Over Processing

[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:

1. Did you shoot in JPG mode?
2. Did you set the contrast, sharpness and saturation sliders to non-zero values?
3. 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? )

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

[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:

1. Did you shoot in JPG mode?
2. Did you set the contrast, sharpness and saturation sliders to non-zero values?
3. 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 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.

[Scotty72]

Geees I have been accused of being erroneous in the (recent) past when it comes to posts on a straightforward subject 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.

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)