Taking the photo vs creating the photo

[autofocus]

I'm sure many will say that the creation of the photo occurs at the time the shutter clicks. Being that I'm the chief post processor and bottle washer in our business, I often see that there are many potential photos lurking within the image in the form of new crops and other artistic edits. With the various post processing techniques available to us in post processing is it these creations that actually become more important than the original. (of course, the original still needs to meet the basic requirements of a well crafted photo) I'm sure many of the purists will disagree, but I have found that it is the creations that sells. I guess it's like the sizzle on the steak Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by autofocus

I'm sure many will say that the creation of the photo occurs at the time the shutter clicks. Being that I'm the chief post processor and bottle washer in our business, I often see that there are many potential photos lurking within the image in the form of new crops and other artistic edits. With the various post processing techniques available to us in post processing is it these creations that actually become more important than the original. (of course, the original still needs to meet the basic requirements of a well crafted photo) I'm sure many of the purists will disagree, but I have found that it is the creations that sells. I guess it's like the sizzle on the steak Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I think you sort of put the important bit at the bottom there. It must be good straight out of the camera, otherwise you're just using post-processing to rescue it.

As far as my techniques personally, in no particular order:
-saturation
-vignettes (carefully applied!)
-cropping (the crop has to add something)
-dodging/burning (to place emphasis on something)
-graduated neutral density effect
-color shift/creative white balance

I don't usually do anything beyond that. For me, the more "digital" techniques get more into Photoshop art based on a photograph than what I do.

[digirebelva]

Are you" taking a photo" that already exists and is just waiting to be captured or are you "creating" a image by using lights, props, posing etc...many things exist without needing our input, they just need someone to come along with the right eye and take the photo.
Look at advertising or modeling images for example, they "create" an image that didnt already exist and probably never would in a natural sense and not necessarily just by using PP'ing.

[zona5101]

I think that although the image is created at the click of the shutter, the tweaks, adjustments and other post processes are as much of a part of the final image as what came out of the camera. It is a finished product we share, print, or market.
I must be hungry 'cause my analogy is a decorated cake...sure the cake comes out of the oven but not until it gets the filling, frosting and decorations is it done. And we all have had cakes where the frosting sucks or others where the frosting was the best part

[autofocus]

Thanks Jamie, I'm kind of sorry now that I didn't make this a poll question. Is the post processed image the real creation? I am discounting the normal minor tweaks that are done to most photos. I can often easily see, and sometimes make, 4, 5, or more images made from the base image...various crops, B/W's, toned, filters, textures, actions, etc. And although they all start off with the base image they tend to take on a new life of their own.

[Jim Bryant]

Curves,
Color Saturation,
Sharpening.
Less is better!

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by digirebelva

Are you" taking a photo" that already exists and is just waiting to be captured or are you "creating" a image by using lights, props, posing etc...many things exist without needing our input, they just need someone to come along with the right eye and take the photo.
Look at advertising or modeling images for example, they "create" an image that didnt already exist and probably never would in a natural sense and not necessarily just by using PP'ing.

I'm really talking about how using various techniques in the digital darkroom allows us to expand on the original..it's like what Bruce stated above, is the finished product what starts off in the camera, or is it more what you do to that image that really makes the creation.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Thanks Jamie, I'm kind of sorry now that I didn't make this a poll question. Is the post processed image the real creation? I am discounting the normal minor tweaks that are done to most photos. I can often easily see, and sometimes make, 4, 5, or more images made from the base image...various crops, B/W's, toned, filters, textures, actions, etc. And although they all start off with the base image they tend to take on a new life of their own.

I don't have a problem with croposition if it is not used all the time. I play around all the time with different crops and orientation because I see something a little extra in the base image that I did not notice before hand. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I can't crop too much at the moment because neither of my cameras have the resolution to support it. That may have been a blessing in disguise, because I am forced to think more about what I want, or do not want in the shot. I am trying more lately to think of the end product I want, and work my way backward to the begining. If it involves heavy pp, or any other manipulation, then so be it.
I hope I didn't dance around your question too much, but I think vision matters more than any of it. If the means justifies the end, then all is well and good, as far as I am concerned.

[Niresangwa]

Originally Posted by autofocus

I'm sure many will say that the creation of the photo occurs at the time the shutter clicks. Being that I'm the chief post processor and bottle washer in our business, I often see that there are many potential photos lurking within the image in the form of new crops and other artistic edits. With the various post processing techniques available to us in post processing is it these creations that actually become more important than the original. (of course, the original still needs to meet the basic requirements of a well crafted photo) I'm sure many of the purists will disagree, but I have found that it is the creations that sells. I guess it's like the sizzle on the steak Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I think that there are only a couple of ways a photographer can really stand out, given the size of the crowd (read: people with decent cameras) these days.

Equipment - primarily lenses and lighting equipment. Some shots are just absolutely impossible without the pre-requisite equipment to create what you're trying to achieve.

Post Processing - this speaks to your post; without the facility and expertise, you're at a wall in terms of what you can do, regardless of the equipment you have or how strongly you can bring the third point below to bear. The technical strength of the image SOOC simply determines the latitude you have. I don't subscribe to "rescuing" an image being a bad thing. Technically bad images happen, it's just part of things, but with ingenuity and skill in PP, you can make something genuinely great. What many people would write-off as technical shortfalls can end up being the strongest element of the final image. In my case I've incorporated those 'shortfalls' as a part of my style.

Inherent Vision - This speaks to identifying potential in a shot and isolating elements to promote, and also having the vision to frame and compose not only when taking the picture, but also in PP. I think it can be developed over time or with practice, but only within a certain range. It seems to me that some people have this innate talent, and others don't.

When I look through the critique forums here, I think the above three things are usually where the lines are drawn. To a certain extent it's going to be a deal breaker for the majority of people, and it represents a ceiling of sorts.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Curves,
Color Saturation,
Sharpening.
Less is better!

Thanks Jim. Maybe this subject needs to be refined somewhat. I think in doing photo journalistic and sports photography you may be less inclined to do this. In life style photography, which is more our business focus, there may be more of a place for doing this. It may also find some degree of usage in fine art and landscape photography. But there still is something to be said about the work expressed by the minimalists.