Over Processing

[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...

[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

[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

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)
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! )

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

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

[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

[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? )

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.