What does Processing an image actually mean to you?

[DenImage]

The op asked what do you think of when you go about processing an image. You provided him with a synonym for processing which might be a good example of free association but does not answer his question. So, what does interacting with an image mean to you? I think he is looking for a personal perspective.

For me, opening a file is like asking a series of questions. Is this image worth my time? How much processing do I think I will want to do? That could be anywhere from a raw conversion using my default settings to simple edits to get it closer to what I saw to simple edits to get it to my taste to much more massive undertakings. Going from that initial choice is like playing a game of Chess and Ladders. Each choice leads to a new set of choices with the possibility of returning to any previous step or the very beginning. Some choices are made nearly automatically and others require consideration. Nothing is right or wrong. All comes down to my aesthetic sense. There is a combination of applying learned maneuvers, making new adjustments, approximating moves I have seen used by others, and throwing up my hands. Often, I will simply allow a certain rotation: if I process a few mildly, I might go more extreme on the next one. As in a multiple choice text, one does not want to answer B to every question.

I hope this answers the op's question. My take on your reply or the op's post may be way off. Just made a choice and following it through.

All that could be said in a single sentence, though: you do what the image requires with the tools available.

It’s not too complicated, to be honest.

Overly simplistic (< one sentence)

Nope.

The reason some people (like the OP) want to make retouching into some sort of complex, semi-spiritual process is that it makes them feel like they are ‘artists’. By claiming some sort of tortured, inspiration-based post-processing, their ugly pictures become ‘art’. They even cite great photographers of the past, like Ansel Adams, as proof of their own ‘artistry’.

The truth is very different, though.

Processing an image is the simple, technical step of finishing the process that began when the photographer took the picture. The truly artistic part is taking the picture. The rest is just making sure the final rendering of that picture best fits the original vision - and that’s what separates the real photographers from the millions of wannabes who think that they will achieve “artist” status by the use of Lightroom presets or the imitation some photographic style (‘how can achieve the Dave Hill look?’) or will transform a turd into a diamond by sheer processing sweat and inspiration. The jump from program to program, spending lots of money and tons of effort trying to give a technical solution to their artistic problems. They feel that the next purchase will be the one that unlocks the *artist* in them, the one that will truly makes their pictures shine.

But you can’t fake art.

Ansel Adams spent all that time in the freaking darkroom because he had a vision to fulfill and his tools were truly primitive compared to what we have today. He was not looking for inspiration - the pictures were great and he made sure they reflected his original vision by processing them accordingly.

Processing is primarily a technical task that does nothing to change the basic nature of a picture: a good one will be good and a bad one will be bad - even in the hands of a great photographer like Ansel Adams.

Look for inspiration and beauty behind the lens, not in front of the computer screen.

Ugh, talk about over complicating it.

I don't look at my photos as art, I just wanna get the best IQ out of my camera and lenses.

I also produce Panoramic Tours commercially, not for artistic purposes.

Den

 

[irv00]

The op asked what do you think of when you go about processing an image. You provided him with a synonym for processing which might be a good example of free association but does not answer his question. So, what does interacting with an image mean to you? I think he is looking for a personal perspective.

For me, opening a file is like asking a series of questions. Is this image worth my time? How much processing do I think I will want to do? That could be anywhere from a raw conversion using my default settings to simple edits to get it closer to what I saw to simple edits to get it to my taste to much more massive undertakings. Going from that initial choice is like playing a game of Chess and Ladders. Each choice leads to a new set of choices with the possibility of returning to any previous step or the very beginning. Some choices are made nearly automatically and others require consideration. Nothing is right or wrong. All comes down to my aesthetic sense. There is a combination of applying learned maneuvers, making new adjustments, approximating moves I have seen used by others, and throwing up my hands. Often, I will simply allow a certain rotation: if I process a few mildly, I might go more extreme on the next one. As in a multiple choice text, one does not want to answer B to every question.

I hope this answers the op's question. My take on your reply or the op's post may be way off. Just made a choice and following it through.

All that could be said in a single sentence, though: you do what the image requires with the tools available.

It’s not too complicated, to be honest.

Overly simplistic (< one sentence)

Nope.

The reason some people (like the OP) want to make retouching into some sort of complex, semi-spiritual process is that it makes them feel like they are ‘artists’. By claiming some sort of tortured, inspiration-based post-processing, their ugly pictures become ‘art’. They even cite great photographers of the past, like Ansel Adams, as proof of their own ‘artistry’.

The truth is very different, though.

Processing an image is the simple, technical step of finishing the process that began when the photographer took the picture. The truly artistic part is taking the picture. The rest is just making sure the final rendering of that picture best fits the original vision - and that’s what separates the real photographers from the millions of wannabes who think that they will achieve “artist” status by the use of Lightroom presets or the imitation some photographic style (‘how can achieve the Dave Hill look?’) or will transform a turd into a diamond by sheer processing sweat and inspiration. The jump from program to program, spending lots of money and tons of effort trying to give a technical solution to their artistic problems. They feel that the next purchase will be the one that unlocks the *artist* in them, the one that will truly makes their pictures shine.

But you can’t fake art.

Ansel Adams spent all that time in the freaking darkroom because he had a vision to fulfill and his tools were truly primitive compared to what we have today. He was not looking for inspiration - the pictures were great and he made sure they reflected his original vision by processing them accordingly.

Processing is primarily a technical task that does nothing to change the basic nature of a picture: a good one will be good and a bad one will be bad - even in the hands of a great photographer like Ansel Adams.

Look for inspiration and beauty behind the lens, not in front of the computer screen.

Ugh, talk about over complicating it.

I don't look at my photos as art, I just wanna get the best IQ out of my camera and lenses.

I also produce Panoramic Tours commercially, not for artistic purposes.

And I make a living processing/retouching pictures (and all sorts of graphics) I never shot!

Because it’s a simple, technical process (that requires know-how) - not some complex artistic endeavor.

 

[DenImage]

"Because it’s a simple, technical process (that requires know-how) - not some complex artistic endeavor"

:

Agreed, so why the long winded diatribe?

Den

 

[irv00]

"Because it’s a simple, technical process (that requires know-how) - not some complex artistic endeavor"

:

Agreed, so why the long winded diatribe?

To explain the reasoning behind the statement - for the benefit of those don’t know better (I tried the ‘short’ approach first - check it out, but some missed it and deserve a more thorough explanation). Just like I’m doing here, with you.

 

[DenImage]

Ah ok, my bad.

Den

 

[grcolts]

For me processing is about trying to either capture as closely I can a real life scene or using PP to do something I could not do otherwise with just my camera. When shooting landscapes I try to use PP to help me capture those fine details I saw while photographing. When I want to do something wild and crazy PP allows me to do that too. As much as I can I try to get the image as close to what I want in my camera before going to a PP software.

 

[Glen Barrington]

I never really thought about it in that light until you brought the question up.

Generally, I look at one of my photos and try to figure out what I want the final product to look like, sometimes I just start experimenting.

But in either case, I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get a satisfactory image. I will say, however, that I do lean towards a very naturalistic looking photo; though I'm not above the occasional 'way out there' photo.

 

[Brev00]

Finally, I think I understand what you meant to say in both your short and long versions. When the op asked what you think of when it comes to processing, you could have said: next to nothing. I didn't get the sense at first that you believed in the immaculate capture. Now the fog has lifted.

 

[irv00]

Finally, I think I understand what you meant to say in both your short and long versions. When the op asked what you think of when it comes to processing, you could have said: next to nothing.

I didn’t say that because that’s not what I think. That’s *your* interpretation of what I said.

I didn't get the sense at first that you believed in the immaculate capture. Now the fog has lifted.

What’s the ‘immaculate capture’? Does it have anything to do with the Virgin Mary?

 

[irv00]

I guess the only way to ‘illustrate’ what I mean, is with an actual example.

First, my thinking: processing is the last leg of a trip that began when the photographer conceived his idea for a picture, composed/framed and pressed the shutter. Processing is technical in nature - it can’t compensate for bad photography, it can’t help with ‘inspiration’.

Now the example. You CAN’T expect processing to turn this





Into this

 

[lilBuddha]

So may be decades from now the reproduction technique for a real scene will get vanished .

Actually, Adams formed the group f64 in reaction to the pictorial movement which attempted to make photographs look like paintings.

Realistic or not realistic are both equally old approaches to photography. And will both likely rise and fall in popularity over time.

 

[lilBuddha]

And I make a living processing/retouching pictures (and all sorts of graphics) I never shot!

Because it’s a simple, technical process (that requires know-how) - not some complex artistic endeavor.

Now I understand. Because your process is facile and mechanical, you think everyone else' should be.

Nope.

The reason some people (like the OP) want to make retouching into some sort of complex, semi-spiritual

Didn't say anything about spiritual.

process is that it makes them feel like they are ‘artists’. By claiming some sort of tortured,

Or tortured.

inspiration-based post-processing, their ugly pictures become ‘art’. They even cite great photographers of the past, like Ansel Adams, as proof of their own ‘artistry’.

No. People cite Ansel Adams because he was an artist. Demonstrating that photography can be art.

The truth is very different, though.

Processing an image is the simple, technical step of finishing the process that began when the photographer took the picture. The truly artistic part is taking the picture.

This is an argument for another thread, but your statement is incorrect and shows either arrogance, ignorance or both.

Adams himself said the negative is the score and the print is the performance.

However, what is art and what is not and whether photography should be realistic are subjects for a different thread.

For someone claiming others want drama, you certainly make an effort to import it unnecessarily.

 

[irv00]

And I make a living processing/retouching pictures (and all sorts of graphics) I never shot!

Because it’s a simple, technical process (that requires know-how) - not some complex artistic endeavor.

Now I understand. Because your process is facile and mechanical, you think everyone else' should be.

Nope.

The reason some people (like the OP) want to make retouching into some sort of complex, semi-spiritual

Didn't say anything about spiritual.

process is that it makes them feel like they are ‘artists’. By claiming some sort of tortured,

Or tortured.

inspiration-based post-processing, their ugly pictures become ‘art’. They even cite great photographers of the past, like Ansel Adams, as proof of their own ‘artistry’.

No. People cite Ansel Adams because he was an artist. Demonstrating that photography can be art.

The truth is very different, though.

Processing an image is the simple, technical step of finishing the process that began when the photographer took the picture. The truly artistic part is taking the picture.

This is an argument for another thread, but your statement is incorrect and shows either arrogance, ignorance or both.

Adams himself said the negative is the score and the print is the performance.

However, what is art and what is not and whether photography should be realistic are subjects for a different thread.

For someone claiming others want drama, you certainly make an effort to import it unnecessarily.

Nope.

It’s very simple and applies to everyone, even Ansel Adams: there is nothing without a great photograph to begin with.

Processing is technical - it won’t alter the artistic content of a picture even in the hands of the most accomplished retouchers: garbage in, better garbage out; art in, better art out. Better, but still garbage, still art.

Those who don’t understand that simple principle are doomed to spend their life switching software, buying presets, plugins, etc., trying to fix a problem that has no solution in processing, because it’s artistic in nature: they are working with low-quality material.

If in doubt, just remember that better pictures require less tweaking.

As simple as that.

 

[Jim B (MSP)]

And I make a living processing/retouching pictures (and all sorts of graphics) I never shot!

Because it’s a simple, technical process (that requires know-how) - not some complex artistic endeavor.

Now I understand. Because your process is facile and mechanical, you think everyone else' should be.

Nope.

The reason some people (like the OP) want to make retouching into some sort of complex, semi-spiritual

Didn't say anything about spiritual.

process is that it makes them feel like they are ‘artists’. By claiming some sort of tortured,

Or tortured.

inspiration-based post-processing, their ugly pictures become ‘art’. They even cite great photographers of the past, like Ansel Adams, as proof of their own ‘artistry’.

No. People cite Ansel Adams because he was an artist. Demonstrating that photography can be art.

The truth is very different, though.

Processing an image is the simple, technical step of finishing the process that began when the photographer took the picture. The truly artistic part is taking the picture.

This is an argument for another thread, but your statement is incorrect and shows either arrogance, ignorance or both.

Adams himself said the negative is the score and the print is the performance.

However, what is art and what is not and whether photography should be realistic are subjects for a different thread.

For someone claiming others want drama, you certainly make an effort to import it unnecessarily.

Nope.

It’s very simple and applies to everyone, even Ansel Adams: there is nothing without a great photograph to begin with.

Processing is technical - it won’t alter the artistic content of a picture even in the hands of the most accomplished retouchers: garbage in, better garbage out; art in, better art out. Better, but still garbage, still art.

Those who don’t understand that simple principle are doomed to spend their life switching software, buying presets, plugins, etc., trying to fix a problem that has no solution in processing, because it’s artistic in nature: they are working with low-quality material.

If in doubt, just remember that better pictures require less tweaking.

As simple as that.

You two remind me of a couple of children running in circles around a table hurling insults at one another, and not listening at all to one another.

One asked a question, and the other claims to be able to speak for everyone. By some of the logic used here and in other posts above, you might believe that applying paint with a brush (a tool) to a blank canvas is only technical.

 

[Nick5]

I like the what Lightroom calls it in their panels or modules, "Develop". How we develop film or digitally, it all comes down to taste.

 

[lilBuddha]

Nope.

It’s very simple and applies to everyone, even Ansel Adams: there is nothing without a great photograph to begin with.

This is not a refutation to anything I've said on this thread not does it address anything I've said on this thread.

And yet you still manage to be wrong.

As to the rest of your opinion-stated-as-fact, I will address that in a thread related to it.

 

[lilBuddha]

You two remind me of a couple of children running in circles around a table hurling insults at one another, and not listening at all to one another.

OK, I will admit that I should have taken the high road and ignored him. However, I have responded to what he actually said.

One asked a question,

And that is all it is meant to be. Not a judgement on what people do, simply an exploration of the idea.

 

[irv00]

Nope.

It’s very simple and applies to everyone, even Ansel Adams: there is nothing without a great photograph to begin with.

This is not a refutation to anything I've said on this thread not does it address anything I've said on this thread.

And yet you still manage to be wrong.

As to the rest of your opinion-stated-as-fact, I will address that in a thread related to it.

I am not trying to refute anything - I’m stating my position on this topic - like many others (but somehow my writing gets far more attention, which is kind of flattering!).

The difference is that my post touches a nerve with a few, who like to think of themselves as ‘artists’ based on attitude, not results. They are the ones interested in perpetuating the myth that ‘art’ has no definition and therefore, *anything* (conveniently including their ‘production’, of course!) is art.

They are the ones interested in making post-processing into an ‘artistic endeavour’, because it gives them a second chance to create some ‘art’ (they usually botch the first one when they press the shutter).

They are the ones constantly looking for the ‘Dragan Look’, the ‘Dave Hill look’, the use of presets as a short-cut to greatness, the collection of plugins and retouching techniques as insurance against their own lack of artistic vision, etc.

Expressing my views makes me very unpopular in their eyes. That’s totally understandable. Thank God I’m not in search of popularity or approval! I’m happy with very little: just being able to speak my mind is more than enough.

So, feel free to disagree!

 

[Brev00]

Finally, I think I understand what you meant to say in both your short and long versions. When the op asked what you think of when it comes to processing, you could have said: next to nothing.

I didn’t say that because that’s not what I think. That’s *your* interpretation of what I said.

This is what you said:

The truly artistic part is taking the picture. The rest is just making sure the final rendering of that picture best fits the original vision

and (your bold):

Look for inspiration and beauty behind the lens, not in front of the computer screen.

This really is a definitive statement of the purist, someone whose ideal would be minimal to no processing. My phrasing, 'next to nothing', seems like a pretty close approximation if with a touch of poetic license. You clearly stated that there is a line between capture and processing (the word:not) which eliminates the validity of shooting with processing in mind as the culmination of one's vision (ETTR, for instance).

I didn't get the sense at first that you believed in the immaculate capture. Now the fog has lifted.

What’s the ‘immaculate capture’? Does it have anything to do with the Virgin Mary?

Another allusion that I hope adds a little style or panache to the dry rendering (or technical processing) of my thoughts.

 

[irv00]

Finally, I think I understand what you meant to say in both your short and long versions. When the op asked what you think of when it comes to processing, you could have said: next to nothing.

I didn’t say that because that’s not what I think. That’s *your* interpretation of what I said.

This is what you said:

The truly artistic part is taking the picture. The rest is just making sure the final rendering of that picture best fits the original vision

and (your bold):

Look for inspiration and beauty behind the lens, not in front of the computer screen.

This really is a definitive statement of the purist, someone whose ideal would be minimal to no processing. My phrasing, 'next to nothing', seems like a pretty close approximation if with a touch of poetic license. You clearly stated that there is a line between capture and processing (the word:not) which eliminates the validity of shooting with processing in mind as the culmination of one's vision (ETTR, for instance).

Totally wrong interpretation of my words.

I’ll try a different approach with you: you can retouch (‘process’) a lot or a little - I don’t oppose either approach (Ansel Adams is known to have spent entire days in the darkroom).

I’m just pointing out that by the time you start retouching a photograph , the picture’s artistic content (or potential, whatever you prefer to call it) is settled : it is either a good photograph or a bad one.

And no matter how much or how little you retouch or what attitude you have toward processing, garbage will remain garbage and art will remain art. And yes, you can improve a bad picture with skillful processing, of course, but it will not make it into a good one. This forum is littered with examples of that.

So, retouch to your heart’s content, but be aware that the time for inspiration is behind you. Now, all you can do is apply your technical skill and tools (dodge, burn, transform, color-correct, sharpen, blur, replace, delete, whatever) to improving whatever you’re working with - but you won’t turn that turd into a diamond.

So, no, I’m not a ‘purist’ (I manipulate all sort of graphics - not just photographs- for a living *every day*!). I’m a man aware of the process.