How much post processing?

[sarahA]

How much post processing can you do before the true photo becomes a photo that's digitally enhanced? I remember a letter in one of Mr A's photo mags where someone said 'sure learning how to do all these things in photoshop is great but shouldn't the emphasis be on taking the photo as right as possible in the first place?'.

I've been shooting in raw, mainly because I keep forgetting to change the white balance, plus I've got a better original, however using the raw editor I can dramatically change my photos which is, in my mind, digital enhancing. I see comments such as 'No Photoshopping' on Flickr groups, but editing the raw before converting is surely almost the same? Some raw editors such as Adobe's Lightroom gives you a lot more options to change and enhance the photo.

What editing can be considered 'the shot'? Or am I making too much of it...

[Tony]

It all depends on what your aim was really. In the film world, if you want extra saturation you use something like velvia, if you want black and white, you use black and white film, if you want somehere lighter or darker you dodge and burn it.

With digital, you have one camera and one sensor and this means post production to get the look you want rather than choosing the film to get the look.

RAW is instrinsically a dull, slightly soft image and it requires processing, I think if you start adding in things or changing the skies then that could be conceived as too much photoshopping, but adjusting curves, levels, saturation and sharpness are the basics of what you should do to give you 'the shot'

Don't worry about the purists, take the photos that you want and process them how you want - people will tell you if it looks too much

[slaughteredlamb]

This is one of those topics that just goes round and round and round. There is no one correct answer IMO, just the one that you agree with.

I personally tend to keep my post processing and do pretty much what the 'film boys' have done for a hundred+ years in the darkroom i.e. dodging, burning, masks etc.

In the digital world and with RAW I do adjust my exposure slightly in Aperture/Lightroom/ACR but anything beyond a half stop adjustment would usually make me go and re-shoot it if possible. I very occassionally might play with highlight and lowlight recovery but 99% of the time it just looks forced so I'd almost always re-shoot any photos that needed this. I do use levels but only to define white and black points so as to get the most out of the dynamic range within the photo and I do use curves but this is usually limited to a gentle S shaped curve to boost the mid range and add contrast.

As with digital you can't shoot in B&W (yeah I know some cameras have a B&W mode but that either is just a desaturated jpeg or it applys presets to a jpeg but that is not the same as real B&W) and as I like B&W as a medium to work in I do use the channel mixer a lot to mimick different types of film stock etc.

Some people are happy to clone out elements of their photos and when I first started out I used to as well but now my cloning is almost always limited to dust removal. The reason for this is that I always compose in camera, which is also a reason why I rarely if ever crop my photos either, so if it doesnt look right in the viewfinder I'll change my position, move the unwanted object out of the way etc or just not take the photo at all. In fact other than for dust removal the only time I tend to clone these days is if I've accidentally clipped something on the edge of the frame which as many DSLR's have a viewfinder that only shows around 97% of the scene is something that can be easily done if you arent careful.

For me digital manipulation means adding things that weren't there such as adding people of objects to a different scene, replacing the sky etc. Personally this is not something I like or would do to any of my photos. I don't like it because it doesnt fit my style of photography. I don't do it because a lot of the time it's very easy to spot photos that have been manipulated in this way.

So am I right, are people who replace sky's or who add people to a scene they weren't in fakes? Of course not. What really annoys me is when you get some 'photographers' who say that people who do anything more than what you could do in a darkroom are 'Digital Artists' whilst those who use their cameras to capture the scene 'correctly' in the first place are 'Photographers'. I really hate this arrogance as it immediately implies that a photographer is above a digital artist in terms of creativity. In my opinion both have their place, the fact that I shoot in the way I do is because it's my personal taste not because I think i'd be cheating doing anything else or that a 'Digital Artist' is beneath me.

The only time I would perhaps get annoyed with a 'Digital Artist' is if they tried to pass of their work as something that they had captured in camera with only the kind of dodging/burning kind of adjustments because then I'd feel they were cheapening both themselves and what they do and what someone who doesnt do that level of manipulation does. Just be honest, both have their place and often they work in tandem.

[sarahA]

Hi both. Cheers for your replies, they've both made me feel a bit more comfortable on my post processing. Adding items, completely changing parts, even cloning, I don't do. Mainly because I can't be bothered to open Photoshop It's mainly changing to a suitable white balance and a little enhancing using the saturation, vibrance, hue/luminosity levels etc.

Thanks again

[rutty]

I'm trying to get everything "right" in-camera but I often have to adjust the levels slightly and I'm always having to straighten wonky horizons. Photography certainly works best if you get the photo you want when you click the shutter, but it's also cool to experiment with different filters etc afterwards.

One of my Flickr contacts has a very stylised output that looks quite fake but works wonderfully well with her subjects (mostly friends smoking, oddly). It all depends what you want at the end.

[sarahA]

I guess at the end of the day I want a good photo and improved learning. The digital side is simple to me as I used to spend my days enhancing photos of watches, adjusting colours etc. to get the best out of them, so that's nothing new. I'd just rather have a good photo to start with, know I'm using the right functions and settings in the best way, good composure etc.