is PP really needed???

[kilkenny]

Well seems like the discussed to death topics still does manage to generate very enthusiatic response and very prominent splitting of camps.

I like the analogy given by wkteoh and seconded by vickee and i will give my 2 cts worth on that.

PP is like makeup, is really as simple as that.

For hardcore old schoolers who are terribly resistant to PP, or for newbies who believe that PP epitomize the destruction of good old photography technique. Just ask a lady about makeup.

1) To the lady who fortunately do not need to apply makeup on a regular basis, she is probably lazy, but chances are when it matters, she will still apply makeup.

2) To the lady who swears by makeup, she will feel sick and insecure without her makeup to the point of she have to do make up even if she is going downstairs to buy char kway teow. This is just a state of mind and does not necessarily means she have great makeup skills (i have seen severely negetive examples)

3) To the lady who bo chap makeup, means she do not care how she looks and she dunno makeup (drag her for a makeover, the improvement factor to her aesthetics is probably going to be many folds)

Makeup is here to stay and will garner many more a female fans and males too, heck they are starting younger too. If done correctly, its about enhancing looks in day to day at the least and bout showing you care for important events u attend like weddings, functions even interviews.

To those that hate makeup, i request for you to understand what it is, what it can do and how ppl sometimes abuse it. You can still choose not to put on makeup but i do not think you can say that make up will not enhance the outlook of a lady.

Which is what it is all about isn't it?

Just my 2cts worth.

cheers,
kilkenny

 

[UandMe]

Professional Photographers are also human & nobody is perfect. There is no guarantee that
all photos taken by them are perfect so PP is needed to achieve wat they want.

Just my opinion.

Besides that no photographer is perfect, no scene is always perfect too. If the lighting at a scene is poor, the image will suck even if you get the most optimal exposure + use the best camera.

Probably only studio shoot can have minimal or no PP as photographers can control almost 100% of their lighting. For the rest, PP can almost always enhance ur image for better result.

 

[gooseberry]

Couple of points....

Big misconception regarding post processing.... believe this misconception arises because of the colour print lab (eg your local neighbourhood colour print lab for films). People are just so used taking their photos, dropping their films into the lab and getting great prints back - but they do not realise what happens in the print lab to get those great prints.

Your photos are definitely getting post processed - contrast adjustments (levels, curves), colour balance adjustments, sharpening, colour saturation etc - either automatically via the in built program in the lab print machine or manual override by the machine operator.

Also, as to the comment someone made about "professionals" not post processing their photos.... are you saying Ansel Adams is not a "professional" ? Because he spent hours post processing all of his photos into final prints.

As an example, this is a famous Ansel print - Moonrise, Hernandez. Most people would have seen this print

Ansel spent hours post processing this image to achieve his final vision of what he saw and what he wanted to present.

What most people haven't seen is the image "unprocessed" from the negative. I've seen a video which showed it, and this image below is close to what was the so called "unprocessed" image

Post processing is part and parcel of the process of capturing an image and final presentation - whether you want to do that is entirely up to you - but don't go around saying "good photographers don't post process".

BTW - that analogy about PP being like makeup is a totally wrong analogy.

 

[sebianos]

just do your own thang. why do u care what other people do with their photos?

Hahaha... Lancey, I'm a fan of your works. And you do your thang very well, I must say.

To TS,

PP is necessary - there's no right and wrong. Of course, there's a thing called taste in pp. Some overdo it and end up with really garish results, others overdo it and come up with masterpieces. The end results matter.

For purists, there's nothing wrong with not doing pp but they have to make sure they have a pretty good eye for photo-taking. There I've said my piece.

 

[Rendell]

Just that now, there is 1000 times more people taking picture that's all.

Totally agree!

Thanks to Internet, infrastruction, IT education, cheaper cams and improved web services/software and more paid XMM. Without them, you won't see any.

LOL :bsmilie: "Paid XMM" :thumbsup:

 

[nannan82]

to TS,

unless the pictures are meant to disseminate evidence,
just do whatever that is needed to be done to get that picture of yours out.

its much to your benefit to stop nitpicking over such trivial issues.
if not, might as well argue that industrial light and magic is the mother of all cheaters.

go have fun.

omg.. yr photo are:thumbsup::heart::bigeyes::cheergal:

 

[night86mare]

omg.. yr photo are:thumbsup::heart::bigeyes::cheergal:

now do you understand?

 

[sebianos]

now do you understand?

Yeah, man. I used to think there's no need for pp.

Only much later, I realized the miracle of pp - it brings out the best of any potential photos. End result is always more important than a fixed mindset, at least for me.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

Yeah, man. I used to think there's no need for pp.

Only much later, I realized the miracle of pp - it brings out the best of any potential photos. End result is always more important than a fixed mindset, at least for me.

Me too

Only after learning pp did i realise how shitty my 'good' shots looked :sweat:

 

[mabmy]

I personally think pp is quite necessary to slightly enhance your pictures and not over do it. I used to think that pp was unnecessary as it is cheating, so troublesome to learn how to pp and also i find it to be a waste of time. I thought my jpeg shots are nice and attempting to pp it will only destroy the image. Oh how was i wrong. I am glad that i painstakingly learn how to use photoshop, and when i finally compare my pp pictures with the so called "better and honest" non pp one, i wish i had discovered it earlier. A simple change in contrast, brightness and sharpening can make alot of difference to otherwise what i so call, a good picture.

 

[sebianos]

Daedalus, exactly what I meant. Sometimes, slight adjustments will bring out the colors what the actual eye saw in the image and make certain things "pop" out. Anyways, I met Zemotion once and asked if she does photoshop. She said everybody does photoshop - meaning she does it too. Well, that's good enough for me.

Mabmy, what's true and honest?

The camera's image capture may not be honest enough - you know over/under-exposures, color casts, inaccurate color rendering and the list goes on. Don't get me started on monitor and colors - they really need calibration and also pixels, resolution size, hues and saturation. Hahahahaha... all of which is too complicated for a simple mind like me.

All we have to do is to pp the image to what we saw when we shot the photo (refering to landscapes). That's not cheating - It's telling the truth, man. And then there's faking the truth (people shots), which is great when tastefully done

 

[bengchiat]

on top of the usual dodge n burn, PP during film days includes,

-spotting (cloning in PS),
-types of paper (curves :> ),

bros, add on for me pls,
just to share.

ps- i don't think types of film comes under PP, its ante, not post :>

 

[night86mare]

Daedalus, exactly what I meant. Sometimes, slight adjustments will bring out the colors what the actual eye saw in the image and make certain things "pop" out. Anyways, I met Zemotion once and asked if she does photoshop. She said everybody does photoshop - meaning she does it too. Well, that's good enough for me.

if zemotion doesn't do photoshop, i think she must spend a lot of time sandpapering the makeup on the models she shoots. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[mabmy]

Mabmy, what's true and honest?

The camera's image capture may not be honest enough - you know over/under-exposures, color casts, inaccurate color rendering and the list goes on. Don't get me started on monitor and colors - they really need calibration and also pixels, resolution size, hues and saturation. Hahahahaha... all of which is too complicated for a simple mind like me.

All we have to do is to pp the image to what we saw when we shot the photo (refering to landscapes). That's not cheating - It's telling the truth, man. And then there's faking the truth (people shots), which is great when tastefully done

That true and honest i realize is nothing more then my plain stupidity and being naive about pro photographers do not pp their pictures. I am glad i wnt through all those pain to learn how to pp my pictures.

 

[sebianos]

if zemotion doesn't do photoshop, i think she must spend a lot of time sandpapering the makeup on the models she shoots. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

hahaha... joker

Seriousy, if photoshop can enhance natural beauty... Why not?

In fact, most of the models you see in magazines are photoshopped. Healing, cloning, belly-tucking, skin whitening, bust enhancing... you name it, it's all done in those glossy magazines. Those magazine ppl have marvellous photoshop skills :bsmilie:

 

[sebianos]

That true and honest i realize is nothing more then my plain stupidity and being naive about pro photographers do not pp their pictures. I am glad i wnt through all those pain to learn how to pp my pictures.

LOL... that makes 2 of us.

I used to look at photos in flickr and go banging my head on the wall. How is it possible? So sharp, so vibrant, so contrasty... then keep shooting photos on the same camera, refusing to pp. Much later, I finally understand - it's all about post-processing. (and in much lesser extent - the camera)

Now, i don't bang my head anymore. Keep an eye out for different techniques, learn and duplicate. We all learn, it's a great lesson too. Pity about the wall though, got cracks! :bsmilie:

 

[Yeeming9]

hahaha... joker

Seriousy, if photoshop can enhance natural beauty... Why not?

In fact, most of the models you see in magazines are photoshopped. Healing, cloning, belly-tucking, skin whitening, bust enhancing... you name it, it's all done in those glossy magazines. Those magazine ppl have marvellous photoshop skills :bsmilie:

So the credit goes to the photographer, or the digital artist?

 

[sheldon22]

why not? i think most professionals do...

IMHO pp enhance the quality more though sometimes, you cannot see the real "picture" anymore...:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

:gbounce:

 

[blaz7]

I would not say its not needed but at least for me who shoot mostly portraits, i will do some basic PP, for me how much i PP is how i imagine the models to be if they are on their good days, so is i see a pimple, i will PP it away as it would not be there on a good day.

 

[sebianos]

So the credit goes to the photographer, or the digital artist?

Fame goes to the photographer, but the hard slogging digital artist is the genius (they are paid staff, really).