affect the perception of a scene.

On the other hand, if your objective is an image that is more about personal expression ("Art" is such a tricky term) or some sort of illustration, then any tool that gets you to the finished piece is open for consideration.

I do believe it's critical to get the best technical execution (exposure, focus, etc.) of the image in camera because that will give you the best file to begin processing. Trying to use processing software to correct for poor camera technique is generally doomed to poor finished results. GIGO.

As far as "Professionalism" goes, introducing that term muddies the waters a bit. In the strictest sense, being a "Pro" simply means you are getting paid and does not necessarily have any qualitative criteria. There are plenty of serious and dedicated amateur photographers whose work is as good as or better than some "Pro" work. Don't forget Stieglitz always considered himself an amateur photographer.

As to whether or not someone is a photographer, I think the best answer I heard years ago is a very democratic one; anyone who takes photographs is a photographer, the difference is simply in skill levels.

I think for making judgments about the quality of any work, we should talk about craftsmanship, which applies to any tools a photographer/artist chooses to use. In the end, the best work is the result of a synthesis of ones vision and skills both with the camera and software.

We all must limit our options in some deliberate ways because there is not infinite time and money--so we only shoot digital, or only shoot with a 50mm lens, or only use curves and levels, or become Photoshop gurus. Whatever our choices, the options are all legitimate and none of us has the right to say another's choices are wrong, although we certainly have the option to like or dislike the work.

It's one thing to say you think someone has oversaturated an image, but another thing entirely to say that person is not a photographer because they oversaturated the image, or because they chose to use a tool that allowed them to do so. The first notion is an opinion, which we are all entitled to have; but the second idea is hubris.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Sippy Cup says:

From my experience, people want great pictures and don't care how you get them, what equipment you use and processing. If this means boosting some color and getting rid or softening of some lines and blemishes, then that's not just ok, it's preferred. However, all these things start with a good photo to begin with, or else you just end up with a polished turd which fools no one.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

radiant guy    says:

That's a great question, I've been trash talked for PP although I don't usually do it with every single photo I took.

Take a step back and have a wider look, post processing is similar to pre processing but the only difference that people does not notice the pre processing when they do it. For instance I consider lighting pre processing, setting Aperture, Shutter are a pre processing, each one has an effect on the photo which can be done using any graphics program later.

I am not saying that I totally back up PP but I don't really see the differences between post and pre production (both can be referred to by PP), clocks are revolving and time is passing and that's just a part of photography evolution.
That's the way I see it, but if I don't see the similarity of post and pre production then I will say:
I do totally respect a photographer who takes photos with out any PP, but I also do have respect for PP who enhance the "WOW effect" in an ordinary or "sub-ordinary" photo
(See photos above by mag379), such effect can not be done with your camera only, at least I think so.

I do like PP like 70% but I am against over PP…My question will be "When should we say this photo is over post processed?"
My own answer is when it doesn't look realistic or maybe against the laws of physics (although that might looks amazing in certain photos).

Conclusion, ordinary people will judge the final result…They doesn't care whither the photo was PP or not, they only care if it was pretty or not.
Originally posted 54 months ago. (permalink)
radiant guy edited this topic 54 months ago.

Sippy Cup says:

Let me add that NOT post processing pictures can be described as lazy. For example, I was recently given a DVD containing over a thousand pictures from a friend who hired an amateur for his wedding. They ranged from terrible to 'blah.' He paid $800 for a guy to go around and take pictures all day who simply burned them on a DVD and handed it over. Work done in one day. Now he realizes they're pretty bad and wants to pay me to retouch them on a pic-by-pic basis. The PP part is the tedious part that takes a lot of time and believe it or not, requires skill also. Unfortunately most of them are bad to begin with so I can't do much.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

bgriffin261 [deleted] says:

This is a very long and controversial topic and I have not read all points of view. My view is simply stated by asking this question: " Do you think Ansel Adams every engaged in post production skills deliberately to achieve a specific result ?"
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Get Closer! says:

bgriffin261--I'm not sure if you believe the answer to your question is yes or no, but just in case anyone is unsure, pretty much every shot of Adams would have included manipulated processing. The whole concept of his Zone System was to modify the development of each negative based on an exposure calculated to manage the particular brightness range of the scene he was photographing. It would be the same today using Tone Compensation and/or exposure variations to manage a particular scene lighting, knowing that you would then use editing software to complete the image based on previsualization of a finished result that takes into account a knowledge of all the tools you have at your disposal. One of Adams' quotes was, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." That was never more true than today shooting Raw fies and using very sophisticated editing software.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

lloyd_blackwell says:

To me, it's a matter of art. I crop 10% or less, other adjustments even less than that, but I have no reservations about finishing my photo in the computer. The artistic process does not end with the push of a button. If I notice that the photo needs something after it is on the big screen, I finish the artwork. This part of he work is a great deal more difficult than the in-camera stuff to get right, that is why you should try to do as much of it as you can with exposure settings, framing, etc.. That is also why you can see so many bad examples of digital photo finishing. And why people are afraid to do what they used to pay a photo finisher to do. Worse still, they used to take photos to a discount or quick developer and let the machine make the decisions about color, light, white balance, and contrast. There many, many more good photo snappers than good photo finishers, and it is an art worth devoloping.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

john_2000L    says:

I am with Get Closer! and Mr. Blackwell........after 30 years of photography work, the "art" does not end with the pciture alone. If your a poor photographer, you will also likely be a poor user of any PP program. If you are a good or great photographer, then any PP you do will continue to reflect positively on the photograph you took......like these folks I have seen it both ways, but I would not let any PP you want to do stand in the way of deciding whether you took a great picture.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

GStrader says:

I have no particular viewpoint on this, except that I try to take a best photograph that I can,then if I did things right, my post processing is only one or two clicks, and I am finished.

I have Photoshop Elements, but I confess, I know almost nothing about using it. I only use it if I have a flaw on the photo, and then I use the magic healing brush tool to fix it.

I use Nikon's Post Processing about the same as I do with Photo Shop...I use Picasa most of the time.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Steve Wollkind    says:

My step father is a photographer and has been doing it for 30+ years. One of the things he recently said to me that made an impression is that this idea that photography was ever entirely about what went on in the camera is completely false. From the beginning of photography people have been doing post processing, whether it was in the dark room or in photo shop. It is perhaps true that a wider range of tools are more readily available in the digital age, but he said that he's doing the same things in photoshop he used to do in a dark room.

He also told me of some photo exhibits he has seen where Ansel Adams' work was shown with the first "test print" side by side with the final product and that it really drives home just how much "post processing" Adams and people of his day were already doing.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

basegrinder    says:

I used to do B&W in a bathroom darkroom at my house....

back then I had cut out cardboard for burning and dodging....

today we have photoshop...

miles apart, but still just a tool IMO.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

felixspencer [deleted] says:

i learned post processing before i started using a camera. I process images for a very large holiday company for use on their websites and in their brochures. in the years that i have been photoshopping these images i have to say that the phrase "Less is More" and the words "Subtle and Little" should be kept in mind when processing your image.
It is one thing to create an effect or atmosphere, it is very different to create the effect of creating an effect.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

3dchris89    says:

lot's of repeating posts in this topic :D
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

ralatalo says:

The questions as asked doesn't have any perspective and the answers show that. Why do you take a picture or what do you display a picture, what do you want in a picture? If you want a picture as a historical record then you don't want a drastic post processing but if you want an image to hand on the wall and don't have the greatest talent at painting when why restrict what you can do with post processing. What do you want or need from the image should dictate what is allowed in post processing.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

jamesrdoe says:

Well all I know is that if everyone just took pictures straight out of the camera the world would be full of extremely boring photographs. Most of the great photographers post process(ed) their photos whether it was in the dark room or currently digital. Sure composition is a huge part of photography but that creates only part of the look. Back in the day different film gave different looks to photos and much work was done in the darkroom. These days shooting straight from the camera gives you the default look that everyone with the same camera gets.

There are good processed photos and bad processed photos. Good ones can still be completely surreal but it needs to be transparent. You don't want a photo where people just pick out all the edits you did.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

rgordon    says:

all well-spoken. my thoughts are that there is a difference between photojournalistic images, those taken to meet the specific needs of a client, and those made for oneself. i also distinguish between simple image enhancement (contrast, dodging and burning, vignetting, sharpening, spotting) as was done in the darkrooms of the past, and the compositing of images - whether it be from different exposures or different subjects altogether.

pj images obviously should have nothing done to change their subject, beyond simple adjustments. to do anything else is to lie - you've gone beyond capturing what's happened into creating the moment.

client-specific images are really open. if they want heavily layered fantasy composites, or simply the removal of a few inches or wrinkles, so be it. you can do that during the shoot with lighting and diffusion, or you can do it in post. some images simply have to be "constructed" and whether you do it in-camera or in-post i don't see much difference.

and of course one's personal images are also wide open. my own preference is for little manipulation, but i come more from the PJ school. but I also experiment with compositing, retouching, HDR, stitching etc because I find them interesting and I find them to be useful tools and techniques for specific problems.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

Lewis Walsh    says:

I don't do anything in photoshop that cannot also be achieved in a traditional darkroom with film and paper.

Beyond that I feel it becomes digital art rather than photography.
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)

sonicpenguin    says:

Like the adage, "talking about music is like dancing about architecture"... you guys quit talking theory and just get back to shooting/PP'ing... whatever it is you do or don't do. [just be sure to post & share....please!] :)
Posted 54 months ago. (permalink)