Over Processing

[Whisky_Mac]

This may be in the wrong place and the mods are welcome to move it.

I have just voted on the photo of the week and am concerned with the number of shots that seem to be over processed. Before you all jump on me let me tell you were I am coming from. I spent over 40 years in the graphics reproduction side of the print industry. My job was to combine the type and the images under the direction of a senior designer to produce something that a commercial printing press could print. The last year of my 5 year apprenticeship was working on copper printing plates to produce colour. I have been from the large flat bed cameras with a flat DOF and the large film and developer etc to working in the digital age using photoshop and the associated software to produce the final product. I have spent hours doing proofs while the rep and the client discussed reducing the magenta by 3 percent.

In all of this the object was to reproduce the image as naturally as we could. I now see images that we would not be used as they are over sharpened, colour is boosted to unbelievable levels and faces washed out to be insipid images. Have a look at your TV screen or the magazines in the newsagent, aim for natural unless you are producing art shots.

Perhaps it is just me, I do not intend to demean anyones work and if I have offended anyone I apologise.

[zollo]

this ole chestnut.

in a nutshell, I vote for images that I enjoy looking at. processed or unprocessed... it doesn't matter to me. IMO photoshop is here to stay and is as much a part of photography as taking the photo is. what is over processed to one, may be just the beginning for another. why this bothers/concerns some is not clear to me, perhaps others may wish to point it out for me. :confused013

as for printing it as naturally as possible, what I would take that to mean these days is printing it as close as possible to the artists original digital file.

also note that this differs from my philosophy while at work. when i am commissioned for a commercial shoot, i do not turn the photos into 'art' but rather exactly what the client has asked for. an athlete does not need to be shot against a sunset and dramatic skies to promote a brand of clothing, but nor would you buy it over a well done landscape to hang in your home.

[William]

Remember the word "Subjective" in photography , It's one of those things !! - Bill :)

[Analog6]

I'm with you, Jim, but we seem to be a diminishing minority. It is very much 'anything goes' in the photography world nowadays. When doing my Masterclass tutorial, the author was showing us his award winning images - and the results bore very little resemblance to the originals. Mind you, in some cases you would not have known without seeing both. They did not look false, but I was a bit shocked. I learnt a lot about processing, but . . .

I don't say anyone is wrong for producing an image they are pleased with and that they feel has merit, but I still like to reporduce what I photographed.

For instance, at yesterday's Currumbin meetup the sunrise was dull and had very little colour. People have shown lovely images full of colours. I did not see that, and I would not PERSONALLY force my images that far. I daresay that's why I've only ever made it into the final 5 in POTW once!

I'd love to see a competition where you have to show your original with the final version, with some degree of processing limit.

[gcflora]

You have to be careful with sunrise/sunset shots and saying whether or not a shot is over-processed or whether or not the colours were there originally -- just by hold a 3-stop GND over the sky can show colours that are not immediately apparent to the naked eye. Add a normal ND and even more colours can be picked up by the film/sensor. Just saying...

Edit: take this shot, for example: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4794262645_800f66d564.jpg. I saw no colours when I took the shot. In fact it was dark. But, over the 6 minute exposure (or whatever it was) the colours were picked up (yeah, yeah... it's a terrible photo, I just added it as an illustration :))

[atky]

I think Ill by a Box Browne and shoot only black and white ore will I get some water colours na I'll use technology and get the Image I want be it natural ore out there.

[AmPhot]

*sigh* Art / Photography = personal preference

'Nuff said.

[William]

OK:eek: , I've done the unthinkable !!! I'll post these two here seeing we're on the subject , first one is straight out of camera, just a TIFF copy of the RAW File, Converted to JPG for this upload, nothing done at all!! , second one was one I uploaded to the Critique forum :th3: Sort of Horses for courses, Subjective , have a ponder - Cheers bill :beer_mug:;)

[Analog6]

William, that's why I put the word 'personally' in caps. There is nothing wrong with anyone doing what their inner vision says. You've produced a good result that you are happy with, that's what it's all about.

[Jules]

Let's not forget that Ansel Adams spent a lot of time post processing his images. He just did it in a darkroom, rather than in front of a computer. PP has been around forever, it just takes different forms. Some people like to do a lot of PP, others don't. As already stated, photography is art and art is subjective. Enjoy the variety.

[jasevk]

Yeah this old argument just never dies.... some love copious amounts of processing.... some hate it, the rest of us are somewhere in between.

If a photographer has a vision of what he or she wishes to create... and accomplishes that, then I say well done and who cares what they've done to achieved it.... for many this is an artistic journey, not a process!

[William]

:confused013 The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original :lol2:

[Longshots]

Jim - I've been processing my work for more than 30 years. When I use to spend a huge amount of time in the darkroom using specific processing methods with gold toned, cross toned, selenium prints, using multis sandwiched negs, onto art papers painted with emulsion; no one use to talk about over processing. All anyone was interested in was the final image.

The apparent magic that I performed in the darkroom went over many peoples heads. They didnt care how I produced something. Why worry about it now ?

I was inspired by a newspaper (The Times and The Independant) printer who used to "work" the negs the newspaper shooters would produce. The difference between a standard neg and the final print was like chalk and cheese.

If anyone has seen an Ansel Adams print and the original neg, you'd understand.

I now spend sometimes almost no time on processing and on others I may spend a huge amount of time. I only think something is over-processed if all I can see is a technique and no substance to the image. But at the end of the day, its all subjective and this particular topic just keeps rolling along and is, without offence, a debate with no end.

[junqbox]

Without adding the extra flexibility of digital printing available these days, even offset printing has come to a point where they can just about print anything, when you take into account 8+ plate printers. Bottom line is if it is effectively within the sRGB gamut, then something will be able to print it.
The darkroom/computer debate has been done to death, but whatever has been done still needs to get onto paper at some time and that is where some images die, by not being able to be replicated through a printing process.
I think this is closer to the point the OP was trying to put forward. But I could be wrong!

[Tannin]

In general, people who over-process are the first ones to resort to the "it's subjective" / "my artistic freedom" / "let's kill this debate right now" defence. In my view, this is no accident.

Oh, and Wiliam, you are spot on ..... first one is better, by about 1918 kilometres. Second one is rubbish.

[Cage]

:confused013 The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original :lol2:


'Onya Bill :lol:


As other posters have pointed out, PP is subjective, and a matter of personal taste.

I'll admit to being in the 'less is better' camp, my choice, but I won't knock those who try to improve on what they missed in the field. I have a particular dislike for the end result of most sharpening apps.

Kevin

[Paper_Mache_Man]

:confused013 The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original :lol2:

Haha yeah that's exactly what I thought, the original rocks. :)

If anything I would have gone the other way (made it moodier, instead of brightening it up).

I didn't see this thread otherwise I would have posted in here (I guess a mod could merge if they felt like it).

Anyway, I was having the same internal debate.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=65647

[Kym]

The acid test is to print and frame them and put them up for sale. What sells for the most and the fastest ;)

[William]

Yep !! Thats it Kym , Well said , :D- Bill :)

[zollo]

First photo is miles ahead of the second, which is what I call over processed.
But for printing purposes, often alterations have too be made from out of the camera files. My son does alot of fashion shoots for Cosmopolitan and Vanity Fair magazines, and he says that almost without exception the Editors returns all photos several times to have the colour, brightness and/or saturation boosted. What are exceptional shots with lighting, shadows and colour out of the camera always get pumped right up for high quality mags.
Over processed to me really means unnatural.

you got it right. the original of Williams' image above - while moodier, will print too dark. those rocks in particular would print black.

the dynamic range of what can be captured/printed compared to what we see is miniscule. if you want your images to print anything at all like what you see in real life - you will need to process.

[jasevk]

In general, people who over-process are the first ones to resort to the "it's subjective" / "my artistic freedom" / "let's kill this debate right now" defence. In my view, this is no accident.

Some would say that people with opinions like ^this^ are just frustrated adobe customers who can't quite figure out photoshop just yet... :p

[kiwi]

Thsi thread isnt about processing per se, it's about OVER processing - and that I agree with if the result is say over-sharpening or not desirable

[zollo]

Thsi thread isnt about processing per se, it's about OVER processing - and that I agree with if the result is say over-sharpening or not desirable

yes but what will look over processed and waaay to bright and saturated on the computer screen will look normal in print. in my experience, colours (blues especially) take a hit when printing (epson). i've printed plenty of photos where people were disappointed with their 'desaturated' final print.

[zollo]

In general, people who over-process are the first ones to resort to the "it's subjective" / "my artistic freedom" / "let's kill this debate right now" defence. In my view, this is no accident.

Oh, and Wiliam, you are spot on ..... first one is better, by about 1918 kilometres. Second one is rubbish.

yes, i would like to see your opinion once its printed. I suggest it might very well be different. sounds like you may need to start printing some photos:p

[geoffsta]

My 2 bobs worth...
A good photographer with the use of filters can great artistic images without the need for much post production. a gradual red filter can turn a boring sunset into a masterpiece. But TOGS have been doing this for many years. (Even before the digital age)
But the aim of this forum is to promote imagination in all forms of photography.
Like learning a new job, you will be shown many different ways of doing it, but you will decide which way you feel is the best. Personally I think Picasso's paintings are crap, sometimes I think a child could do better. But my wife's landscape picture that she did at in a painting class looks better. So it's a matter of opinion.
I don't really go much for the over produced image either, but I'd still like to learn how to do it, just to add to my knowledge base.

[Tannin]

yes, i would like to see your opinion once its printed. I suggest it might very well be different. sounds like you may need to start printing some photos:p

Pfft. When you proof, you are looking at your picture with a high contrast, high gamut, and colour-accurate device. (Or you should be and are if you are even a little bit serious about your photography.) (And, obviously, I am talking high contrast, gamut and accuracy relative to prints - real life is higher still in all three, of course.)

When you print, you are working with a low contrast, low gamut, and possibly highly colour-inaccurate device. (It is certainly a device that does not reproduce colour in the way that you expect unless you have worked with it a lot already and come to know it well.) The printer, in other words, distorts colour - it reproduces quite different colour, gamut and contrast results as compared with your normal expectations from computer screen, projector, and/or camera.

So you have to compensate by, for example, boosting colours. This isn't "over-processing", it is simply what you have to do in order to get an accurate, realistic print. If you DON'T do it, you are distorting the picture, and in photography, distorting the picture is nearly always a bad thing. (Some semi-abstract artists that use a camera for their base input and call themselves "photographers", which they aren't really, think it is a good thing. That's fine, and in their chosen field I agree with them. I just wish they wouldn't keep calling it "photography".)

So what is my opinion once it's printed? Exactly the same as my opinion when it's reproduced on a screen or a projector: 99 times out of 100, the most natural-looking result is the best result. The fact that you make different adjustments in PP to get a natural result depending on your output medium is completely irrelevant.

[ricktas]

Whisky_Mac..Question for you (as the OP).

hypothetical : I come to you from the head office of say a big bank. I have seen one of your photos on a website and want to buy it to feature on a huge wall in our about to be completed flagship branch in Sydney, and also we will consider using it in our new 'Aussie Bank' tv campaign..but there is one catch, we want you to edit the photo to make it more vibrant, boost the colours and blur the background more. We will obviously pay you handsomely, for the rights to use this photo.

Do you do what we want, or do you say "sorry, but I don't like my images processed like that!"?

[zollo]

Pfft. When you proof, you are looking at your picture with a high contrast, high gamut, and colour-accurate device. (Or you should be and are if you are even a little bit serious about your photography.) (And, obviously, I am talking high contrast, gamut and accuracy relative to prints - real life is higher still in all three, of course.)

When you print, you are working with a low contrast, low gamut, and possibly highly colour-inaccurate device. (It is certainly a device that does not reproduce colour in the way that you expect unless you have worked with it a lot already and come to know it well.) The printer, in other words, distorts colour - it reproduces quite different colour, gamut and contrast results as compared with your normal expectations from computer screen, projector, and/or camera.

So you have to compensate by, for example, boosting colours. This isn't "over-processing", it is simply what you have to do in order to get an accurate, realistic print. If you DON'T do it, you are distorting the picture, and in photography, distorting the picture is nearly always a bad thing. (Some semi-abstract artists that use a camera for their base input and call themselves "photographers", which they aren't really, think it is a good thing. That's fine, and in their chosen field I agree with them. I just wish they wouldn't keep calling it "photography".)

So what is my opinion once it's printed? Exactly the same as my opinion when it's reproduced on a screen or a projector: 99 times out of 100, the most natural-looking result is the best result. The fact that you make different adjustments in PP to get a natural result depending on your output medium is completely irrelevant.

no worries. well relative to what you just said, you couldn't seriously call the second photo over processed and rubbish then, could you.

[arthurking83]

Tony! Is the unrealistic rendition of the scene the problem(with use of over processing), or the over processing of the resultant image that's the problem.

Something I tend to find more and more as time wears on and I capture more relatively boring images of the same thing I've done for a few years now, is that I like filters for effect.
(the images I find boring are my own images as they seem to have a repetitive nature to them).
I'm starting to find and sense of amusement and interest in blue skies that look naturally red because of the over use(??) of filters. I do have one tobacco filter that I sometimes use, because at the time of exposure I felt the need to smoke it (a bit) :D
What of UV and IR images? The use of filters to capture either or both UV and IR are a legitimate form of photography, and yet look at the resultant images and they bear no resemblance to the real world as we see it, or understand it.
I regularly get comments from folks that they don't like the magenta cast in the sky, which means that I have to make wholesale and widespread edits to the image to neutralise the red cast(which I like.. and can't wait for the first blocks of land to go on sale on Mars! :p)

Of course this leads me to announce that I now only wear rose coloured glasses.. and I mean that literally! my current set of cheapo polarised sunnies are tinted reddish pink. Yeah!.. sure they look stupid, but I love 'em :th3:



you got it right. the original of Williams' image above - while moodier, will print too dark. those rocks in particular would print black. ...

This sounds like a derogatory comment on the use of black in print, or more specifically landscape prints?
Should we take that to mean that blacks in photographs are a bad thing?
Isn't black a part of the scene when there are shadows areas in the scene.
I see them all the time with my own naked eyes, and sometimes I don't wear polarised sunnies and the blacks are even more apparent in high contrast scenes.

... oh well.. it's a funny old argument this one, and one day, in the far distant future, there'll be some consensus on the topic... and then the world spontaneously combust!

[Longshots]

yes but what will look over processed and waaay to bright and saturated on the computer screen will look normal in print. in my experience, colours (blues especially) take a hit when printing (epson). i've printed plenty of photos where people were disappointed with their 'desaturated' final print.

And FWIW those people who have this issue are still IMVHO just havent managed a good calibration yet - sorry Zollo, no offence, but I print on an Epson 3800, and its been a long hard path of understanding, but get everything right, profiles, calibration etc, and there is no difference between print and screen; colours match exatly - which is as it should be.

There should be no "hit". Its not easy to manage, but when you get there, I assure you that its worth all of the effort.

The issue of the backlit screen is again the same issue with looking at transparencies on a light box (backlit again), and being disappointed with a cibachrome print.

On the issue of the overprocesed image example - have to agree that I too liked the original if not a great fan of the clear and obvious neutral density grad filter. But it was just one example and not a very good one to illustrate the OP's point of view I fear.

[maccaroneski]

99 times out of 100, the most natural-looking result is the best result.

So by this logic a monochrome image can only possibly get a better result than the colour image 1 time out of 100? Or is there some special dispensation due to the fact that it emulates a certain film type?

I've been to Yosemite National Park and I seem to recall some green trees - none of them were black, white or grey.

Back to the OP's point though, vote with your mouse - if comp entries fail, and the entrant takes the time to seek some CC, then I guess we can all give our subjective opinions on the processing.

If it wins, then it may well be a good image whatever one's view is on the amount of processing applied.

[Longshots]

I've been to Yosemite National Park and I seem to recall some green trees - none of them were black, white or grey.




Love it :lol:

[Allann]

I believe there is one point here that has been missed, the op said the competion images; for an image to stick out from 100 others, 10000 others, to be considered a contender, it needs impact in the first 3 secs or so or it's overlooked. A picture submitted to win a comp is quite different from a real world view, obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but just check back over the winning and top five entries.
In many cases I will create 3 copies of the same image as different processing is required for each, processed raw, print version and web version. I would never print the web or raw versions as I wouldn't get the final print I asked for.

[zollo]

And FWIW those people who have this issue are still IMVHO just havent managed a good calibration yet - sorry Zollo, no offence, but I print on an Epson 3800, and its been a long hard path of understanding, but get everything right, profiles, calibration etc, and there is no difference between print and screen; colours match exatly - which is as it should be.

There should be no "hit". Its not easy to manage, but when you get there, I assure you that its worth all of the effort.

The issue of the backlit screen is again the same issue with looking at transparencies on a light box (backlit again), and being disappointed with a cibachrome print.

On the issue of the overprocesed image example - have to agree that I too liked the original if not a great fan of the clear and obvious neutral density grad filter. But it was just one example and not a very good one to illustrate the OP's point of view I fear.

no problem. i'm not a calibration guru, but i can tell that printing vivid colours is harder than it should be. my point is, you do have to sometimes overcompensate for factors, be it printers or artistic intent. i still dont rubbish highly processed work.

and maccaroneski makes a very valid point. stripping all colour is quite extreme processing, yet the purists do not say a word about that, only brighter than normal colours:rolleyes:

[wideangle]

All Art is subjective to the viewer

[William]

You started a good thread here Jim(OP) , I shoot RAW all the time, I like to process the images myself, Not the camera , A lot of Images turn out how I feel on the day , And my mood at the time , It's really hard to invisage what you saw at the time of the take sometimes , Photography is an Art to me , I always experiment , And always learning :) - Bill

[bb45pz]

I think the question that we all have to ask ourselves is do we just want a document of the event or do we want to convey a mood or a feeling that we had at the time.

I would put it to you that most genres of photography have a certain amount of 'processing' (or distortion of reality) already done in camera. Think of shutter speed particularly in landscapes, use of multiple light sources with portraiture, film types (in times before mine) and the list goes on.

I agree with the sentiment that Kym posted, if you were to post the original in a gallery and try and sell it to Joe public along side the processed pic, which one do you think would sell?

[mynxt]

You know, when I first joined AP and saw all the images and the amounts of processing some people do I admit I was very surprised. I didn't think I would fit in at all. It isn't all to my taste, but each to their own. Some of those images will sell to those who like them, and more natural ones will sell to those who like them too. We are all different.
When I vote for images I vote for the ones I like. I'm guessing that is how it works :) I look at some and wonder why on earth they would even enter it into a comp, but there is something in it that they liked and that is fair enough.

So yes, I agree with you Jim, but, individuality is what makes us special :)

[tomtom1]

It's all been covered, but yes photography is subjective, and all about communicating your unique vision.

For example some of Yervant's award winning wedding photos look like horribly done HDRs to me, but lots of people must like that style.

[Kym]

Back to the OP's point though, vote with your mouse - if comp entries fail, and the entrant takes the time to seek some CC, then I guess we can all give our subjective opinions on the processing.


the op said the competition images; for an image to stick out from 100 others, 10000 others, to be considered a contender, it needs impact in the first 3 secs or so or it's overlooked.

Comps on AP are popular votes not judged; the 'stand out' or WOW factor is big.
Eg. quite a while ago a landscape won; it was stunning from an initial impact, colour & composition view; but the horizon was noticeably off; it won.
If it were in a judged comp I think the horizon would have seen a different result.

We tried panel judging in //lel a few months ago.
The Panel's came up with similar top 5's and sometimes different winners.

What does this tell us? (My guess)
1. The WOW factor garners votes over technical skill

2. People are probably rushing their voting
(and I have gone to some effort in making the voting tool as useful as possible)

3. Taste vary
(Why do landscapes have such a high win rate? :confused013)

So if you want to do well in comps you need the WOW factor and HDR / PP etc. can make a big difference.

But we all should be more careful with our voting.

[bigdazzler]

Who cares. Do what makes you happy. One mans trash is anothers treasure.

Just take photos, edit them as you will, and be happy. Geez. After all most of us are amateurs here, its hardly life and death is it.

[geoffsta]

A picture submitted to win a comp is quite different from a real world view, obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but just check back over the winning and top five entries..

Maybe there should be a "warts and all" Comp, straight from the camera only. (Resized and converted for the competition would be the only exception) No filters either.
Just a thought.....

[kiwi]

Maybe there should be a "warts and all" Comp, straight from the camera only. (Resized and converted for the competition would be the only exception) No filters either.
Just a thought.....

No thanks

I think the final image is what matters, NOT how you got there

If your image looks fake and "over processed" you aint gonna win anyhow

[Xenedis]

I guess Ansel Adams wasn't a real photographer, because he post-processed his images.

Sure, he did it in a darkroom, but he still processed them to produce something that was beyond what the camera alone could produce.

IMO and IME, post-processing is an essential part of the digital imaging process.

To what degree the post-processing is applied, is a subjective matter. I personally dislike the "over-processed" illustration-like HDR images that exhibit unnaturally saturated colours and horrible halation, but some people consider that visually appealing.

Whenever one of those "straight from the camera" purists comes out of the woodwork and declares his or her images to be what the camera captured and not processed, it's worth asking these questions:


Did you shoot in JPG mode?
Did you set the contrast, sharpness and saturation sliders to non-zero values?
Did you use a "picture style" or "picture mode"?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then the image has been processed -- by the camera, and largely out of the user's control!

As for competitions which forbid processing and/or the use of filters, no thanks.

[Xenedis]

(Why do landscapes have such a high win rate? :confused013)


Interesting question, and one worthy of a separate thread where it would be on-topic and can be explored further.

Here it is:

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=65760

[Scotty72]

The acid test is to print and frame them and put them up for sale. What sells for the most and the fastest ;)

So, Kym, by your reckoning, Brittenny Spears is a greater artist than Don Mclean or Leonard Cohen?

Perhaps you agree that William Shakespeare is no-where near the writer that Stephanie Myer is?

Or, how about this, based on ad sales (ratings), Channel 7 is the greatest news source in Australia?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scotty72]

I guess Ansel Adams wasn't a real photographer, because he post-processed his images.

Sure, he did it in a darkroom, but he still processed them to produce something that was beyond what the camera alone could produce.

IMO and IME, post-processing is an essential part of the digital imaging process.

To what degree the post-processing is applied, is a subjective matter. I personally dislike the "over-processed" illustration-like HDR images that exhibit unnaturally saturated colours and horrible halation, but some people consider that visually appealing.

Whenever one of those "straight from the camera" purists comes out of the woodwork and declares his or her images to be what the camera captured and not processed, it's worth asking these questions:


Did you shoot in JPG mode?
Did you set the contrast, sharpness and saturation sliders to non-zero values?
Did you use a "picture style" or "picture mode"?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then the image has been processed -- by the camera, and largely out of the user's control!

As for competitions which forbid processing and/or the use of filters, no thanks.

Adams did tweak his images just like Michael Shumacker's car was tweaked. Perhaps motor races should only be allowed to compete in factory floor cars.

Our dates on a Saturday night should not be allowed to tweak there faces with make up or wear push-up bras as this is the human equivalent of photoshopping. If your date / wife turns up with a bit of post - processing (make-up or lippy), tell her she is unnatural and demand she wipe it all off - that you demand the straight from the womb RAW copy.

I am sure she will appreciate your candor on the matter (if you live). ;)

Scotty

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[I @ M]

So, Kym, by your reckoning, Brittenny Spears is a greater artist than Don Mclean or Leonard Cohen?



Geees I have been accused of being erroneous in the (recent) past when it comes to posts on a straightforward subject :D but I reckon that is really drawing a long bow Scotty and my summation is this ---

In order of 'potential' sales ( providing premature death doesn't intervene first in which case the prospects of increased sales rise exponentially) I reckon we see Leonard Cohen as full of green vegetable matter and so slow and bland as not to rate on the enhanced Richter scale, Don McLean so full of Mom's Good Old Apple Pie that he is only ever likely to appeal to geriatric members of the viewing crowd who are more than likely to forget that they ever heard him 2 minutes after the song ended --- and then we are left with Ms Spears, hounded by the tabloids, frequently without underwear and so full of chemicals that any kid under 30 years old walking within 50 metres of her is instantly high on the fumes.

Simple really, Ms Spears wins, "over processed" to the hilt and likely to stop any viewers looking any further. A bit of a landscape in lunacy if you ask me. :p

[Scotty72]

Geees I have been accused of being erroneous in the (recent) past when it comes to posts on a straightforward subject :D but I reckon that is really drawing a long bow Scotty and my summation is this ---

In order of 'potential' sales ( providing premature death doesn't intervene first in which case the prospects of increased sales rise exponentially) I reckon we see Leonard Cohen as full of green vegetable matter and so slow and bland as not to rate on the enhanced Richter scale, Don McLean so full of Mom's Good Old Apple Pie that he is only ever likely to appeal to geriatric members of the viewing crowd who are more than likely to forget that they ever heard him 2 minutes after the song ended --- and then we are left with Ms Spears, hounded by the tabloids, frequently without underwear and so full of chemicals that any kid under 30 years old walking within 50 metres of her is instantly high on the fumes.

Simple really, Ms Spears wins, "over processed" to the hilt and likely to stop any viewers looking any further. A bit of a landscape in lunacy if you ask me. :p


I have no idea if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me :)

But, I'm not a particular fan of either Cohen or Mclean but, unlike Ms Spears, they both actually know what a note is; they both understand concepts such as : metaphor; imagery, allusion.

I suspect that Ms Spears probably knows the difference between a guitar and a Labrador - but I am not sure about that.

Ms Spears will probably outsell both of them 1000 times.

Is she a better artist? No way! Even if Hell does freeze over.

Stephanie Myer (Twilight) is easily outselling Shakespeare. Is she a better author? No, she one day dreams of equalling Shakespeare's rubbish.

But, Kym seemed to suggest that artistic merit was to be judged by sales.

I dispute this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Erin]

The only time I ever get annoyed with PP is when someone's obviously done it and is swearing to the heavens that the image is SOOC or when they find a new plug-in or native Photoshop filter that they think looks cool when in fact, it don't becausetheydon'tknowhowtouseitproperly. Grr. Argh.

Other than that, some of my favourite photos have been processed to the enth and look so completely unnatural as to be alien... but I guess that's just my taste... which is fairly eclectic anyhow.

[Longshots]

In my view Erin is on the money.


Personally I couldnt think of a more life wasting exercise than explaining to people that a camera is not a life recorder. I resist exploding with "get over it" when this completely ridiculous assumption is brought out.

The fact that the Howard government seriously influenced a nation by using a "life recorded moment" of boat people apparently throwing their own children into the sea in order to save themselves. And when a much wider aspect shot was released after the Howard government were voted in, with the acknowledgement that the image and news story seriously influenced the voting public, the much wider shot, then gave the situation a completely different understanding as the previously cropped out rescue craft then gave the image a completely different understanding.

So if you select a lens, crop out something, polarise the sky, change to B&W, add a reflector, add some additional lighting, then you are manipulating. There is nothing as absurd IMHO, of the concept, "that the camera tells the truth". Thats ridiculous, and to be honest those that stick to that notion simply have a very different understanding as to what a camera is. Its a story telling device in my view. It can be many other things. But as something that is a natural capturing device of what you have experienced - its definitely not that.


My view is very similar to Erins. No matter whether I'm looking at a traditional wet processed print, a transparency, or digital produced image; if the process becomes more important than the content; then quite simply its failed, and probably falls into the over processed for my tastes. But as everyone has different taste, that level of acceptance is completely subjective.

[ricktas]

Maybe there should be a "warts and all" Comp, straight from the camera only. (Resized and converted for the competition would be the only exception) No filters either.
Just a thought.....

Can't do that. We have no way of verifying if something is straight from camera or processed. A member could sharpen and increase saturation in the camera shooting JPG, another could sharpen and increase saturation in photoshop. We have no way of checking or verifying if a photo has been edited or not, or even if that editing was dome in camera, or on a computer, so a competition along these lines will never happen on AP.

[ricktas]

I'm quite glad that what one person sees as over-processed, is the best photo ever, to another member. Diversity is the key. If we all liked the same stuff, we wouldn't need to hold any competitions, we could cancel them all and say to a member at the end of a week or month "which photo wins", cause we would all pick the same one, if we all viewed photos the same way.

Un-processed, processed, over-processed, a photo is a photo. You could use the exact same processing and settings on two different photos, one might look great, one might look well and truly over cooked. The subject matter is the key. We should all celebrate the diversity we have, and be glad that we all like different things, rather than arguing against over-processing or any other processing. What a boring world it would be if we all thought the same way.

[Whisky_Mac]

Whisky_Mac..Question for you (as the OP).

hypothetical : I come to you from the head office of say a big bank. I have seen one of your photos on a website and want to buy it to feature on a huge wall in our about to be completed flagship branch in Sydney, and also we will consider using it in our new 'Aussie Bank' tv campaign..but there is one catch, we want you to edit the photo to make it more vibrant, boost the colours and blur the background more. We will obviously pay you handsomely, for the rights to use this photo.

Do you do what we want, or do you say "sorry, but I don't like my images processed like that!"?

Hi Rick,

The client is paying for what he wants. He gets it. As a professional you give him what he wants but as a professional you have the responsibility to warn him if he is barking up the wrong tree, if he tells you that that is still what he wants that is what he gets.

If people read my post again they can see that my background is from the print area, that is commercial printing press. I not that one mentioned RGB gamut. RGB is used for transmission, that is TV and of course computer screens, it has a wider gamut than CMYK which is for the commercial press.

I am not knocking post but the over use of it. In the trade the availablity of cheaper digitals meant many images were supplied which left a lot to be desired. We would have to improve the conmtrast and sharpening, often turn a drought looking lawn into a lush rich lawn. We always had spare skies about for those images that had the sky blown out.

It is the over processing which I was warning against. I process all my shots myself. I find that adobe camera raw will do most for me and then an unsharp mask in photoshop will do most things.

[jim]

Interesting that many think the acid test of a photograph is whether you can sell it or not. While there might be some danger in pursuing a personal vision to the point where your photos say nothing to anybody else, as a non-professional I would never bother to evaluate my pictures against what a client might want. What would be the point?

[gcflora]

We would have to improve the conmtrast and sharpening, often turn a drought looking lawn into a lush rich lawn. We always had spare skies about for those images that had the sky blown out.

Umm, well... that is what I would regard as over processing!

[soulman]

...if the process becomes more important than the content; then quite simply its failed, and probably falls into the over processed for my tastes...Very much agree with this. As long as the processing serves the image and/or the story being told, then whatever it takes is usually just right. Most of what leaves me cold is the processing-for-the-sake-of-it stuff. Sure I appreciate good Photoshop skills, but that's only because I use it. Ps, like all the other tools we have, is simply a means to an end. A vast and potentially enjoyable one to be sure, but ultimately just a hammer; not a piece of fine furniture. A lot of the modern images I see, and I notice this very much in the AIPP award winning collections, has a "look at my technical skills" feeling about it and is remarkably homogeneous and unadventurous.

As it has always been in any creative field, the best work is done by those with something interesting to say. Whatever their process, be it realistic or highly stylised, it will look great if it is well executed, contextually appropriate and in service of the story. For me then, the issue is not so much over-processing as it is pointless processing.

[Steve Axford]

I'd agree with that, soulman. So - over processing is really inappropriate processing - or pointless processing.

[Longshots]

I'd agree with that, soulman. So - over processing is really inappropriate processing - or pointless processing.

Agreed.


And yet to one person something might seem overprocessed, others see as just right, and yet others may even see as missed opportunity ie needs more done to it ! - the issue will never end :)

[arthurking83]

.... - the issue will never end :)

except in a bad print, if print is the ultimate end product.

(as I'm understanding it, from Whisky_Mac's point of view as a professional printer)

[dredi1975]

:confused013 The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original :lol2:

Agree with you here William

[wmphoto]

Whenever one of those "straight from the camera" purists comes out of the woodwork and declares his or her images to be what the camera captured and not processed, it's worth asking these questions:


Did you shoot in JPG mode?
Did you set the contrast, sharpness and saturation sliders to non-zero values?
Did you use a "picture style" or "picture mode"?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then the image has been processed -- by the camera, and largely out of the user's control!You have just changed the way I look at PP, not that I was against it just preferred not to use it too much. But when you put it this way............... Thank you. :th3:

[Steve Axford]

Agreed.


And yet to one person something might seem overprocessed, others see as just right, and yet others may even see as missed opportunity ie needs more done to it ! - the issue will never end :)

Yep - I nearly added "One man's pointless is another man's perfect".