What does Processing an image actually mean to you?

[Brev00]

Please forgive me if I have not read each word you have written here. I am a big proponent of brev-ity. Partly to limit my own verbiage. Partly because I simply do not care to read very lengthy posts. Usually. Brevity does not mean length is inherently a negative. I should have better appreciated your first reply. (Wink added. No emojis in mobile app).

 

[David Mintzer]

Lots of artist-wannabes’ egos hurt because they, unable to shoot a good photograph, want to conveniently transform post-processing, a technical task, into an artistic endeavor.

Some, ignorant as the OP is, even made a classic appeal-to-authority argument by quoting Ansel Adams, but it backfired spectacularly when a video of the man was presented giving proper and full context to his words.

Truth is post-processing is closer to digital plastic surgery than art. Both deal with aesthetics, but neither is art.

Painful to some - but totally true.

I respectfully disagree you on the way you seem to perceive art. I see art more in line with how it's defined by Merriam-Webster which removes personal bias (opera is art but rap is not, etc.) Art is the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects. Photography is the the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor). Retouching a photograph with no skill or imagination is not art but a talented retoucher can indeed creating art.

I wouldn't think this was art but fortunately, no one person gets to define what is or is not art.



--
Ben Boozer
Disagree without being disagreeable

Except Webster---you just contradicted yourself by saying no one gets define art after spending a paragraph on what art is. By the way, using your preferred definition, you can call anything Art. From a picture of your Uncle Gus blowing out the birthday candles (looks cartoon like in HDR) to a great capture by Robert Frank--it's all Art!

Of course, there is good art and bad art---but thats all opinion and of course ALL OPINIONS are of equal validity!

 

[MarkNicholas]

While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched"

You can't keep a RAW photo untouched, well you can but an untouched RAW file is just a file full of data. You cant see it. You can only see it once you have developed it.

 

[MarkNicholas]

1. I do not process photos. I digitally develop my RAW files into viewable photos using Lightroom. I am only doing what I used to let my camera do but with LR I have much more control and I don't just have one chance to get it right.

2. For me processing photos means doing something to them that would not normally be done them.

OK. "Digitally developing", as you call it, is what the rest of us call processing, as in "post process". Just symantics.

I don't think it is semantics. I think it is a question of using the terminology correctly.

In the film days did you send off the roll of film for developing or post processing ? I rest my case.

The term post processing clearing means processing after something. You can't tell me that it means processing after taking a photo because that is meaningless and a redundant use of the word post. You obviously can't process before taking the photo so why insert the word post. Post processing clearly means processing after it has already been developed.

You used to just keep your images SOOC, trusting the camera to do the right thing? It's good that you now spend the effort in LR to do it correctly.

I don't think it It is a question of doing it "correctly" either. It is just the way I prefer to do it. There is nothing wrong with allowing your camera to develop the raw data into Jpegs. That is traditionally how it was done and many folks still do and prefer it that way. Its just that I prefer to develop my RAW data into photos myself on the computer using Lightroom and more recently on my phone using Lightroom CC.

 

[irv00]

While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched"

.You can't keep a RAW photo untouched, well you can but an untouched RAW file is just a file full of data. You cant see it. You can only see it once you have developed it.

Go back and read the whole paragraph.

Nobody is talking about RAW files. I was talking about some photographers not doing any sort of post-processing, any sort of retouching (that’s why I said ‘un-touched’ and not ‘undeveloped’).

This is the complete paragraph from which you quote:

”While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched", I agree with you that it's not the norm. Even in the old days, there was manipulation of pictures in order to fulfill the photographer's original vision. Some people like Ansel Adams, were into a lot of post-processing, while others like Cartier-Bresson were not.”

 

[irv00]

I don't think it is semantics. I think it is a question of using the terminology correctly.

Actually, ‘post-processing’ is perfectly fine terminology, originating in the video world (‘process in post’) and being used now in photographic circles every day.

Just do a Google search for “post-processing photography” and you will see how common it is. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It’s often used interchangeably with ‘retouching’, ‘processing’, etc.

In the film days did you send off the roll of film for developing or post processing ? I rest my case.

I don’t know what, exactly, you mean with that contrived argument. But just in case, I will point out we are no longer living in the film days. More than ‘development’, we do ‘conversion’ to our RAW files. But I know what you meant. No big deal.

The term post processing clearing means processing after something. You can't tell me that it means processing after taking a photo because that is meaningless and a redundant use of the word post.

Do a Google search for “what is 'post-processing'? photography” and you will see how common the use is and how people define it. Quite simple and perfectly clear, to be honest.

You obviously can't process before taking the photo so why insert the word post. Post processing clearly means processing after it has already been developed.

I’m surprised you are so anal about terminology and still use ‘developed’ instead of the far more accurate ‘converted’ in this digital era.

Not to mention certain pictures (like OOC jpegs) are never ‘developed’ or ‘converted’ but can be ‘post-processed’!!!!

Oh, sh*t!!! I just noticed I used the term ‘pictures’ instead of ‘photographs’!

 

[lilBuddha]

Except Webster---you just contradicted yourself by saying no one gets define art after spending a paragraph on what art is.

Actually, one sentence. And it speaks in concept rather than definition.

 

[Boomanbb]

Except Webster---you just contradicted yourself by saying no one gets define art after spending a paragraph on what art is.

Actually, one sentence. And it speaks in concept rather than definition.

Exactly. To me, the process can be art just as much as the finished product.

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched"

.You can't keep a RAW photo untouched, well you can but an untouched RAW file is just a file full of data. You cant see it. You can only see it once you have developed it.

Go back and read the whole paragraph.

Nobody is talking about RAW files.

You should go back and read what you were responding to.

I did.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

I was talking about some photographers not doing any sort of post-processing, any sort of retouching (that’s why I said ‘un-touched’ and not ‘undeveloped’).

This is the complete paragraph from which you quote:

”While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched", I agree with you that it's not the norm. Even in the old days, there was manipulation of pictures in order to fulfill the photographer's original vision. Some people like Ansel Adams, were into a lot of post-processing, while others like Cartier-Bresson were not.”

 

[MarkNicholas]

While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched"

.You can't keep a RAW photo untouched, well you can but an untouched RAW file is just a file full of data. You cant see it. You can only see it once you have developed it.

Go back and read the whole paragraph.

Nobody is talking about RAW files. I was talking about some photographers not doing any sort of post-processing, any sort of retouching (that’s why I said ‘un-touched’ and not ‘undeveloped’).

This is the complete paragraph from which you quote:

”While there is no sin in keeping pictures "un-touched", I agree with you that it's not the norm. Even in the old days, there was manipulation of pictures in order to fulfill the photographer's original vision. Some people like Ansel Adams, were into a lot of post-processing, while others like Cartier-Bresson were not.”

I am talking about RAW files. YOU go back and read my first post.