When do you finally say a photo is done?

[ArmySoldier777]

Hello everyone,

This is something I've been wondering a lot about lately. This question applies mostly to those who do a lot of post processing with their images. I'm not talking about major effects, just little tweaks to help bring out the image that you really want.

I find myself calling an image finished, just to look back over it a few days later, or even months later, and find little things that I think could be better. Maybe I've learned a new technique since then that I think could help the image, or "and here's the big one" I download a new photoshop plugin that does amazing things that I wanted to accomplish in the first place, so I go back through almost all of my images to apply it.

Today, for example. I downloaded Topaz DeNoise, which in the tests I've done, completely blows every other noise reduction software out of the water that I've used, including Noise Ninja and Noiseware Pro. So after testing it, I went back through and ended up editing a TON of old photos.

So when do YOU call it quits and leave the image as it is? Because I tend to have problems allowing myself to do so lol.


I look forward to hearing from you all,
David

[scootermcq]

I find it hard to change when it is hanging on my wall behind glass. At that point, I have to call it finished.

[Rentham]

Depends on the type of shot. For an event or something that produces a lot of deliverables, the image is done after my standard raw adjustments. For an image that involves a lot of post work, like a beauty retouch, I usually take it to the point where I think it's almost finished and call it quits. Anything beyond that is where I end us chasing my own tail and fixating on inconsequential details at the pixel level.

[ArmySoldier777]

Rentham,

That's where I find myself. Fixating on the tiny little details that nobody viewing the photo would notice anyway. But yet, I still do it lol.

David

[RichardTaylor]

When it is published.
It is extreemly rare that I will revisit a picture.

The other thing is that if you do shoot a lot you will find you do not have a lot of time to spend on just one photograph.

[ravncat]

I'll revisit photographs and reprint them as both my techniques and skill get better, or as I feel an older image should be done in a different mood. I`ll also revisit images before I print them, if I have a reason to print them again.

This is especially true of things I shot in RAW - as the raw converters get better and gain new abilities and better algorithms, it's interesting to see what can be done with the newer software. As for how often I revisit photographs? It's really mostly a whim, I don't do it so often, some I never touch again others I revisit regularly.

How do I know when I am done? When I feel satisfied with the print/edit. I feel satisfied when I don't have any nagging - gee, I should make that darker or maybe a little more contrast would do. I often make global choices by starting with too much, and backing off the effect until I like it. (If in photo-shop, the edit - fade command is imperative to me, when in light-room - I just put the slider up higher than I think I need and visually back the effect off). It helps to keep notes - to make sure you don't go in circles (especially with color correction when making test prints)

Ansel Adams is my inspiration in this, he too would revisit or reprint images, and often do them differently at later points in his life. I think very much that he was absolutely correct when he said the film is the score and the print the performance.

[JFSanders]

ravncat brought up Ansel Adams and he is the best example of a photographer that put more emphasis on the print than the negative. To be sure he used his zone technique to bring out details that may or may not have remained in his prints. Mr. Adams printed (actually his assistant did the printing to the requirements of Mr. Adams. And in truth much of what we attribute to Ansel Adams was a collaboration not a work of one man) many, many working prints before he arrived at a final published work. Today most people think of post processing as a kind of cheating. This myth stems from the fact that most people have never worked in film to the extent that people like Mr. Adams or Mr. Weston did. If they had they would see programs such as LR3, CSE5, CaptureNX2 and others as digital darkroom tools in the same vein as developer chemicals, masks, enlargers etc.

I revisit some photographs that I have printed owing mostly to having acquired new technology or hardware such as printers with larger color gamuts and better printing software. For most photographs I don't revisit as I think it speaks to the time the photograph was made such as in the look of 50's photographs and 70's photographs. To me that "look" is part of the image.

Jim

[ArmySoldier777]

Ravncat,

Maybe without intending to, you just gave me a great tip. I almost always make minute changes that I later go back and change over again. But after reading what you said about going too far with an effect, and then backing off until it's what you want, I was able to really improve a few images that I've been tweaking around with for awhile now.


JFSanders,

Thank you for your opinion on Post Processing. I agree that it isn't cheating as a lot of people say it is. And that if they'd ever really gotten into film photography, they would know that as well. I also appreciate seeing your thoughts on not revisiting photographs as you think it "speaks to the time the photograph was made." I never really thought about it like that before.

I really enjoy seeing other people's outlooks on this subject. And I can see that it's one that brings about a lot of different opinions.


David

[Tito87]

Originally Posted by ArmySoldier777

Hello everyone,

This is something I've been wondering a lot about lately. This question applies mostly to those who do a lot of post processing with their images. I'm not talking about major effects, just little tweaks to help bring out the image that you really want.

I find myself calling an image finished, just to look back over it a few days later, or even months later, and find little things that I think could be better. Maybe I've learned a new technique since then that I think could help the image, or "and here's the big one" I download a new photoshop plugin that does amazing things that I wanted to accomplish in the first place, so I go back through almost all of my images to apply it.

Today, for example. I downloaded Topaz DeNoise, which in the tests I've done, completely blows every other noise reduction software out of the water that I've used, including Noise Ninja and Noiseware Pro. So after testing it, I went back through and ended up editing a TON of old photos.

So when do YOU call it quits and leave the image as it is? Because I tend to have problems allowing myself to do so lol.


I look forward to hearing from you all,
David

When you like the photograph.

[Izzy]

Once one goes to print I stop looking at it for any reason other than printing. At that point I only care that the print meets my vision and what I saw on screen. I used to do exactly what you are describing. It was sheer workload in doing weddings that forced me to find a spot in which it was "done".

Now when I see a minor error (that only I see) it is already in print and has been framed. Oh well I learn from them.