Deviant Login Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Post-Processing of Photos is: 

48%
45 deviants said Has always been done and is fully a part of photography
40%
38 deviants said Only right when making minor changes to the original photo
6%
6 deviants said Faking reality and as such should not be done
5%
5 deviants said I think .... (make comment)

Devious Comments

:icondevyathe:
Devyathe Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010
it goes either way i'd say, i think it depends on what you want to achieve as end result

minor post processing is fine
bigger adjustments i think are fine as long as you dont pretend they didnt happen :P
Reply
:iconingoschobert:
IngoSchobert Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Interesting position!

You seem to distinguish between minor and major only on the part of pretending that it did not happen. Do I read that right?

Ingo
Reply
:icondevyathe:
Devyathe Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010
pretty much

if you wanna go for 'real' or 'pure' photography, i dont think there should be much post processing involved.

but post processing can be an art of its own, besides that its often needed if only to adjust images for certain kinds of printing etc

i just dont like when people say 'this came straight off the cam like this' when it didnt :)
Reply
:iconingoschobert:
IngoSchobert Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Well said!

Thanks again :nod:

Ingo
Reply
:iconjanexxx:
JaneXxX Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
:omfg: No it is not a part of photography!
Real photography is done while framing, and should not depend on your editing skills.
They should be divided. Because No Edit - real Photography, Edit - Manipulation. :police:
:D
Reply
:iconjanexxx:
JaneXxX Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Of course they may be, and some of them are very nice, and it is an art too. I don't have anything against that, but I think they should be divided. :chainsaw:
Heavy edited photo should be classified as Manipulated photo or something. :giggle:
Reply
:iconpagan-inspiration:
Pagan-Inspiration Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Have you thought about how much 'pre-processing' is done by today's digital cameras even before you load it onto the computer? You might have to classify any digital photo as edited at that point.
Reply
:iconjanexxx:
JaneXxX Featured By Owner Jan 25, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Hmm, actually no.
Can you develop this idea to a little bit more detailed post?
Reply
:iconpagan-inspiration:
Pagan-Inspiration Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2010  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Well for instance, on my Nikon D60, there are all sorts of image changing options, like white balance. Of course this is meant to compensate for the colour of light a certain fixture emits so that it doesn't modify your photograph. But say that I want a blue hue in a winter photograph but wasn't thinking and did not load photoshop on the computer that I brought across the country with me. (Not that I would actually forget something like that.)

You can simply select incandescent light as your white balance and the camera adds blue to compensate for the yellow of the lightbulb whether your are inside or outside.

There are also options to change the saturation, you can lessen highlights and lowlights with active D-lighting, you can pick options for portrait wich softens, or you can make a photo more vivid, sharpen it, change the tone. And this is your basic entry level DSLR.

I know many photographers like to think "I know my way around my camera and don't need photoshop which makes me a better photographer", which in some ways is true, but in many cases it's simply the difference between pre- and post-processing. You need to work with your camera to get the best possible shot that you can, or you aren't going to make it.

Just as a disclamer though, I am definitely not justifying removing an unwanted telephone pole from a photo, that should definitely be classified as a manipulation. But after you get home, if you notice that you can crop your photograph to make it better, why not? It's certainly sometimes simpler and more satisfying to get the perfect photo straight from the lens, but why throw away something potentially amazing? :)
Reply
:iconjanexxx:
JaneXxX Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2010  Hobbyist Photographer
Oh, I thought you were talking about something different :giggle:

Yes, of course. I have inspected my camera and now I know approximately 95% of settings.
It isn't a DSLR, but still has most of the features that are provided by those with mirrors. ( it even has the AEB ) It is a Bridge type camera Olympus SP-560UZ.

Well, yes. That was the point I am standing for. Those hyper-contrasted shots with artefactual bokeh and etc. It looks amazing, but it is not the real photography, because with skills, they can create amazing picture from beginners class photo. It looks more like painting a shot, not photographing. :meow: But with film, people did magic while framing, and after just did minor adjustments to make photo look even better. Earlier composition was very important in shots, but now, i guess, it is not so important anymore.

Yes, you are right. You shouldn't throw out nice shots. Actually i am puzzled a little bit. Hmm... well I guess, photography is when you find something beautiful (or whatever you feel) and you are trying to take those feeling, you have at that moment and capture them, so when someone will look at that picture, will feel the same. I guess, this was told by some photographer in some tutorial. I told it in my words :giggle: So i guess it doesn't matter if there are some telephone poles :)

I hope you got my point.

Sorry for scary English :ashamed: :)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 

Poll History