advertisement


To process or not

Some of Ansel Adams' negatives were printed over many years and over time he would interpret the negative differently to bring out the clouds etc differently and to also exploit the changes in the enlarging papers and chemicals.

I have seen many different prints of Moonrise, Hernandez that Adams has printed over the years and I have also seen his dodging notes that directed him to dodge various parts of the scene. In some his prints the clouds in the sky are very visible, in other the sky is a very constant black.

With digital images one can create different interpretations of an image according to how one feels and what one wants to achieve.
 
Processing - back in the days of the darkroom - or today in the digital lightroom, is all part of making the image.

There seems to be some misguided movement on t'interweb that indicates that Straight Out of Camera is some lofty goal. Bollocks. It's true, the sow's ear isn't likely to become a silk purse, and we're better off doing as much as possible in-camera. Editing is part of the final image.

Composition. check.
Capture. check.
Processing. check.
Output. done.

There are huge variables in every step. It starts with an idea or vision for an image, and doesn't finish until you've decided on the acceptable output that meets your original vision. Or meets your new view of what your vision should be. I

t's a journey.
 
99% of my photos are only sharpened, brightened a touch, and converted to jpeg... but then the're normally just holiday snaps... :)

whereas people like mark lj - while amazing, are very much photoshop'd imo...
 
^ Pretty informative stuff.

The markings and annotated notes on the original prints are quite educational.
 
Cesare said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why not ? I wouldn't say Arbus, whose photos admire, is known for her processing. Mind you, I wouldn't cross the road to see an Ansel Adams photo, I find them deeply uninteresting. Certainly a good craftsman, however.
 
avole said:
Why not ? I wouldn't say Arbus, whose photos admire, is known for her processing. Mind you, I wouldn't cross the road to see an Ansel Adams photo, I find them deeply uninteresting. Certainly a good craftsman, however.
Click to expand...

I was disagreeing with the sentiment that 'most of the iconic photos don't need any [darkroom work]' that you stated. I just don't think that's true. I'm ok with the idea that plenty of work has low processing, and i'd certainly put lots of the amazing cibachrome prints into that category. Getting B&W to look it's best and not somewhat drab is clever.
 
To be honest, that was always the case. You couldn't do any processing for slide film, and colour print was rarely processed at home, you accepted the lab choices, especially for large prints.

Also, often processing was to compensate for the limitations of the media - wasn't burn in etc done more to compensate for the film's limitations rather than (hopefully) incorrect exposure? All I do is correct the colour balance, and that's about it, but, then, I'm strictly an amateur taking holiday snaps.
 
avole said:
To be honest, that was always the case. You couldn't do any processing for slide film, and colour print was rarely processed at home, you accepted the lab choices, especially for large prints.

Also, often processing was to compensate for the limitations of the media - wasn't burn in etc done more to compensate for the film's limitations rather than (hopefully) incorrect exposure? All I do is correct the colour balance, and that's about it, but, then, I'm strictly an amateur taking holiday snaps.
Click to expand...

Why not post some photos?
 
drummerman said:
Why not post some photos?
Click to expand...
Kind of nothing to do with my argument, but there you go.


Isra_cannes_zpsc4zepzix.jpg
 
Mr Cat said:
not sure what you mean exactly..? :)
Click to expand...

A digital camera has a sensor that passes light information readings to a processor that converts it into a format that is displayable or printable. Somebody has made a choice about how that processing is done. How intense reds are. How much sharpening is applied. How much contrast.
 
avole said:
Kind of nothing to do with my argument, but there you go.


Isra_cannes_zpsc4zepzix.jpg
Click to expand...
that would definitely be enhanced by processing. Vignetting would avoid the superfluous distraction around the outside of the image, and help draw the viewer to the dog's eyes - the best part of the image.

for starters.
 
No, I don't agree. I'm into la photographie vérité. Let photos report the image as it was, not as it should be :)
 
avole said:
No, I don't agree. I'm into la photographie vérité. Let photos report the image as it was, not as it should be :)
Click to expand...

The thing is, the straight out of camera output is only one version of events. The camera doesn't see things exactly as the human eye sees it. For example, the dynamic range of a camera is limited compared to what the human eye can perceive. Lens distortion is also an issue as are focal lengths which are different to the human eye.

Where do you stand on things like correcting white balance and lens distortion? Do you draw the line on all post processing or only some of it? if so, what is in and what is out?

Lefty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top