advertisement


To process or not

drummerman

drummerman

pfm Member
Or ... how heavily should I process?

My recent takes of Salisbury Cathedral made me think more about processing than others.

It's almost as if I do the magnificence of that building a disservice by manipulating them too much, which I have done so far.

The structure itself should be enough to draw ones focus and attention.

I very much like Gromits subtle editing. Unfortunately neither my camera nor the software I use is really up to the task at present so editing seems somewhat heavy handed and not precise enough for my likes. Ok on certain things, perhaps not on others.

I will post some more very lightly (or unedited) ones and see how it goes.
 
I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve. Editing, just like the process of taking the photograph, is a means of artistic expression. It is part of the process of realising the artistic vision that is on your head when you set about making the image. Sometimes, this vision requires extensive editing (such as with fine art, b&w photography) and sometimes it doesn't.

As an example, I did a paid family photo shoot on Saturday. Many of the images weren't edited at all (not even cropped). The style of image I was going for (high key, natural light) was best achieved in camera. However, on Saturday morning, i took a fine art, b&w image ('Apex') and the editing I was going to apply was in my head even before I took the image.

Of course, this is all IMHO. There is no right / wrong answer. This is just my take :)

Lefty
 
You pick out Gromit as an example. I love his photos too. Hardly processed and just good use of available lighting and good composition. I'm afraid that so many photos I see are so heavily processed that they look like a camera wasn't involved at all, more computer graphics than photography. They just don't look like real textures.
I'd rather you kept it simple. I'm amazed at your photos.
 
Appreciate your experience and skill Amar.

You are way ahead of me. Whilst I look for interesting angles and something 'different' in a shot I can't usually picture the final image. It's often a try and error exercise post shot with the result being decided what I see on screen. On rare occasions I have a final idea before I take a shot (fountain in the Cathedral) but more often than not its a developing (literally) story as I go along.

I think this planning ahead and seeing a final image will come with experience, I hope. Long way to go.
 
You're welcome drummerman - although I don't know about being way ahead of you. I think you've got the hardest part down which is having a good eye for a photograph. The rest is just technical polish and developing your own voice so to speak.

There are a lot of photographers who completely disagree with my approach of pre-conceiving / visualising an image. I believe Mark LJ of this parish (a far far better photographer that I and a former Landscape Photographer of the Year) prefers to improvise and react to his environment when making an image. There really is no right answer.

Being an engineer by profession, I am quite technically minded. I am always looking at other photographers work and trying to figure out how they took this or that image. I then set about learning the tools / techniques involved. Once I have figured this out, I adapt the technique to realise my own vision. I'm always looking to learn which is why I don't really have a genre / style of photography. At the tail end of last year, I was doing abstract, impressionistic photography whereas now I am on a fine art, b&w trip. No doubt I'll be moving onto something else before too long!

Lefty
 
Back in the days of film, you would quite happily separate the jobs of taking a photo (a photographer) from the job of making a decent print from it (a printer). Moving to the digital age, the same skills are still there, and they are just as important, making the best of an image you have captured.

The world has something like 30 stops of light between staring at the sun, and the shadow under a tree. Film or digital captures around 10-12 stops. Paper can show around 5 stops. It's hardly surprising that at both stages (taking the photo and preparing a print) artistic decisions have to be employed to overcome the limitations of the technology, and to produce the effect that you want.

I'm very much a photographer, and my darkroom skills aren't great, but i have lots of fun trying. I tend to also go for fairly natural looks, and prefer under rather than over saturated colours. It's all personal choice though isn't it?
 
There is no such thing as an unedited picture.

With film you have everything from choice of film through chemical process to choices made at printing time.

With digital there are all sorts of settings available in the camera that will change the look of a jpeg.

What is really being talked about is the difference between a "natural" look and one that is obviously artificial. There is no right answer and everyone can choose to like individual pictures or not.
 
Some very experienced voices. I take it all in.

What about framing pictures to finish them off? I have noticed that some always seem to and others not. Are there any guide lines or rules or is it again just personal preference?
 
drummerman

It's really all down to personal preference.

On the processing front, its the development of a style that you are happy with, some people (me, Lefty and others) are continually searching for this style and experimenting. Its like a rite of passage, you have to process in HDR, spot colour, etc, etc to find out what you like. At the end of the day you are processing to make a picture that you like, if you set out to please others its a very rocky road.

Make images for yourself, develop your style.

You have a good eye, and can process effectively, so now is the time to take stock, and start to develop a style

With regard to borders it really is a personal preference, some like them, some don't but really what other people think is inconsequential, if you like them, process them with borders!
 
Mr Perceptive said:
drummerman

It's really all down to personal preference.

On the processing front, its the development of a style that you are happy with, some people (me, Lefty and others) are continually searching for this style and experimenting. Its like a rite of passage, you have to process in HDR, spot colour, etc, etc to find out what you like. At the end of the day you are processing to make a picture that you like, if you set out to please others its a very rocky road.

Make images for yourself, develop your style.

You have a good eye, and can process effectively, so now is the time to take stock, and start to develop a style

With regard to borders it really is a personal preference, some like them, some don't but really what other people think is inconsequential, if you like them, process them with borders!
Click to expand...

Appreciated, thanks.

I was just interested what makes others tick. Its not about pleasing per se though of course we all like nice comments every so often :)

As to developing a style, I don't know. I would like to think I can change those depending on situation and opportunity though it would be nice on the other hand to be known to do something different and good at that.

That reminds me of the News a few days ago where an artist made works with pigments of the ashes of deceased.

Now if someone could make printer cartr ... :D
 
Interesting thread.

I am very much a beginner in digital processing and near the bottom of the learning curve. I agonise forever about cropping and straightening, then about light / colour / mood etc then back and agonise about the cropping again. All part of the learning process....

If anything right now I'd like to convey the mood or the moment, controlling the basics of dynamic range, tone, focus etc. For what it's worth Drummerman I think your Salisbury pics are great and convey to me a real feeling of the grandeur and beauty of that space (I know it).

I'm using only Nikon Capture NX-D for processing, which I really like (once I'd upgraded my laptop to cope with its demands). At the moment I'm using RAW and doing everything on the laptop. This is giving me (more than) enough flexibility and control to be getting on with. Much like the camera, its capabilities are way ahead of the abilities of the user!

Ian
 
BS. If you think processing can compensate for faults in your photograph, you're sadly mistaken.

Try Cartier Bresson or Hockney if you want to understand how it's done. If the image isn't right, then you got it wrong and nothing will compensate. That goes for Arbus, too, whose processing could be iffy, but whose images are so strong.
 
By the way, I'm sure your photographs are good, but I wonder if you're need for processing doesn't conceal a lack of confidence in them.
 
avole said:
BS. If you think processing can compensate for faults in your photograph, you're sadly mistaken.

Try Cartier Bresson or Hockney if you want to understand how it's done. If the image isn't right, then you got it wrong and nothing will compensate. That goes for Arbus, too, whose processing could be iffy, but whose images are so strong.
Click to expand...

Hey, I don't know - that's pretty harsh, and is just one approach to taking photos. It's perfectly fine to start from something imperfect, as let's face it, perfection isn't going to happen (for most of us) ever. That doesn't mean you don't try right? And anyhow, until you've tried and failed to create the effect you want, you're not going to know what you should have done.

I've got a negative i've tried to print dozens of times:

DSCF1778 by Cesare Ferrari, on Flickr

It was bright, i was up a mountain with a hasselblad, on telemarks, and hardly any tracks (well, two to the right of the chapel). There was mist in the valley, the sun was just out of the frame to the right, and I managed to get the framing I wanted (with the steeple on the chapel above the trees). Can I get a decent print to make the snow in the foreground look like snow rather than a grey mush? Not without compromising other bits so far. This took quite a bit of careful dodging. Getting the sky that even is a challenge too...

Is it a perfect negative? Hell no, but still, i'm enjoying the challenge, and there's a print of it on the wall. Hopefully i'll improve on it at some point.
 
Most of the iconic photos didn't need that. Also, as I've tried to point out, some of the greats weren't really so hot on the processing level.
 
avole - I think you are being overlay harsh and dogmatic. This is art and there is no right answer. Some of the greats weren't so hot on processing, but some of them (such as Ansel Adams) were heavily into it.

Cesare - that's a cracking image!

Lefty
 
avole said:
Most of the iconic photos didn't need that. Also, as I've tried to point out, some of the greats weren't really so hot on the processing level.
Click to expand...

Nope, don't agree at all. Here's a quick article about Magnum's Printer, Pablo Inirio:

http://uk.phaidon.com/agenda/photog...agnum-and-the-dying-art-of-darkroom-printing/

Look at the amount of dodging and burning required for the James Dean shot - that's not because it's a bad photo, that's to make a great print from a great negative.

You'll find lots of examples of Ansel Adams dancing around paper in the darkroom on youtube, and he worked for years to get the prints he wanted from his negatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top