To post process or not to...
'The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind'
I Started a debate on the KPC forum with the subject line – to post process or not to – where, overwhelmingly, more than 30 people responded on a single day. Most of the people were for PP, while some were against. However, many people who were for PP, still felt there was a degree of uncertainty on the level of PP they should do. For people who were against PP, they were vigorously against it. They have expressed that those who do PP are not really photographers – they are more of studio graphic artistes.
Though my main question was to PP or not to, I have, time and again, asked questions like - do you think PP is integral to photography? If not, why? If you think PP is manipulation, why in camera manipulations are allowed? Why do you think changing color hues in camera is treated as 'understanding of the camera' while doing so in Photoshop or in the lab using chemicals is 'manipulation'?
I think this stiff resistance comes due to many reasons:
1. Insufficient knowledge about the technologies that photography as a art form has passed through.
2. PP in PS is quick and gives dramatic improvements at times with exposure, color balance etc, which forces many of us to believe that so much of improvement with so little effort is not worth it and we call it manipulation.
3. Insufficient knowledge about the photo processing lab and other printing processes.
4. Coming straight into the digital medium and not used to prints except for automatic QSS lab prints in post card sizes – we often tend to look at photos in computer monitors and judge them.
5. Trying to criticize photos being oblivious of the primary elements of a photo, none of which has any relation to or can be introduced using PP - these are form, lines, enigma, characteristics, color contrast and light... and trying to evaluate photos by exposure, shutter speed, saturation level, sharpness, DOF (or the lack of it - I have seen many comments where a shallow depth of field has been commented as 'good DOF'
) etc.
Here are some facts:
History – Post-processing exists from the very day cameras were invented - the very reason being, conversion from negative to positive needed corrections.
PS is quick - yes PS is, it is indeed a good tool to have. But mess with it and see the results. One may be very happy with the color saturation and the contrast, but when it comes to critical review, none of these will be considered.
Prints and monitors - we are these days more used to see photos on computer screens. However, a monitor never was, and never will be, an authentic medium for viewing a photo. Prints are, because they present the same level of contrast, brightness, hue to all the viewers.
A printing process is what we call as post processing. You can do it in the lab, and you can also use PS as a tool there, to reduce the time that you would have spent on a single photo. Otherwise, trust me, anything that is done in PS is possible, and done too, in the lab, using chemicals and lights (yes, you can do cloning too!). On a monitor, all we see is a ‘preview’ what the print will more or less look like. In the future, monitors will rule, but then for them to be treated as authentic mediums, some settings will definitely come into the fore for photograph viewing.
Elements - Last and most important point - the quality of a photo is not determined by the contrast levels or the color saturation it has. If your photo has skies bluer and roses redder than your friends' photos, your photo will not be treated at a higher level that theirs by an knowledgeable and informed viewer. The original elements of a photo are form, light (not exposure), lines, enigma (energy of the moment), characteristics and perspective.
Can you alter these in PS?
Yes, you can. And you can do so in the lab as well, without using PS. You should call it Photo-art in that case.You CANNOT create a good final print out of an original take which was poor in the elementary items mentioned in the previous paragraph. If you are altering those, you are into photoart big time.
Many were asking a question about what then is the difference between a painting and a photograph (non-photo-art)?
To me, the core difference between a painting and a photo are - while the painter has a white canvas to start with and creates the basic elements (which are common to a photograph as well as a painting), a photographer needs to find/arrange the basic elements in the surroundings around him (pre-process), capture them on frame (shoot), and then post process (to rectify technical problems with the medium, not the basic elements). That is the final product, which is called as a 'Photo' 'graph'.
PS: Many may not like to follow what respected Mr Ansel Adams followed and may not believe what he did was correct and sacrosanct (not my view though), but for those who indeed believe him to be a great photographer of all times, let us indulge into a bit of history and check whether he did PP with his photos and what he had to say about PP. Or, if we can get some comments from our all time great Mr Raghu Rai. Unless, you yourself are as known a name as them.
'The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind'
I Started a debate on the KPC forum with the subject line – to post process or not to – where, overwhelmingly, more than 30 people responded on a single day. Most of the people were for PP, while some were against. However, many people who were for PP, still felt there was a degree of uncertainty on the level of PP they should do. For people who were against PP, they were vigorously against it. They have expressed that those who do PP are not really photographers – they are more of studio graphic artistes.
Though my main question was to PP or not to, I have, time and again, asked questions like - do you think PP is integral to photography? If not, why? If you think PP is manipulation, why in camera manipulations are allowed? Why do you think changing color hues in camera is treated as 'understanding of the camera' while doing so in Photoshop or in the lab using chemicals is 'manipulation'?
I think this stiff resistance comes due to many reasons:
1. Insufficient knowledge about the technologies that photography as a art form has passed through.
2. PP in PS is quick and gives dramatic improvements at times with exposure, color balance etc, which forces many of us to believe that so much of improvement with so little effort is not worth it and we call it manipulation.
3. Insufficient knowledge about the photo processing lab and other printing processes.
4. Coming straight into the digital medium and not used to prints except for automatic QSS lab prints in post card sizes – we often tend to look at photos in computer monitors and judge them.
5. Trying to criticize photos being oblivious of the primary elements of a photo, none of which has any relation to or can be introduced using PP - these are form, lines, enigma, characteristics, color contrast and light... and trying to evaluate photos by exposure, shutter speed, saturation level, sharpness, DOF (or the lack of it - I have seen many comments where a shallow depth of field has been commented as 'good DOF'
) etc.Here are some facts:
History – Post-processing exists from the very day cameras were invented - the very reason being, conversion from negative to positive needed corrections.
PS is quick - yes PS is, it is indeed a good tool to have. But mess with it and see the results. One may be very happy with the color saturation and the contrast, but when it comes to critical review, none of these will be considered.
Prints and monitors - we are these days more used to see photos on computer screens. However, a monitor never was, and never will be, an authentic medium for viewing a photo. Prints are, because they present the same level of contrast, brightness, hue to all the viewers.
A printing process is what we call as post processing. You can do it in the lab, and you can also use PS as a tool there, to reduce the time that you would have spent on a single photo. Otherwise, trust me, anything that is done in PS is possible, and done too, in the lab, using chemicals and lights (yes, you can do cloning too!). On a monitor, all we see is a ‘preview’ what the print will more or less look like. In the future, monitors will rule, but then for them to be treated as authentic mediums, some settings will definitely come into the fore for photograph viewing.
Elements - Last and most important point - the quality of a photo is not determined by the contrast levels or the color saturation it has. If your photo has skies bluer and roses redder than your friends' photos, your photo will not be treated at a higher level that theirs by an knowledgeable and informed viewer. The original elements of a photo are form, light (not exposure), lines, enigma (energy of the moment), characteristics and perspective.
Can you alter these in PS?
Yes, you can. And you can do so in the lab as well, without using PS. You should call it Photo-art in that case.You CANNOT create a good final print out of an original take which was poor in the elementary items mentioned in the previous paragraph. If you are altering those, you are into photoart big time.
Many were asking a question about what then is the difference between a painting and a photograph (non-photo-art)?
To me, the core difference between a painting and a photo are - while the painter has a white canvas to start with and creates the basic elements (which are common to a photograph as well as a painting), a photographer needs to find/arrange the basic elements in the surroundings around him (pre-process), capture them on frame (shoot), and then post process (to rectify technical problems with the medium, not the basic elements). That is the final product, which is called as a 'Photo' 'graph'.
PS: Many may not like to follow what respected Mr Ansel Adams followed and may not believe what he did was correct and sacrosanct (not my view though), but for those who indeed believe him to be a great photographer of all times, let us indulge into a bit of history and check whether he did PP with his photos and what he had to say about PP. Or, if we can get some comments from our all time great Mr Raghu Rai. Unless, you yourself are as known a name as them.
1 comment:
Bijit ! I am surprised to see that people using Digital Medium feel that PP isn't neccessary !
I think there is some problem with their perception about serious Digital Photography. I am not trying to undermine anyone by saying this. Perceptions may vary from person to person. All serious Digital Photographers shoot only RAW. And a picture made in RAW has to be post processed.Honestly, there is no other option about it. Different photographers use different softwares but usage of one is a must. Nice blog you initiated I must admit. Kind of an eye opener to close minded people.
Post a Comment