To Frame or Not to Frame......

[gmikulin]

I've just started sharing my pictures, started a flickr account, and I'm struggling with what I should do with the photo's I'd like to share. So my question is, do you prefer looking at pictures that are framed (like it would look hanging on your wall) or frame-less as it would look just imported from your camera? I also just realized that my brother won't post any of his photo's until he spends anywhere from 1/2 hour to 3 hours post editing them with software. And here I thought I was just that bad of a picture taker, because his photo's looked so much better than anything I could ever do. Is that the norm? Do most of you post edit or post raw?

[mshockley]

Hello there. Personally I do enjoy seeing pictures in flickr that someone has taken the time to frame with a simple black or white "frame". Not to say it's something that has to be done, but I kind of feel to each their own. There are many images in my flickr that are framed and many that aren't. For me it just depends on what I want to do that day!

As for post editing, you will find you've opened a big can of worms with that question as we have had many long discussions here about that topic! I hate to even start the darn thing again, but here goes.......

Yes, I firmly believe in post-editing. RAW files ALL need to be processed to some degree. I have also stated in other threads that I am as much an artist as I am photographer, and I really do enjoy learning new processing techniques.

[APhotoSchool]

Personally, I think the frames are nice and everything, but definitely not necessary. However, anything that makes your work stand out from everyone else's is always good!

I edit almost all my images before posting. I don't think all images need hours of work, some may only need slight quick adjustments and sharpening in lightroom. But when I have time, I like to work on my images quite a bit and make them look their best!

RAW images need editing because they generally don't have enough contrast, or sharpening from camera. A JPEG is actually an edited file that your camera edits and therefore won't need editing and is best to avoid editing. Here's an article that dives more into this: Shoot in RAW. Don’t mess with JPEG!

[Sloseph]

im not a fan of people putting a frame on their work, i get it it just detracts from the picture a little, if your work stand out like it should it doesn't need a frame

as for editing, i always edit, i don't really understand people who are against it, they seem to think its cheating but its not differnt to how it was back in the days of film when you would just apply your effects in the dark room, its just easier now

[ArmySoldier777]

Gmikulin,

This is something I've been wondering a little bit about for my own work for the past few days as well. But after trial and error, what I've found is that it all depends on the photo. Some pictures look great with a simple little black and white frame, while others look better without one. You just have to test it out and see if you like the way it looks on that specific image. Here's a link to a thread in the Critique - Other section where somebody uses it to frame a shot of flowers, and personally I believe it really enhances the image.
Does frame really enhance the shot?

As far as post processing, It's a definite must for RAW files. I started a thread not too long ago about when photographers consider the post-processing of an image to be done, and for the image to finally be considered complete. And I'm going to quote JFSanders, as I believe that he said it the best when it comes to the thoughts on "cheating" by post processing an image.

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.

That's my opinion on the whole thing. So as I said, it all depends on your work and what you as the photographer/artist wants to achieve.
David

[Izzy]

Online I like them plain, no fame thingy. In real life I like a nice matted frame over a standard mount and hang. And I have seen some nice standard mounts.

As for post processing I used to spend all kinds of time on it. Now I am able to get most of my PP done in under a minute per image. It has taken some time and experience to streamline my work flow like this.

I have to have it streamlined. I shot about 2,000 images on my month long Route 66 project and another 1500 images in urban/rural decay series and these were concurrent projects.

So it is imperative that I be able to sort and PP these as fast as possible. I simply could not afford more than say 5 minutes on images unless it is something super special.