A discussion on the pros and cons of post-processing work done on photographs.
Wow...all this debate...and all I'm worried about is how I could have improved this portrait of Binti...no matter how hard I tried she came out...no other way to say it...she came out "grainy"!
Reply to this
In response to: Msg #165515
Binti's too shiny for even the NEX5 to focus effectively - no doubt complicated by the protrusion of the bill of the baseball cap. If you had removed said baseball cap, you manipulated her to wear, I reckon the photographic results would have been more in tune with objective authenticity.
Reply to this Grainy shots are usually a result of the ISO being too high. In low light situations it is difficult for many cameras to achieve a noise free shot unless you use long exposure times which will of course require a tripod.
Your picture David is also a great example of why I no longer shoot in JPEG format. Photoshop's camera RAW is a powerful program that is designed to make simple yet effective changes to a picture before any heavy manipulating work is done in Photoshop itself. The glare in your picture could have been removed without any problems at all.
I wish Adobe would sell Camera RAW as a stand alone program as most of the time it would more than suffice for a great deal of my pictures.
Reply to this Alternatively, if your pictures still keep coming out grainy despite you fixing your recurring ISO problem then you will have no alternative but to resort to the use of the following:
[Edited: 2013 Jan 26 02:51 - Cockle:46288 ]
Reply to this In response to: Msg #165510
This very topic was debated by painters in the 1850s, triggered by the invention of photography. Until then, most agreed that their purpose was to reproduce reality as people saw it (or, in many cases, wanted to see it). Photography beat painting for that role, so what was the point of painting anymore? Groups like the Impressionists responeded that they should paint something as they experienced it, not necessarily saw it, which led to Modern Art. Painting became a representation of ideas.
My personal view is that 'see' vs 'experience' depends on what viewers expect. People have been conditioned through a century plus of photojournalism to believe that photographs accurately record a scene as the photographer saw it, unless they are explicitly presented as art. Some art photographers have deliberately staged scenes of disaster aftermaths, etc. to show that what appears at first to be documentary is indistinguishable from artifice. When people get the latter and they expect the former, they get quite upset.
Reply to this A key to photography is the control of light. This is harder to do at the time of taking the image rather than afterwards.
We are the first to admit that we are not great photographers, we do try and we are learning gradually about how light affects the photos we take - as Shane says above, it's very hard to do.
We don't post-process many of our photos, we do sometimes adjust the light but not very often. Although we will admit to using the beauty shot function for our portraits as it smooths the skin and gets rid of the wrinkles 😉 There are quite a few blogs we read which we think, 'wow, those pictures are stunning' (quite a few of you on this discussion actually) and they look 'real' and not overly processed. What we mean by 'real' is that it is how it would look if we were standing there in person. This, we believe, is the key to post-processing and on the other side of the spectrum there have been a few blogs where its obvious the photographer has been too heavy handed with the post-processing. So what we are trying to say is that we kind of agree that it's about recreating what the photographer saw at the time the picture was taken.
Regarding HDR photography, the results of this we have seen are stunning but to us, not really 'real' and reflecting how the eye actually sees things. Don't get us started on the Instagram filter...it's obvious to us that it's been 'instagrammed' and we just don't like the look of these pictures!
This is an interesting topic for us because we are starting to gradually learn about photography - we don't have anywhere near the kit or skill you guys have. We recently graduated from a simple point and shoot digital camera to one which is half way between a point and shoot and a DSLR. We are learning about what different settings do, especially using the automatic settings, seeing the results and then trying to recreate them with the manual settings. We hope at some point our photography skills will get better!
[Edited: 2013 Jan 26 11:48 - Donna and Neil:22231 ]
Reply to this Interesting, and very true, point about the importance of controlling light - or the potential for a photo to be great if it is done well. Perhaps 'control' should be replaced with 'use' here though.
The absence of good light is where things get more challenging, and the temptation or need to adjust things later comes in.
I'm very much in the early stages of learning about post-processing - the good, the bad and the evil of it all. HDR - something I intend to dabble in as much for the sake of knowledge accumulation as anything, but agree that it's definitely a case of 'less is more'.
[Edited: 2013 Jan 26 21:16 - Jo Trouble:16935 ]
Reply to this Jo.
I couldn't agree more. Light is THE vital factor when taking pictures. Many years ago, before the days of spectrometers, one of my jobs as an engineer involved me matching bespoke batches of industrial refinishes for aircraft, boats and automotive vehicles. This process taught me more about light, colourimetry and metamerism than I could have possibly imagined.
Thankfully, the latest DSLRs seem to do really well in low light conditions. I've got some really nice pictures of Shane, underground at Cu Chi tunnels taken without the use of a flash. In contrast, my old EOS350D used to give up the ghost at the slightest hint of darkness.
This photo is straight out of the camera.
Donna and Neil.
I'm totally with you on that awful Instagram app. A dreadful program designed for the masses, blahh. Every time I see one of those nasty pictures I get this overwhelming desire to fire up Photoshop and breathe some life back into it (and strangle the photographer, but I'll keep that between us!!!).
What ever happened to individuality? That is what I thought photography was about? Isn't photography supposed to be about personal expression? Then again, it is becoming more common for people to accept the sheep mentality and run with the flock. Thankfully, here the opposite is true and that is why I respect and admire so many of the photographers on TB. It has got to the stage now where I can look at a picture and 9 times out of 10, name the photographer, thanks to their own unique style and method of composition.
[Edited: 2013 Jan 27 03:11 - Cockle:46288 ]
Reply to this
In response to: Msg #165587
Another vote against Instagram. I've been asked by a few people if I use it, but have resisted the urge as I feel it somehow cheapens the art. Despite that, I know some really good photographers who use it - each to their own.
Individuality - one piece of advice I received since getting into photography about a year ago is that "if you see a group of photographers rushing over to photograph something, run like hell in the opposite direction".
Maybe not meant to be taken in a literal sense, but certainly encouragement to always be an individual and seek out a unique angle for your images.
Reply to this ...my old EOS350D used to give up the ghost at the slightest hint of darkness.
I discovered the limitations of my Nikon D300 whilst travelling with Nick and Dancing Dave - they were able to photograph in far darker conditions than me. As soon as I have a job again, my first "indulgent" purchase will definitely be a full frame Nikon D600. I played with one in Dubai and was shooting at ISO 1600. The result was very sharp and clear.
To clarify Nick's photo, that shadow appearing behind me (that looks as if it has resulted from a flash) is due to a small light hanging in the tunnel, rather than any use of flash.
[Edited: 2013 Jan 27 08:47 - The Travel Camel:11053 ]
Reply to this
In response to: Msg #165587
I'm very impressed with Nick's underground shot of Shane...very impressed. A good example of the importance of light...a steady hand...and also composition. That there is no post processing deserves high praise.
I find with portraits that no post processing should be required if one has captured the character of the subject and a natural look.
3 portraits from that visit to the Cu Chi tunnels not only verifies our attendance but highlights my point
Reply to this 
