if you are referring to the think before you shoot thing for film...
with the right mentality, it applies for digital too.
Why we need Post Processing?
- Thread starter kentwong81
- Start date
if you are referring to the think before you shoot thing for film...
with the right mentality, it applies for digital too.
because your high end camera cannot remove coffee-stain on clothings; it cannot give you the colour mood that your art director required.
pp are required because they are many who owned high-end camera do not know what is white balance nor differentiate birds and sensor dusts.
most often pp are not required be it low or high -end camera.
I am someone who don't know how to use high end PP softwares like PS, etc. I only use Photoscape for quick less than a min post processing. But my answer to the TS's question is similar to various posts mentioned. One views taking photographs differently. Some view it as an art just like painting and maybe that's when heavier PP comes in to create something that's impactful and more pleasing to the viewers' eyes than the reality.
An e.g. would be to add colours to landscapes like sunset with pink skies when the actual colour of the skies are quite dull?
On the other hand, there are people who take photographs to capture moments or events to share with other people who didn't experience it first hand may want to keep the photographs as close to reality as possible.
E.g. showing upclose shots of a soccer player who scored a goal, is there a need to photoshop to make him look more 'pretty' by whitening his teeth and reducing his eye bags ? I don't know but I think maybe not. So maybe light PP will suffice like cropping etc.
So what I want to say is it depends on what's ur objective in taking a photograph, whether you want to take it from the point of view of art or as a form of report through pictures.
Of course there can be a mixture of both objectives.
Just a noob's 2 cents worth
An e.g. would be to add colours to landscapes like sunset with pink skies when the actual colour of the skies are quite dull?
On the other hand, there are people who take photographs to capture moments or events to share with other people who didn't experience it first hand may want to keep the photographs as close to reality as possible.
E.g. showing upclose shots of a soccer player who scored a goal, is there a need to photoshop to make him look more 'pretty' by whitening his teeth and reducing his eye bags ? I don't know but I think maybe not. So maybe light PP will suffice like cropping etc.
So what I want to say is it depends on what's ur objective in taking a photograph, whether you want to take it from the point of view of art or as a form of report through pictures.
Of course there can be a mixture of both objectives.
Just a noob's 2 cents worth
Don't wish to be overly artsy fartsy but I view each and every single piece of photo as a piece of art and they deserve to have their time spent on.
Whether it's alot of PP or minimum, I will take a decent look at my photos and reflect upon them.
Whether it's alot of PP or minimum, I will take a decent look at my photos and reflect upon them.
oops, i didn't find out what the words meant, just picked the photo off the internet.
i remove it now.
Digital photos are easier to manupulate and change, and with this mindset, most never take care about proper setting before shooting cause they can make changes during PP. For a causual photographer using film, and printing directly from it, there were less leeway to do this. Unfortunately, I only know DPP, so most of my photos look more like out-of-camera and therefore, less pleasing to most. That's why, I am also a lousier photographer.
eh...
without PP...alot of wedding photos will become boring even faster and stored under the bed sooner...~ =)
without PP...alot of wedding photos will become boring even faster and stored under the bed sooner...~ =)
let me stress once again, that just because more people are using digital today, and that more people are complaining about photoshop because more people are not good at it since more people are in photography, it doesn't mean that people didn't manipulate or edit photos in the darkroom in the yesteryear.
ansel adams did a lot of burn/dodge work for his landscapes.
don't for a single second think that the masters of yesterday shot out of camera. photoshop IS, after all, based on the darkroom.
Never said that one could not manupulate film photos, but said that for a casual photographer using film, less leeway to do it in the days of just printing directly from film. I spent 50 years in film and sure knows how if I want to but unlike the ease of today's technology with just a PC and software. Therefore, there is this tendancy of more reliance on PP.
Because PP is fun. Becourse PP helps to produce a pic that you can't do it in 1 shot from the cam. Because in cam curve is not strong enough...Because my cam don't have digital filter...because...*quite alot of reasons*...:think:
Film without any darkroom manipulation, especially for colour film, looks realistic straight out of the (light-tight) box and contains enough detail and resolution for you to print dimensions far bigger than what the usual folk does.
But a digital photograph doesn't have that colour straight out of the camera. A JPEG usually lacks contrast. A RAW file, by its very definition, requires some PP to output JPEG. PP for digital then is often needed to achieve a certain look because quite simply, the camera doesn't deliver on it. It captures the image and stores the colour info, but that's it.
Film has its own characteristics. Velvia over-saturates blue and green, and has the highest dynamic range of any color film. Fuji 400H, when slightly overexposed, produces a pastel colour which some people like to use for weddings and portraiture. Kodachrome produces the most realistic colour out of any colour film.
All those mentioned above, in itself, is already "PP" in a sense. Digital doesn't have all that. So people PP for it.
But a digital photograph doesn't have that colour straight out of the camera. A JPEG usually lacks contrast. A RAW file, by its very definition, requires some PP to output JPEG. PP for digital then is often needed to achieve a certain look because quite simply, the camera doesn't deliver on it. It captures the image and stores the colour info, but that's it.
Film has its own characteristics. Velvia over-saturates blue and green, and has the highest dynamic range of any color film. Fuji 400H, when slightly overexposed, produces a pastel colour which some people like to use for weddings and portraiture. Kodachrome produces the most realistic colour out of any colour film.
All those mentioned above, in itself, is already "PP" in a sense. Digital doesn't have all that. So people PP for it.
Last edited:
Agreed, but there's a difference how one interprets "PP". In film, many choices, like type of film and processing are made before a shot is taken. So I consider them "Pre". Likewise, if one knows well enough of photography and one's digital cam, one can make most of such choices before hitting the shutter.
yup, I agree type of films are considered 'pre'...
anyway, digital requires sharpening, unlike film...
this is a very debatable argument -
i would attribute the proliferation of photographers editing their photos with photoshop as a sign of increasing affluence AND technology reducing cost. this of course, includes factors such as the fact that photoshop is probably a lot more pirate-able than a bona fide darkroom with darkroom equipment.
if no one ever came up with a dslr, i think it's arguable that mass production methods, and modern technology could come up with a way to make darkroom techniques much more accessible, portable and implementable within the home today. for example, there might be cheaper alternative china brands, just like how ink cartridges have third party companies producing them nowadays to reduce cost.. in the past such was relatively unseen.
but that's an alternative scenario that we can never really see.. it is counterfactual. thus we will never know.
Last edited:
this is a very debatable argument -
i would attribute the proliferation of photographers editing their photos with photoshop as a sign of increasing affluence AND technology reducing cost. this of course, includes factors such as the fact that photoshop is probably a lot more pirate-able than a bona fide darkroom with darkroom equipment.
if no one ever came up with a dslr, i think it's arguable that mass production methods, and modern technology could come up with a way to make darkroom techniques much more accessible, portable and implementable within the home today. for example, there might be cheaper alternative china brands, just like how ink cartridges have third party companies producing them nowadays to reduce cost.. in the past such was relatively unseen.
but that's an alternative scenario that we can never really see.. it is counterfactual. thus we will never know.
I still use film but I prefer digital. But, having owned and operated a microfilm processing centre for about 15 years, I don't think it can be as convenient and smart as our digital darkroom today. With film you do more "Pre' steps than 'Post' anyway, so they are different.
while reading this thread,i would like to find out are there PP programs for beginners?i have seen PS and its full fledge lineup of tools to help photographers edit their pics but to me, its so chim.
so im wondering is there any easier,simpler PP programs to help beginners liked many of us, who just joined the community to edit our photos? probably not as advance as PS, but something simpler and easier
so im wondering is there any easier,simpler PP programs to help beginners liked many of us, who just joined the community to edit our photos? probably not as advance as PS, but something simpler and easier
There are many many quick and easy ones.. in fact too many.. picasa is 1 example. They even have this auto-everything button.. just click and the program will decide how to PP and what to PP (referring to the adjustments applied).
Have a look here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=63
There are already 3 threads at position 2, 3 and 4 (at the moment when I type this) dealing with your question. Enjoy reading.
I think pp is like food production....
Some can accept it Raw... some like to enhance it to his own liking. No right or wrong...
Some can accept it Raw... some like to enhance it to his own liking. No right or wrong...
Similar threads
