Hi all, greetings from Cocos. I often lurk around landscape photographer's web sites, getting ideas, looking at the big picture in a different light and then wonder "what did the image look like straight out of the camera?". I struggle at times to obtain "that" look and that great dynamic range I see and drool over.

I had a discussion with a friend about a certain photographer's images. She argued that all his images were SOOC with only the use of a polarising filter, to which I disputed as impossible. Some form of processing had to have happened to achieve the end result. Our discussion ended in a stalement... well maybe me losing as one who processes images, so therefore in her mind I wasn't showcasing true photos. Several months later this certain photographer was advertising a workshop on "How to take this image to THIS"!!! It confirmed what I thought and in some ways gave me a confidence boost that perhaps what I have been doing wasn't so "wrong" after all.

So just how far should / would you go with post processing?? This image has been processed, firstly in lightroom and then in Photoshop using Topaz Adjust presets. The original image was rather bland in its RAW state, so to my mind I boosted it to be more asthetically pleasing - to me that is. After all, art is subjective.
I welcome your thoughts on how far to you push the post processing boundaries... Cheers & best "fishes" ~ Karen

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

Hi Karen,

If you are shooting in raw it is almost necessary to do some amount of post processing if you are either using a raw converter that is not able to read the camera settings or you have those camera settings all set to neutral. I guess you could do without it but I'm skeptical of anyone who claims that they don't. We all want our images presented in their optimal form, and an untouched raw file lacks contrast, saturation, tone, and probably has an incorrect or less than optimal white balance setting.

I don't follow any hard and fast rules when it comes to post processing limits. I do usually follow a prescribed path working in a certain flow in most cases. How far I want to take it depends on a few things, generally. My mood at the time - which helps me determine my interpretation, my previsualized concept of the scene, the application if any, and close examination of the image itself to ensure I am not pushing it so far that I am compromising the image quality through the introduction of artifacts. This last criterion is based mostly on whether I am planning on making a large print of the image. I play very close attention to this since excessive processing will lead to softness and exagerated artifacts when the image is blown up.

Ernesto Santos

esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Now offering fine art print services and ICC printer profiling.
Great service - at a great price!

This is a fairly easy one for me to answer. I process to whatever extent necessary to bring the image to my liking. My photos don't exist to serve as a technical documentary of the scene. They exist to provoke a response. Hopefully that response would be something along the lines of, "What a lovely scene, it must have been wonderful to be there", or "Seeing that photo really makes me want to visit there sometime". To that end, I will process a photo to bring it as close to my personal vision of the scene as the raw data and my processing skills and tools will allow. Hopefully, the end result will fall within the bounds of good taste and technical proficiency.

The beauty of digital photography is that it affords all of us the opportunity to exercise our creativity in post production in addition to the act of the capture itself. Few of us would have the desire or ability to be as involved in the post production process in the days of film. It just wasn't practical. The digital darkroom completely changed that, and for me it brought a whole new level of satisfaction derived from photography. In my opinion, post processing isn't something to be avoided or marginalized, it is something to be celebrated. Photograpghy is an art every bit as much as it is a science, indeed, probably more so.

Your example photo is just wonderful, by the way. It makes me want to be there.

Russ

Post processing is a necessary step in digital photography. You can't possibly get the most out of your images if you just present them straight out of the camera.

Larry
http://www.larryandersonphotography.com
http://www.andersonmasterbuilders.com

Hi Karen,

Unfortunately there is still quite a stigma around "manipulating" images such that many photographers (inlcuding some famous pros) will outright lie about the processing work they do. This is unfortunate as it creates a false impression of what's possible out of camera, and leaves some photographers feeling they're "just not that good". Also it creates a false value to taking images straight out of the camera, which is something about which I personally couldn't care less.

For me, I'm trying to capture optimum data & dynamic range out of the camera, which means: nailing composition, focus, and DOF; shooting raw with a relatively flat looking tone curve, and exposing to the right. With this approach, images will never look great out of the camera, but have the best chance of looking great once processed.

Ansel Adams developed the Zone System because his tone curve was locked in at the time he developed the negative. Therefore, he had to previsualize the required tone curve and adjust with the strength of developer and developing time. After this, he'd dodge & burn to tweak contrast. We're lucky to have tools which don't require this level of skill, but that doesn't mean that adjusting tone curves and local contrast is now "off limits" to fine art photography.

Anyway, this is a typical list of adjustments that I make to every image I process:
- capture sharpen
- color adjust (white balance/split toning for highlight & shadow)
- curve (contrast adjust)
- dodge & burn (local contrast adjust)
- creative sharpen

These are all adjustments that were done in the wet darkroom.

Additionally, often I will do this to overcome limitations in my equipment:
- blend exposures (to simulate GND filter or full HDR)
- stitch exposures (to simulate wider lens or higher resolution camera)
- noise reduction (if shooting at high ISO)

Personally I'm much more in favor of blending exposures using gradient masks instead of using GND filters in the field. First, because I'm often shooting into the sun when I want a GND, and any filter is an invitation for more flare. Also, a software gradient mask doesn't need to be chosen and positioned prefectly in the field, and it doesn't have to be a straight-line gradient. However, I get questions from people at shows about how I got a certain effect. They're on average much happier hearing something was done with a filter on the lens than with software later. Sometimes I think I should go back to GNDs so I can give the answer they're looking for.

Other than that... what Russ said. The puropse of photographic art (as opposed to photojournalism/documentary) is to evoke an emotional response. Limiting a grand scene to ink on paper is the original sin. Everything after that is just trying to recover some of the emotion.

Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Gentlemen, thank you for your above input to my question. I appreciate your comments regarding workflow and your general acceptance with post processing.

I can not fathom why with some photographers workflow/pp must be so secretive to the point where they point blank deny any processing whatsoever. I know I've felt very inadequate and doubted my ability to produce asthetically pleasing images. I agree with Russ: "they exist to provoke a response...."
Thank you once again for your comments. I'll continue to processing to my liking... and welcome any critique with my photography so I can continue to grow and hopefully contribute.
Cheers - Karen

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

Like the others have said, digital photography almost always involves some post processing some sort of processing as stated so well above, it involve invoking an emotional response. That said, I limit my post processing to enhancing the image and not manipulating it into something that you could see if you were there. I think of Lightroom rather than Photoshop. One of my most significant manipulations is when I used PS to remove a telephone wire that ran outside the door near the top. Other than that I simply use LR to bring out the best of the photo. Like I said, I feel a person should be able to go to the site and see what I saw.

Nikonians is the Smithsonian of Nikon knowledge. If there is a question they can't answer, I want to see the question.

My Gallery: www.HLDPhotos.com
My Blog : www.HLDPhotos.blogspot.com

>Like the others have said, digital photography almost always
>involves some post processing some sort of processing

Removed the words "digital" and "almost" and I agree.


Larry - a Bay Area Nikonian
My Nikonians gallery

www.tempered-light.com

Hi Karen,
Don't worry, in the old days, (and I'm unfortunately old enough), we even manipulated process even to alter the reversal film, and then again with prints

Beauty is in the eye of beholder they say, if you get the "wow!", who cares how you did it, it is still "art" IMHO

The only thing that gets over done is HDR and some look downright ugly, even to the "visually challenged"

Over saturation is also not popular among photogs but, as you would know in your neck of the woods, a bit of a tweek can make an image "pop"

Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Karen, "straight out of the camera" means the image was processed in camera using the settings that the camera operator invoked — color mode, contrast, brightness, hue, saturation, and sharpening. That's post processing, just instantaneous with the capture and, of course, not as good as can be done later on a computer with human input adjusting those parameters.

Even in the old days of film there was PP. If you took the negative to three different photofinishers you almost always got back three different-looking prints.

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

Karen:

I am probably what would be called a Post Processing Minimalist. I try and get as much as possible "correct" in the camera: white balance, exposure, aperture, ISO, shutter, etc. I am keenly aware that once I leave the scene, all memory of color temperature, lighting, highlight/shadow detail, etc., will vanish into the ethers. This leaves me with as little as possible to do in post processing, which typically iincludes: A look at White and Black points in Levels, Shadow/Highlight adjustment, Contrast in the Curves tool, Cropping if necessary, and a bit of UnSharp Mask if appropriate. I may apply all these tools to some images, and only portions of them to others.

My goal is to "capture" images, not "create" them.


Regards,

HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian Team Member

Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.

As another person who started in the wet photography era I am firmly in the 'no such thing as no post processing' camp. I agree with #9 that getting things right in the camera is always the way to try to go, but for me that is only the first stage. Very few of us are taking criminal evidence pictures which are more in the nature of evidential maps. For the rest of us post processing can allow errors from our own technique or the camera's design limits to be removed. I completely agree with those who speak of the emotional response we obtain from a scene we have observed, visualised, and then captured. Dodging, burning, colour correction and a range of other tricks were part of the 'wet' darkroom arsenal for years, but for most they were tricks hidden in a black box called, the darkroom. Now we have another sealed unit the computer which is our developer, our enlarger, in fact our processing lab all in one. Frankly, though the modern cameras are wonderfully competent they do not have my eyes and feelings, they do not understand what I felt so if the camera and my technique fail to deliver the sought after result that I can achieve with some additional help, I am happy to go into darkroom mode. However, I do not miss the darkness, the smells, the chemical management issues, the slightly unpredictable colour meters, the 'other issues' or the cost of the old ways.
On a slight side issue, does anyone else hate the way that old photographs are often not retouched to remove obvious signs of 'post processing' damage when they are shown on TV? A few moments removing scratches, breaks, hairs on the lost lost soul's face would save me the disappointment of NOT seeing the picture of the person as they were and the photographer wanted them to be.
Or was I wrong to retouch pictures of an 80 year old when he was a small child to help him remember the sights of his childhood?
PS as usual I like your picture at the start of this topic Karen. Currently I am sat listening to wet howling winds and lashing rain, so envy your views.
Richard

Karen, you answered you own question.

This question was asked in another forum, and I weighed in there as well. You adjust as far as you, as the creator, feel you need to go. You will never satisfy everyone, so you have to satisfy yourself. If you have a client who wants a certain look, then give him what he's paying for.

At first I thought to suggest that there were certain "technical" issues that would always need adjustment, i.e. exposure, white balance, distortion correction and focus for instance. But we routinely dodge and burn areas of an image, adjust white balance for different renderings, we have fisheye lenses that produce distortion. The subjects of some really great images are squarely in the center of the frame, and focus is often intentionally skewed if the creator feels that is what he/she wants. There is no "right" and "wrong".

Many times someone will post something in these forums and ask "what do you think of this" or "does this work"? I want to reply "well....what do YOU think of it" or "does it work for YOU'? After all, it's their work and their vision, and I really don't know if any suggestion I make would be in line with their vision. But I fall into the trap and make suggestions anyway......but now it's my vision, not their's.
I'll stop now! Just some thoughts.

-August

BTW.....anyone whose images have been selected for a country's postage system really need not question their technical ability nor vision . I'm just saying........

De l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!

Your image is excellent and your inquiry very important for all of us. We all need to make a choice on the direction we go with our art and craft. I see many who go over the top (shall I say) with post processing.

Indeed, I have even been experimenting some as I try to learn the various post processing tools and I agree that some post processing is required, however the photographer should capture as much as possible with the knowledge of how to use his or her camera. Then use post processing software as a supplemental tool to adjust for what the scenes lighting, camera settings and sensor couldn't quite do.

While I continue to work with learning ways to use Photoshop CS5 and Nik Software to create effects to see what the possibilities are, philosophically I am with those who are minimalists by using Lightroom, Aperture, or Capture NK2 and then only resorting to full Photoshop or Elements to clean up an image that needs help. I definitely draw the line at putting stuff in an image or taking it out unless, the image becomes distracting or totally fails without some minor efforts at cloning and healing.

I belong to camera clubs and the Photographic Society of America (PSA). There I see many who go far into the manipulation mode almost exclusively--they are masters of all the possibilities with photoshop (combining, added, taking away, etc., etc.). The results are unbelievable at times. While the results may be interesting and even fun to see, I question if it is photography since they are more into creating an image after the fact and less about capturing a subject and composing with the camera creatively.

At the end of the day, I am more in the camp of what HBB has said in this thread, "My goal is to "capture" images, not "create" them." I just might need to adjust and clean up for it to be a great capture.

Great topic for endless discussion and debate.

John

jdroach, a Milwaukee area and sometimes Chicago area Nikonian.





Visit my Nikonians Blog

Visit my Nikonian gallery

jdroachphotography.com

Good evening Karen from Black Forest,
I would like to answer your question to that extend.
- Some are lucky to live and work in an outstanding landscape which does it make easy to catch great impressions
- Some can operate Photoshop excellent and tweak all sliders to max result do deliver an impression

Me to my person believe that it should be the motivation of a photographer to mostly meet the EV range of his eyes when he saw the scene live.
Anything beyond that is to my understanding some kind of art.

Dietrich - Nikonians in Germany
Greetings from northern Black Forest
Our world of Panoramic Pictures

Some great answers here. My answer is pretty simple, if someone says this or that image is right out of the camera, then I will usually say, so you mean it is not finished yet. Whether digital or film, the answer is the same.

.
.


Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

I think "how far do you go" is a topic that can get really deep, really fast.

Strictly speaking, it is not really possible to "replicate a scene objectively" with your camera, because a camera and your eyes/brain record and interpret visual information in very different ways. All shots with blurry or flowing water are off the table, because your eye doesn't really have a defined "shutter speed". A similar argument could be made of focus, even aperture. If I'm tripped out on acid I bet I perceive a scene quite differently than you would. What consideration do we need to give to the "post processing" our brain does to our own vision? So people who claim they take photos to objectively replicate human vision are starting from a somewhat flawed premise.

I don't think any serious photographer can legitimately argue that he/she does not do any processing to their shots. Even out-of-the-camera JPEGs are "processed" by the in-camera settings. As others here have mentioned processing is necessary for developing RAW shots, and those who argue that old school film photographers always "got it right in-camera" and that "digital processing is cheating" have no clue what they're saying.

Where I think it really gets into gray area is the compositing and cloning of image content. I think amongst serious landscapers there is a certain amount of "responsible retouching" that is commonly done- cloning out a power line or power pole for example. Or an errant blade of grass. But when you start making more pronounced modifications to your shots- it's hard to say what is or should be "acceptable". For example in your picture, cloning out the large rock that is cut off on the right border of the picture. Where do you draw the line?

You can quickly tread into muddy waters here. Don't like the sky? Put a different one in. Want that moon to be bigger? Paste a separate moon shot in. As a work of creative art I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this, even for landscape photography. However, I do think the ethical approach is to disclose any and all significant alterations you performed. And if you do not want to "dilute" the impact of your masterpiece with a footnote, then there is the impetus you need to try to adjust your composition so that such annotations are not needed.

There is at least one very well known and very successful landscape photographer who is known to "exaggerate" or "obfuscate" his photo descriptions, suggesting what is shown in his prints is what he saw through the camera viewfinder- when in some cases it is clearly impossible for him to have done so. The question then becomes, does it not matter because his customers buy his prints because they look good, or do they buy them because the look good and that they (sometimes mistakenly) believe that these are actual scenes from nature?

Myself I used to be very sparing with my post processing, but as time goes on I have started to do more and more, as I strive to represent a certain "impression" or "feeling" I want to convey with a particular scene, rather than stick with objective representation. But while I have become more bold with the sliders in lightroom, I have been very careful to minimize the amount of cloning I do. I have never composited major elements of a scene together (HDR exposure blending is a bit of a special case, as it is the same scene, just with different exposures), nor made significant alterations to the image content other than minor removal of tree branches or similar.

But from here you can really jump in to the deep end. In the field, do you physically walk through your scene and pick up/move sticks or rocks that would otherwise "dirty" your composition? Bend away branches or leaves? Is it more ethical to move rocks in the real world as opposed to clone them out digitally, where at least you do no potential damage to the environment? Moving that driftwood a few feet to the left or right to line it up better with something else?

Is "preparing" your scene wrong only ethically where you are no longer representing the scene "as you found it" or possibly even worse, artificially interfering with the "natural" environment which you are trying to capture? Does some visual "clutter" in your scene detract from the image, and is this okay, or should visual perfection come before objectivity? After all, we are ultimately creating art here are we not?

As I said, really deep, really fast

Norman

Some of my pictures

Hi Karen,

Curiously, nobody ask such questions about landscape paintings. You can increase lighting, contrast, saturation, add or remove people, trees, change the shape of the barn, etc. And everybody will say you're a great artist.

Why is it different for photos?

Yvan
Quebec Nikonian
http://yvanbedardphotonature.com

Once again, gentlemen,,, thank you for your comments. All very interesting and I love reading other photographers views and experiences on subjects like these. What is refreshing being part of the Nikonian community is that you can ask these types of questions and be guaranteed with wonderful, helpful responses. Keep them coming please.....

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

Hi Karen,

Consider the following:

Pre-visualization in Photography encompasses all of the thoughts, aspirations, and activities that take place prior to the photographer, or “picture maker” triggering the shutter release on a camera.

Re-Visualization in Photography encompasses all of the thoughts, aspirations, and activities that take place after the photographer or “picture maker” triggers the shutter release on the camera.

Through a better understanding of how we “see” and visualize our surroundings, we can begin to realize how difficult, if not impossible, it is to recreate the “apparent reality” that our brains convey to us when compared to viewing a 2 dimensional image.

Whether you want to attempt to “document” what you think you saw or wish to “interpret” what you think you saw, photography allows you the freedom and joy of exploring and discovering the endless opportunities for portraying the environment around us.

Karen … I have been admiring and enjoying your images for some time now. It would great to meet some day. I teach photography of Urban Environments along with the people that inhabit them. As an Architect and Urban Designer, I have spent most of my life designing structures and spaces for people. After studying how people perceive the world around them (admittedly above water), I encourage my students to take advantage of the wonders of digital imaging and that there is no such thing as “over processing.” Having said that, I would suggest that after re-visualizing your images, wait a few days and re evaluate them. This often results in a “dialing back” of one’s initial interpretation of any given scene.

Rick Hulbert
Vancouver, Canada
http://www.rickhulbertphotography.com

Member, Nikonians Academy Faculty
http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/viewFacultyPage.html?page_id=8

Hi Rick,,, thanks so much for your input. It's been an interesting thread and I'm glad I started it I also would like to thank you for your very positive comments regarding my photography... actually a HUGE thank you.
Your last sentence makes a lot of sense and I will take that onboard. By the way... Thanks to Hal (HBB) I will be visiting Phoenix end of November for two weeks. So if you are planning a trip to Phoenix around that time, please contact Hal as he (and his lovely wife) are my tour directors,,,, organising my two weeks in the USA

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

>"What is refreshing
>being part of the Nikonian community is that you can ask these
>types of questions and be guaranteed with wonderful, helpful
>responses. .."

That's what my wife likes about this group. I asked a question in a different section and she really admired the way people helped with their answers and didn't "put you down" or criticize you. She was truly impressed with Nikonians. I agree with her and my thought are in my signature and what I tell everybody (See below)

Nikonians is the Smithsonian of Nikon knowledge. If there is a question they can't answer, I want to see the question.

My Gallery: www.HLDPhotos.com
My Blog : www.HLDPhotos.blogspot.com

Hear, Hear!!!!

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

Well, maybe I can simplify this a bit. Ask yourself about the image you just captured. Is it photojournalism or artistic?

If it is the former then keep it as close to the original as possible with a little PP to just correct obvious defects.

If it is artistic, then express yourself. Just let your vision guide you and use all the PP skills and tricks you have to achieve that goal.

Now I realize there are always exceptions to the rules and as an artist of light you should not limit yourself. It's really all up to you. I just think it helps to have a few guidelines to go by.

I personally am not much at PP. I am trying to find who I am as a photographer, but my leaning is toward portraiture, with a bit of landscape interest, and maybe a little abstract. I know I need to learn PP and I plan to educate myself.

That's the beauty of digital. You have full control from start to finish and its all up to you.

George

George,

This is nicely said.

jdroach, a Milwaukee area and sometimes Chicago area Nikonian.





Visit my Nikonians Blog

Visit my Nikonian gallery

jdroachphotography.com

Karen,
I'm relatively new to photography (about 6 years, landscape photography in particular (about 4 years, 2 with Nikon gear)and this is a question that I struggled with at first. For me the experience itself-how I felt at that particular time, the reason I wanted to capture that moment, is as important as getting the shot. In other words I want to look at the photo and feel the way I felt when I took it. Since I'm still learning I feel the post processing helps me to do that.Sometimes no matter what I do I can't reproduce that feeling. I use those times to help me learn. Sometimes I feel that I nail it with minimal pp only to post and get lackluster response ("View From Skyline Drive" in this forum for example). The point that I'm trying to make is even though I'd like to reproduce that feeling right out of the camera, most time pp is necessary. How far you go is up to the photographer. Subjectivity is one thing I love about photography.

As Dewitt Jones so eloquently put it in an article I read recently-"...the photograph isn't an end in itself, but the residue (beautiful residue, to be sure) of my connection with the scene before me."

Thanks for asking this question. Reading the responses has been very stimulating. Your picture is beautiful by the way.

Scottie

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

This is an excellent and very contemporary question for photographers, I think Karen.
For what it's worth, a couple of things strike me about this issue.

As a couple of people have mentioned, good technique is paramount. There are people here at Nikonians who invest so much time in getting the basics taken care of - who learn as much about their camera and what it can do as they can, and it shows in their work.

Their work is invariably of a very high technical standard, and although they apply very skillful and subtle PP to bring out the best in their work, it isn't overstated. I think the best PP is PP you don't notice. I mean we all have to use it, we know it's there in the work, but I like the PP that doesn't smack you in the face.

In saying that, there are obviously Pros (and I can think of several really prominent ones in Australia) who sort of unashamedly use PP to really dramatize their work - their work is distinctly DIGITAL Photography (Peter Eastaway and Christian Fletcher come to mind). I quite like Kah Kit Yoong's (Melbourne) approach to PP - I find it a good balance for the most part. I guess at the end of the day you just find a niche you feel comfortable in.

For my taste, I find the image you posted has just been pushed a little too far. It's a good image that doesn't need to be dressed up quite that much.

Scott
My Nikonians Gallery

My Website

>I welcome your thoughts on how far to you push the post
>processing boundaries... Cheers & best "fishes"
>~ Karen
>
>
>

Karen, this is so far down the thread that perhaps it has already been said and not even be read, but to me, the boundry stops at the point where an image ceases to look like a photograph and starts to look like computer graphics.

Computer graphics are nice eye candy but I've found that an image that conveys unnatural colors in a landscape or is hyper processed with excessively busy detail becomes tiring to "live" with after a while.

Hope this adds something,

Kent in VA

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous

My view is that unless you're doing forensics or are a photojournalist, how much you do is up to your personal vision. There is no right or wrong, and most importantly, you're not going to appeal to everyone no matter what you do. I think this is good in that, if I were trying to appeal to everyone, it would mean I was making too many compromises to my own vision.

What is clear is that EVERY image is manipulated to an extent, even SOOC images could be manipulated by adjusted exposure and use of filters. With digital photography, an image only is realized to its fullest potential with some judicious post-processing. It's part of the deal. Again, to the extent that you use each step or tool is up to your personal artistic vision.

The only caveat with the SOOC images is that I do try to duplicate my pre-visualized or desire for the image as much as I can with the camera--if only to make things easier when I get to post-processing. I believe that you can tweak and improve an image to get it the way you want. I don't believe you can "save" or "create" a good image if you mess it up when capturing it--at least most of the time.

When I do come across someone boasting that their image was straight out of the camera with no post-processing, my first thought or response is, why? Why would you present an unfinished image.

Dan L.
http://www.danlarussophotography.com/

Hi Karen.

A very striking image, I'd hang it!

No one would confuse it with a snapshot.

The amount of processing applied seems to me to be just enough to give it that 'painterly' quality, making it art.

In general, I'd have to say that the proper amount of processing is the amount that pleases you.

JIM

Hi Karen!

What a thought provoking question!

A photograph or any other image exists to convey information into the understanding of a viewer. It is a representation of an object, a scene, a natural or generated pattern, or, a thought. It may be a combination of any of these. As created it is product of the mind of the creator intending to communicate with the mind of the viewer. So in principle I believe there is no wrong or right end effect to be achieved. Some images work better than others, and some to one viewer are great, but to others distasteful. The viewer is part of the equation.

I started photography back in the ‘pure’ days. But actually they were not! As a histologist the process of manipulation to achieve the ultimate picture started with the harvesting of the tissue samples. Every stage in fixing embedding, cutting, mounting and staining of the tissue had been optimised over a hundred years to ‘look right’. Every stage could be altered to alter the final image. Then in the microscope the viewing and then the photography was continuously manipulated. Cameras are such simple things in comparison! Then there was film choice, processing choice, printing choices etc. We left nothing to chance, every variable was varied.

But what determined the success of a photomicrograph?

1 It had to show what was intended,
2 It had to engage the viewer so that they looked at it long enough to ‘see’ it,
3 It had to engender the right mood in the viewer so that they accepted the message,
4 To achieve the above it had to be aesthetically pleasing to the viewer, even if of a difficult or disturbing subject,
5 It had to be true and not misleading – but who would be able to judge that except the creator or a specialist with similar knowledge!

To me there was an immense difference between an image that only fulfilled 1 & 5 and one that fulfilled 1 – 5. If a student enjoys looking at a picture they will learn more from it than from one they skip over. If a picture is orientated correctly, and cropped appropriately, with the right tonal range, it can be so much more than the initial image out of the microscope whether light or electron. If the final picture does not have a ‘right way up’ it can be quite disturbing.

So what does this mean when I look at landscape pictures? Perspective, distortion, cropping, and tonal range are important, but in viewing landscape pictures I also have colour and contrast expectations built in from life experiences. Everybody will have expectations about landscapes, while about micrographs only experts have any expectations. However ‘everybody’ will be wrong if their temperate European surroundings are used to judge tropical island pictures. How can someone who has never been out of the tropics appreciate Antarctic blizzard pictures, and know if they are ‘right’?

My conclusion is that regarding picture production every form of processing that does not falsify the image is acceptable for the creator of the image to use in order to produce the desired response in the viewer. They may get it wrong, that is their right. Can they ever go too far? YES! If I feel it was painted in acrylics I am revolted, if is not a painting in acrylics!


Roderick

As a PS:

We mainly try to produce beautiful pictures like yours at the start of this thread. However some environments are harsh and unpleasant, and should send a shiver down the spine when images of them are viewed. The reaction should be ‘that is a dreadful place’. I would like to see a monthly competition with such a title! Would there be any entries from Nikonians? How would it be interpreted?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Excellent Points, Roderick!

Your post is just as thought provoking as Karen's original question.

Rick Hulbert
Vancouver, Canada
http://www.rickhulbertphotography.com

Member, Nikonians Academy Faculty
http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/viewFacultyPage.html?page_id=8

Thank you one and all for your input to my question. Never did I think it would gain as much interest as it has and I am thoroughly enjoying your thoughts... many are provoking in more ways than one. Hopefully some of our newer members who have just started out will be reading and learning and realise that pp is acceptable.

I consider my photography as my form of art. I can't draw for nuts, I'm not very proficient at writing gushing stories about where I live (wish I could....). I do my best to show the islands as I see them and hopefully they entice more tourists to Cocos. It is lovely to hear visitors saying "I saw that... just like in your book".
Thanks again everyone... Love the comments

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

Karen,

this image is great, as are all of what you post here. For me, every RAW file is subject to some level of post processing so that I render the scene to the viewer to be AS ACCURATELY AS MY BRAIN RECORDED IT at the time. That is it.. no rules, just one image at a time, and what it needs to make that rendering. Usually it is as most have stated, capture sharpening, WB adj, a curve, and some selective dodging and burning.

RB

Best Regards,
Rob

http://www.robbohningphotography.com
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. -- Psalm 19:1

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Rob for your input into this growing thread. It is interesting reading everyone's comments, suggestions etc etc...

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

>I welcome your thoughts on how far to you push the post
>processing boundaries...

Hello Karen,

Generally I prefer finished photographs to be close to what was visible to the naked eye at the time of capture. This requires post-processing. At times it is easily justifiable to enhance relevant aspects of the image to reinforce special attributes of the scene as seen (e.g., the warmth, the fog, the high contrast, the subtle tones, the grittiness, etc.). Post processing starts before image capture through visualization in the mind of how the medium (film or digital) will represent the scene. Film selection, dodging, burning, contrast masking, etc. all performed in the darkroom were the precursors to what we do in digital today.

Peter

Hi Peter,,, great information on your take to this thread. Thanks for joining in and contributing

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

OK---my 2 cents worth.

You are the artist, you are creating the image to express what you feel, saw experience or want to convey. As long as it doesn't look "overprocessed" and you are happy with the result----you did it right.

Larry

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Larry for your input. Once again we come back to "it's subjective" and as long as you are happy with it, nothing else matters. I agree. Funny though, over the past couple of weeks, I've been experimenting more with post processing just to see what people's opinions are (not on Nikonians). I'm amazed what I consider slightly over the top have gained the most positive comments! I suppose the images are considered more "art" than a mere photograph. It's all a learning curve!

Best Fishes ~ Karen <*((---{

Waving the flag for Nikonians on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and learning every day.

Karens Cocos Reflections gallery

... we come back to
>"it's subjective" and as long as you are happy with
>it, nothing else matters. I'm amazed what I consider slightly over the top
>have gained the most positive comments! I suppose the images
>are considered more "art" than a mere photograph.

Hi again Karen,

You wil find that amateur and non-photographers along with artistically inclined "right brained" folks will appreciate a non-traditional looking image.
If I may, let me suggest that you try processing or "re-visualizing" your RAW images in multiple fashions.

1. Try to duplicate what you think you saw (or what your brain interpreted to you). This is not easy to do, especially if you realize that human vision and the camera/lens combination doesn't capture light in the same way. Added to this is the fact that we all see and interpret the environment slightly differently from one another.
2. Re-Visualize your images to what you think is "slightly over the top" as you say.
3. Go for the gusto and try some "outrageous" interpretations that have do not pretend to look natural. This could include Black and White Tonal Interpretations, HDR Contrast Interpretations and modified Color Interpretations such as Infrared Imaging among others.

As you explore directions out of your comfort zone, you will begin to gain confidence as to "just how far you can go ..." In the final analysis, the choice is totally yours. Believe me, the history of "art" and "documentation" in photography is based on individual photographers doing what they felt was personally satisfying . . . not as much what they thought others would like or appreciate.

Regards,

Rick Hulbert
Vancouver, Canada
http://www.rickhulbertphotography.com

Member, Nikonians Academy Faculty
http://www.nikoniansacademy.com/viewFacultyPage.html?page_id=8