What does Processing an image actually mean to you?

[Kaj E]

To make the image that I envisioned when taking the shot.

I always shoot with post processing in mind, shoot RAW and typically expose to the right During the shoot the effort is on getting basic lighting, moment, composition, exposure and focus right for a digital file. Everything else is PP.

 

[IanYorke]

For me processing an image means to make an output image from a camera look like the actual scene as far as possible one is able to recollect from his/her memory with the help of any software.

--
'The Photographer reveals the light;the light reveals the picture'--C.Rajagopal.
A picture should communicate with our heart.
Efzee-50 & Foojee F 31fd---Polaroid X-530
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/963380256_5f4284b2ce_o.gif

Interesting comment, which relates to a comment I posted on another thread (can't find at the moment) about whether photography is art or mechanical reproduction?

"At an early meeting of the Photographic Society of London, established in 1853, one of the members complained that the new technique (photography) was "too literal to compete with works of art" because it was unable to "elevate the imagination"."

Given your comment that would suggest you are of the mechanical reproduction side of things. That is NOT a criticism as there is no right or wrong here only what you want to do with photography.

However, if you consider photography an art then processing is part of the image making process. Consider this photo taken from a video on Luminous Landscape from a Charlie Cramer interview. LL is unfortunately not a free site (although "free" sites we pay in adverts and personal information) but worth the small fee, in my opinion, just for the videos content alone.

Ansell Adam's photo "as it looked"





Processed by Ansell Adam's





The old fashioned darkroom processing makes the photo appear nothing like what the scene actually appeared like.

I hope that by raising awareness of the fact that people approach photography from different viewpoints it leads to a better understanding and less argumentative discussions on these forums. Both approaches, an accurate "photographic record" and an artistic interpretation; "how did this view make me feel" / "how can I convey emotion / impact" are equally valid as it is your personal vision that matters.

Understanding people have equally valid viewpoints leads to more positive and constructive conversations. Promoting more positivity is one of my New Year resolutions.

Ian

 

[lylejk]

 

[Raghu R]

The destination is the same but the path to reach the same destination is different :-D

For me processing an image means to make an output image from a camera look like the actual scene as far as possible one is able to recollect from his/her memory with the help of any software.

--

Actually that's a better response than mine

Den

 

[irv00]

Because he thinks ‘climbing’ is a tool and disagrees with the mountain’s shape?

 

[lilBuddha]

You want to make the thread a bit dramatic -

I tried to write it to keep drama low. But I, obviously, cannot stop anyone else from trying to add it back.

 

[irv00]

You want to make the thread a bit dramatic -

I tried to write it to keep drama low. But I, obviously, cannot stop anyone else from trying to add it back.

If you can’t even tell ‘retouching’ is *not* a tool (as pointed out by me and others) , you should not be criticizing me for offering honest, simple answers that you can actually digest.

Drop the attitude and you will be ready to profit from an honest dialog.

 

[lilBuddha]

For me, it depends on the image.

Almost by definition.

Well, yes. Almost. Event photographers will often group images and process the groups alike and I do know people who have routines.

But really, I tried to phrase it to be inclusive. And to open up the conversation. A lot of people on this forum talk very broadly about their process. In terms of main programs and filters, but not so much burning and dodging and masking, etc. There might be a strong use of technique here, but I am missing it if there is.

Retouching, at least to me and how it is generally used here, is not a tool.

I think we are getting into semantics, on this. I think the main thing about it that bothers me is the perception that, because one doesn't need to process outside of the camera, one shouldn't. Obviously not on this forum, but in the world in general and for many on this site.

 

[lilBuddha]

Processing means to me at the very least converting it to a format that can be distributed for viewing. This means converting from RAW to a jpg file, for example.

Retouching implies to me a manipulation of an image file. Changing it in some way to enhance it or alter it.

I agree, partly. I started old-school, with film and a darkroom. So filters, burning and dodging (for creativity) and masking are all part of the initial processing. Even compositing, though I can see that sliding into a secondary category for some.

Retouching, to me, is fixing the image or subject 'flaws'.

I also think it means different things to different people. I would add the notion of a "photoshopped" image. This often means that an image has been changed so much that it no longer resembles the original.

I have seen that use. And I have heard people ask "did you take that pic or did you Photoshop it?" without understanding that an image editor is part of the process to make an image. And in reference to minimally processed images, not just the extreme.

It seems to me that processing basically means doing something to a digital image with computer software.

To be, it is the same for film and digital. Both need to be processed to have an image.

 

[lilBuddha]

To make the image that I envisioned when taking the shot.

Sometimes I do this. Sometimes I shoot for the bones of a shot, the process you mention here:

I always shoot with post processing in mind, shoot RAW and typically expose to the right During the shoot the effort is on getting basic lighting, moment, composition, exposure and focus right for a digital file. Everything else is PP.

and let the muse take me where it will when I get to the computer.

 

[Brev00]

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.

 

[Boomanbb]

In reading threads, it becomes apparent that people not only have different preferences, but also different understandings of what comprises a digital darkroom.

This isn't meant to be a thread about what is the "right" way to do something or what program is best. Just what do you think of when you think of processing a digital image.

For me, it depends on the image. Anything from a light sharpening and minor curves adjustment to layers, filters, burning, dodging, saturation, retouching, blends and, very occasionally, effects.

I use every digital equivalent of a physical darkroom tool and many only digital offers. My goal is to create an image that pleases me and pleases others enough to purchase.

I will add that I do not agree with this forum being called Retouching. For one, retouching is one tool, not the toolbox. And it sort of implies "fixing" an image instead of creating an image.

If I have a goal in mind when looking at a digital image, anything I do to it on the computer is processing. I have no problem using all of the tools available to me.

 

[Robert Palmqvist]

[No message]

 

[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.

 

[Brev00]

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)

 

[Graham Meale]

Generally I process to make the image as realistic as possible. Modern cameras can do plenty, but they still can't always capture a scene exactly as the eye sees it.

The only exception to the above is when I deliberately manipulate an image, for example removing a distraction. Or the very rare occasion when I use "arty" tools and filters to make an image resemble a painting or something, when realism is obviously no longer a requirement.

--
www.grahammeale.info

 

[Scott Vail]

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)

Pairagrafs r phar mor xplicit and konsise.

S

 

[lilBuddha]

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.

Yes. All the dry talk of program and filter preference that typically happens around here doesn't really say a lot. It is interesting to get a better feel for others' processes.

 

[Raghu R]

English is not my native language so pardon me for any mistakes

My explanation should be considered as one from primitive age with respect to photography

Ansal Adams was during the film age which in my opinion is a modern age considering my primitive explanation so he expanded my definition for photography and went ahead to process his image according to his personal view.

Now we are in the digital age, in this age there are two types of reproduction technique for a photograph the first type is what an instrument reproduces from a real scene the second one is what the artist reproduces in software which does not exist in real, its what the artist conceived in this mind and recreated in the canvas of his photoshop which is getting more and more popular than before.

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

So as time travels changes takes place and we should accept them.

For me processing an image means to make an output image from a camera look like the actual scene as far as possible one is able to recollect from his/her memory with the help of any e.

--
'The Photographer reveals the light;the light reveals the picture'--C.Rajagopal.
A picture should communicate with our heart.
Efzee-50 & Foojee F 31fd---Polaroid X-530
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/963380256_5f4284b2ce_o.gif

Interesting comment, which relates to a comment I posted on another thread (can't find at the moment) about whether photography is art or mechanical reproduction?

"At an early meeting of the Photographic Society of London, established in 1853, one of the members complained that the new technique (photography) was "too literal to compete with works of art" because it was unable to "elevate the imagination"."

Given your comment that would suggest you are of the mechanical reproduction side of things. That is NOT a criticism as there is no right or wrong here only what you want to do with photography.

However, if you consider photography an art then processing is part of the image making process. Consider this photo taken from a video on Luminous Landscape from a Charlie Cramer interview. LL is unfortunately not a free site (although "free" sites we pay in adverts and personal information) but worth the small fee, in my opinion, just for the videos content alone.

Ansell Adam's photo "as it looked"



Processed by Ansell Adam's



The old fashioned darkroom processing makes the photo appear nothing like what the scene actually appeared like.

I hope that by raising awareness of the fact that people approach photography from different viewpoints it leads to a better understanding and less argumentative discussions on these forums. Both approaches, an accurate "photographic record" and an artistic interpretation; "how did this view make me feel" / "how can I convey emotion / impact" are equally valid as it is your personal vision that matters.

Understanding people have equally valid viewpoints leads to more positive and constructive conversations. Promoting more positivity is one of my New Year resolutions.

Ian

--
'The Photographer reveals the light;the light reveals the picture'--C.Rajagopal.
A picture should communicate with our heart.
Efzee-50 & Foojee F 31fd---Polaroid X-530

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1314/963380256_5f4284b2ce_o.gif

 

[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.