Thread: Post Processing

Originally Posted by dullbird

no but I guess it can be "Pre"

i'd like to see the result of a comp where there is to be NO PP and NO PP

Martyn what I trying to say is that many people are against PP because it could alter the image in the way that it is not shows "what it was (the scene as an example) at the time of pressing the trigger. It is not realisic.
Well before pressing the trigger start that "processing" of altering the image by selecting the lens, the aperture, the camera settings, etc, etc
You know that a photo of a bird with using a large aperture will blur the bg therefore on the image it is the perch, the bird and nothing more, far unrealistic because our eyes captured all the surrondings when we took the shot but they are not there.
On the top of that we selected the WB, saturation and other adjustments that will be embebed in the image.
I hope that this is clear, sorry for my limitations with my english

Originally Posted by slt

i'd like to see the result of a comp where there is to be NO PP and NO PP

be images like this one below........taken today

I think that by taken out the lens front cover the image will improve considerable, but then again it will be an unacceptable Pre Processing

So, in summary, what the people in favour of PP are saying is that all photos have some PP anyway, so why not allow full PP.

I take on board that the cameras do some adjustments, and in the film days all the printing processes did some PP for colour as well.

However I think the PP people are missing the my point. It's the actual intention of PP. Those in favour say I'll fix it later, and cropping and sharpening and fixing the colours is a different way of doing things.

I try really hard to look at what is in the viewfinder before I take the shot. I may fit a different lense, move closer or further away. If I don't like the light I'll move or come back later. I generally don't have trouble with focus so don't get all the sharpening stuff the PPers do. If the photo is blurry I'll write it off. If there is a pole sticking out of someones head I'll move or ask them too.

I'm sorry, but that is a different process and skill set. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Not everyone will be able to do both. I see the key difference is the intention to fix it later.

In competitions where PP is allowed I'm probably not going to have a chance in so I guess it cuts both ways.

IMHO the definition of PP is the decision to consciously alter an image. As you've all pointed out, it's virtually impossible to determine how much PP'ing has been done, so if the competition says no PP the if you think you've fixed anything then you can't enter.

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and the idea of sitting and slaving over an image doesn't appeal to me. I take photos for the memories, and the joy of taking the photo. I guess everyone is different.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

So, in summary, what the people in favour of PP are saying is that all photos have some PP anyway, so why not allow full PP.

I take on board that the cameras do some adjustments, and in the film days all the printing processes did some PP for colour as well.

However I think the PP people are missing the my point. It's the actual intention of PP. Those in favour say I'll fix it later, and cropping and sharpening and fixing the colours is a different way of doing things.

I try really hard to look at what is in the viewfinder before I take the shot. I may fit a different lense, move closer or further away. If I don't like the light I'll move or come back later. I generally don't have trouble with focus so don't get all the sharpening stuff the PPers do. If the photo is blurry I'll write it off. If there is a pole sticking out of someones head I'll move or ask them too.

I'm sorry, but that is a different process and skill set. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Not everyone will be able to do both. I see the key difference is the intention to fix it later.

In competitions where PP is allowed I'm probably not going to have a chance in so I guess it cuts both ways.

IMHO the definition of PP is the decision to consciously alter an image. As you've all pointed out, it's virtually impossible to determine how much PP'ing has been done, so if the competition says no PP the if you think you've fixed anything then you can't enter.

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and the idea of sitting and slaving over an image doesn't appeal to me. I take photos for the memories, and the joy of taking the photo. I guess everyone is different.

Partly my point is that where do you draw the line. Most of the 'NO PP' comps I've seen specifically allow cropping and resizing. Well I for one believe that CROPPING is a major PP item. If you want to show what you are capable of producing in the camera only, let's see the uncropped/un-rotated images then!

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

So, in summary, what the people in favour of PP are saying is that all photos have some PP anyway, so why not allow full PP.

I take on board that the cameras do some adjustments, and in the film days all the printing processes did some PP for colour as well.

However I think the PP people are missing the my point. It's the actual intention of PP. Those in favour say I'll fix it later, and cropping and sharpening and fixing the colours is a different way of doing things.

I try really hard to look at what is in the viewfinder before I take the shot. I may fit a different lense, move closer or further away. If I don't like the light I'll move or come back later. I generally don't have trouble with focus so don't get all the sharpening stuff the PPers do. If the photo is blurry I'll write it off. If there is a pole sticking out of someones head I'll move or ask them too.

I'm sorry, but that is a different process and skill set. I'm not saying one is better than the other but they are different. Not everyone will be able to do both. I see the key difference is the intention to fix it later.

In competitions where PP is allowed I'm probably not going to have a chance in so I guess it cuts both ways.

IMHO the definition of PP is the decision to consciously alter an image. As you've all pointed out, it's virtually impossible to determine how much PP'ing has been done, so if the competition says no PP the if you think you've fixed anything then you can't enter.

Maybe it's because I work in IT, and the idea of sitting and slaving over an image doesn't appeal to me. I take photos for the memories, and the joy of taking the photo. I guess everyone is different.

this is exactly what I do.....and I spend around 2/3mins per image when I PP if that, so as you can see I don't go full PP. Hopefully the fact they I only spend a max of 2/3mins on an image shows that I do strive for a good photo in the first place....doesn't stop my washed out colours though no matter how great the light is or how much I re frame the picture..its just the way the lens takes the shot. and the very reason why when I can eventually get the money up it will be going

Sorry for the edits all.

Neither of the following two shots have had ANY PP.

Have you got any idea how much of a berating I gave myself for not waiting for these two people to walk off?



Or how proud I am of this photo which I can't think of anything I could enhance on it?



I'm sorry Chucaro I think you can take lovely images without any form of PP and I think that makes them extra special.

@DB we had a canon ixsus and it has a horrible quality lense. You would need to sharpen every image. Now it sits and gathers dust. Stump up for a good one Until then you shouldn't enter the sans PP comps, and like I said I won't have a chance at the ones where PP is allowed