people who are anti-processing?

[platinumsc7]

So I have been noticing in some discussions I have been having with people on some other forums, that they are against post processing?! They basically feel that if you have to post process ( or edit as some say ) then you aren't taking the picture right. I usually run all my photos through camera raw and then do some extra in photoshop. These guys I'm talking about seem to be quite amateur and the first question they usually ask is "is it edited?" and then seem disappointed or turn their noses up at it when it is. I was under the assumption that post processing is just one of the steps. I happen to like the look much better after processing and feel that the RAW file is just a good starting point. I guess I look at it like it's no different than adjusting a film negative in the darkroom. Just wondering what everyones opinion was on the subject and if you can process too much.

[wulf]

Have a browse round and you'll find plenty of similar discussions in this forum. It tends to be a question where people vent a lot of hot air - ultimately it comes down to your photos and your choice (although my observation is that the best results have normally had some kind of darkroom time, whether digital or chemical).

Wulf

[digirebelva]

My question is, why do the purists even care what others do..its not like someone is taking their images and pp'ing them withut their permission...Photography, like any other art form is a matter of personal preference. If someone chooses to or not to do any PP then that is their choice..plain and simple...leave it at that...

Okay off my box now

[AgBeard]

Have these guys never heard of a Darkroom.

Much of the skill in the days before digital was in the printing - the renown Ansel Adams was very particular as to who printed his work.

I watched my Dad tip the frame holding the photographic paper underneath the enlarger to 'correct' perspective & have to move a mask across to compensate the exposure - the inverse square law does have practical consequences. I've watched him mask the sky by moving his hands to interrupt the light to ensure the sky was not overexposed. Seen the use of filters on the enlarger to change the contrast.

The camera has always been the begining of the photographic process - so maybe the term 'Post Production' is in it's self incorrect.

[dcclark]

Welcome to the internet. People like to argue for their opinions, loudly and repeatedly, even if they really don't matter.

If I have a chance to sit down with an anti-processing person, I usually take some time to explain the differences between the human eye and film/sensor technology. The human eye is quite amazing, and sees things very differently from film or sensors. The brain adds another layer of "editing" on top of that. Our eyes and brains can emphasize (or de-emphasize) things that are unexpected, or things that we are focused on, regardless of their actual lightness or amount of differentiation from surrounding objects. We can ignore colors and shapes, or totally invent ones that aren't there. The upshot is, it takes quite a lot of work to make a digital (or film) image look "natural", because "natural" (for humans) implies quite a lot of editing in the eye and in the brain.

Talking to such people usually results in a better understanding. I think that most anti-processing folks (OTHER than photojournalists, who have special rules!) aren't really thinking through a rather complex issue. To each his own, certainly, but things aren't as black and white as some people make them out to be.

[zappo]

Actually you will hear this argument a lot from people who don't know their way round Lightroom, Photoshop... Most of the times they only try to compensate their lack of knowledge about digital tools.

In fact it's like this: With a digital camera it is impossible to take a photo that is not post-processed. If you use .jpg the camera will do the post-processing, so basically you let somone else decide how your picture should look like (A japanese engineer most of the times). When you take your pictures in raw, you have to do the post-processing but you can decide yourself how the result will be.

You see, there is no thing like no post-processing in the digital age. In fact there wasn't in film times either (but that's another topic).

Edit: And on last thing. Just don't care. Don't waste your time in stupid discussions.

[platinumsc7]

Good stuff guys! It wasn't a really heated discussion, just some comments made by some amateurs.

[spencer28n]

If you can make an image look better, why not. Actually, when I think about it, an image that can be bettered by a computer but isn't, is a shame.

Also, how can you differentiate between changing settings on the camera or in RAW on the computer? I try not to think of an image as a picture until I deem it ready for the world to see.

This argument is similar to using speedlights/ strobes as opposed to natural light. Natural light is easier to manipulate (mostly) but does that make light from strobes "not real" therefore harming somone?

IMHO, in the end its about accomplishing your visualization for each picture. Whatever means necessary.

[Cliffs]

Originally Posted by digirebelva

My question is, why do the purists even care what others do..its not like someone is taking their images and pp'ing them withut their permission...Photography, like any other art form is a matter of personal preference. If someone chooses to or not to do any PP then that is their choice..plain and simple...leave it at that...

Okay off my box now

I'm getting up on the box you jumped off of and am going to agree...it's what you (the OP) as a photographer like...if others don't like your interpretation, that is their opinion. I personally like HDR images BUT not the over-done cartoonish, even painting-like processed images.

I enjoy the color pop of a very well done HDR and am learning the process.

Somebody mentioned jpeg are a processed image, so true, yet some of those images look even better with a tweak here or there.

My biggest problem with PP is time and age....I have the time but my old brain is struggling to maintain all the "new" knowledge needed for not only PP but photography itself.

[Saralonde]

There are heated discussions on all photo forums. Usually the topics are:

RAW or jpeg
SOOC or Post Processing
Is HDR overdone?
Canon or Nikon

What have I missed ?