Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
14220121709_f207b1b65e_b.jpg

https://flic.kr/p/nEzQLe
 
Nooooooooooo... But if 'it' ain't there when you press the shutter, is there really anything you can do to improve it? :confused:

In general I agree with this. Yet I have two examples to offer as a counterpoint:

14407733165_0e657912fe_c.jpg

Image as shot

14221097239_0a14bf7a73_c.jpg

Image "fixed" in post

14221122730_b6bffd8afd_c.jpg

Image as shot

14404372381_d9ddf53c0c_c.jpg

Image "fixed" in post

Both of the "fixed" images have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Sometimes you *can* make chicken salad out of chicken **** :)
 
In general I agree with this. Yet I have two examples to offer as a counterpoint:

Image
Image as shot

Image
Image "fixed" in post

Image
Image as shot

Image
Image "fixed" in post

Both of the "fixed" images have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Sometimes you *can* make chicken salad out of chicken **** :)
Although your fixed shots are clearly improved, your as shot are hardly lemons.
 
More thoughts about PP...

Tweaking a pix in PP is fine, IMO. A minor crop, opening up shadows, changing colour temperature, etc.

But trying to find some way to salvage a pic that 'doesn't quite work' is not so good. Major crops, crunching an image through some HDR programme, applying some all-over filter effect or texture... I'd rather just acknowledge that a pic didn't work, maybe analyse what went wrong and keep shooting. That's a steeper and more effective learning curve, IMO...

Vknv7Zs.jpg
 
More thoughts about PP...

Tweaking a pix in PP is fine, IMO. A minor crop, opening up shadows, changing colour temperature, etc.

But trying to find some way to salvage a pic that 'doesn't quite work' is not so good. Major crops, crunching an image through some HDR programme, applying some all-over filter effect or texture... I'd rather just acknowledge that a pic didn't work, maybe analyse what went wrong and keep shooting. That's a steeper and more effective learning curve, IMO...

Vknv7Zs.jpg

Lovely lighting in this picture. Looks as though the stonemason did a bit of mechanical PP on his work!
 


Microlight Live!

Canon EOS 6D
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
ƒ/3.5
1/30
ISO400


Adjacent side note: I've often wondered where my shots stand with peoples views towards PP.
All my shots are taken as RAW and then run through processing in PS, I don't use any presets (beyond ones I've created myself for simple things like soft vignettes, sharpening etc). I feel my PP brings out exactly how I see the shot in my head when I press the shutter. To me, my photography isn't about preservation of an exact actuality that's in front of me but rather a form of expression, whether my PP is justified is for viewers to decide. Seemed like a relevant time to ask.
 
Last edited:
More thoughts about PP...

Tweaking a pix in PP is fine, IMO. A minor crop, opening up shadows, changing colour temperature, etc.

But trying to find some way to salvage a pic that 'doesn't quite work' is not so good. Major crops, crunching an image through some HDR programme, applying some all-over filter effect or texture... I'd rather just acknowledge that a pic didn't work, maybe analyse what went wrong and keep shooting. That's a steeper and more effective learning curve, IMO...

Image

I couldn't agree with this more! Too many "photographers" these days simply shoot crap and go wild in post; they'd have never made it in the days of film! And this is coming from a guy in his 30's... who learned in high school by shooting on a completely manual Minolta SLR (don't recall the model) and developing my own B&W film in the school's darkroom. I quickly learned that getting the shot right the first time was how it was done... because that was basically the only option we had! Sure we could develop 8x10s and "crop" them down to the size needed, but that was about it. I still try to apply the same principles shooting digital, but I am far from an expert. That said, I thoroughly enjoy photography as a hobby. :D
 
Adjacent side note: I've often wondered where my shots stand with peoples views towards PP.
All my shots are taken as RAW and then run through processing in PS, I don't use any presets (beyond ones I've created myself for simple things like soft vignettes, sharpening etc). I feel my PP brings out exactly how I see the shot in my head when I press the shutter. To me, my photography isn't about preservation of an exact actuality that's in front of me but rather a form of expression, whether my PP is justified is for viewers to decide. Seemed like a relevant time to ask.

I think the style of your photos are arguably the most unique on here. You could line 100 photos from random people up on a wall and it'd easy to distinguish yours from the others. The only adjective I could use to describe your shoots would be 'chalky'.
 
My thoughts on PP: Personally I put my photos through Lightroom to try and capture what I myself was looking at, and (more importantly) feeling at the time, as opposed to what the camera picks up. I find it to be extremely difficult to capture exactly what you want the person to feel like when they're viewing your photo, unless they're actually there with you at the time, without some sort of PP, as 90% of the time, when you're in that moment there's more than just the one sense being utilised. So that's what I believe PP should be used for, to try and enhance the image in a way that at least begins to 'connect the dots' in order to give the viewer more of an overview of that specific moment in time, rather than just making it a pretty image, that perhaps is not even reflective of what was in your head at the time.

'Blue Velvet' by Niall B.

Canon EOS 500D • 18mm • 1/80th at ISO 400 • f/11
 
My boss asked me to take some photos at a training session we ran today.

14227532499_c09ea87f01_b.jpg

Fujifilm xE1 with XF35mm
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.