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.

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/...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 , 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 Sort of Horses for courses, Subjective , have a ponder - Cheers bill

[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.

[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.

[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? )

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.

[Xenedis]

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

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/for...ad.php?t=65760

[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

[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.

[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]

The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original

[Cage]

The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original

'Onya Bill


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]

The more I look , The more I like the moodyness of the original

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/for...ad.php?t=65647