As I've been looking at the photos here and trying to absorb a huge amount of information, one thing I'm wondering is about different philosophies on post processing. I see beautiful photographs that look very natural (and still may have had little or a lot of post processing, I realize) and other beautiful photographs that look like a bit of nature was taken into a studio and photographed.
In nature photography, are all points of view on post processing valid?
Thank you.
P.S. If there are other threads I didn't find that you know about and think I should read, please let me know.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on August 11, 2010 at 6:13 PM
I think the right answer to the question is another question: what are your goals with the photo? If you are presenting the image as nature documentation, then as little manipulation as possible. If it is aesthetic, that do what you want to it.
I tend to land in the first camp, if for no other reason than I am admittedly Photoshop lazy. I want to spend as little time working my images as possible and natural world documentation tends to fit well with my personal interests as well.
I suspect there is a lot of overlap here, though. There really isn't a right or wrong answer - again, it really depends on your goals for the images.
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 11, 2010 at 6:54 PM
The way I look at it, a photographer is an artist just as a painter is. We envision the image, then we set about creating it. Since the image is my creation, I will create it anyway I please. A photo is artwork, and artwork is all about making a representation showing how you feel about something.
I don't really care either way, provided the photographer doesn't misrepresent the work.
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM
If you shoot raw (as most of us do) then some amount of post processing is necessary.
My philosophy is that nature photography should be natural as much as possible. If someone wants to interpret nature that's fine, but as Hank implies the photographer should be honest about what has been done to the image.
The tricky part of all this is where to draw the line between "necessary" post processing and interpretation. We all draw this line a bit differently. For my work I won't add elements to an image, I won't move elements within an image, I won't substitute backgrounds, I won't clone out major elements (but I will occasionally clean up flotsam from the water's surface as with my current grebe post). I also don't do set-ups or bait subjects (but I will occasionally take shots of birds in our back yard where my wife puts out seed and meal worms).
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 11, 2010 at 8:08 PM
I have to generally agree with what Richard says in regards to swapping backgrounds or adding things to photos. I was showing some images to my co-worker and commented how I'd added some canvas to the image (for compositional purposes). He lamented, "that's cheating". I replied, "No, I'm an artist, it's my photo, and artistically it looks better with more canvas".
Now, I wouldn't submit that image to a contest, because it isn't what came from the camera, but I would have no problem selling it and if someone asked I would explain what I did to the image and why I did it.
Posted by Phillip Noll on August 11, 2010 at 10:53 PM
The only point of view that is valid is your own. Or maybe that of your clients. Or your boss. Most definitely that of your spouse. Probably that of the IRS. Oh....nevermind.
Posted by Ken Smith on August 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM
My philosophy is....no wait...I have no philosophy! I just like it when the photo makes me smile...! Ken S
Thanks very much for your thoughts. They all help a great deal. In the end, I think Ken's point of view is my favorite. (Phillip's is too complicated for me.)
Posted by Brad Mangas on August 12, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Your question Barbara to me should be answered as easily as possible. Yes, in nature photography all points of views are valid.
Posted by Mia McPherson on August 12, 2010 at 1:27 PM
Barbara
I do as little in postprocessing as I can. There are times I take between 5,000 to 10,000 images in a month, that takes time in the field. Then there is culling out the images whose quality is not acceptable to me which takes quite awhile to do. When I finally get to postprocessing I don't want to spend a bunch of time trying to make my images something they are not.
I try to present my images as natural as they were when I took them, with believeable saturation and contrast.
I don't do set ups but once in awhile takes images of birds in the backyard near the feeder. If there is a glaring (to me) OOF item in the foreground there are times I clone it out, but state that I have in my post. If I think the background of an image isn't going to be acceptable to me I move around to try to find a better one or I just don't take the shot.
If I get it right in the camera I don't have much postprocessing to do.
One more factor to consider in this non-debate: I hear many folks saying they like to minimize the amount of post-processing they do in order to present them "as natural". This, of course, assumes that the camera perfectly (or nearly perfectly) renders the scene (in terms of colour, colour saturation, contrast, etc.) and that it "sees" the scene the way your eye does (in terms of the dynamic - or brightness - range). I don't think is a very valid assumption and it's my view that the minute the lighting gets really interesting (think dramatic sidelighting, backlighting, etc.) the camera makes more and more errors (some of which can be corrected in-camera, but many have to be adjusted during post-processing).
This means I end up doing a LOT of post-production work on my images. I ATTEMPT to do it in the direction of what I saw but, of course, I have only my memory to rely on in re-creating the scene. I tend to be a vocal in my opposition to adding or removing things from images (at least my own), but ultimately I do believe this is totally up to the individual and the only thing that bothers me is misrepresentation (i.e., those that clone out a significant portion of an image - or add something - and don't own up to it when questioned).
Your camera provides you with a piece or raw material, be it bytes or film. What you do with it is your own choice, art, or business. Perhaps all three. But what ever you do, it is an interpretive form, even if your thing is photor-realism.
I look at a scene, and visualize a print in a frame. Then I use what tools I have to create it.
Discussion
14 replieshttp://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=7735&CGISESSID=9db5b743f008994aee885ceda37f5d35&u=9520
As I've been looking at the photos here and trying to absorb a huge amount of information, one thing I'm wondering is about different philosophies on post processing. I see beautiful photographs that look very natural (and still may have had little or a lot of post processing, I realize) and other beautiful photographs that look like a bit of nature was taken into a studio and photographed.
In nature photography, are all points of view on post processing valid?
Thank you.
P.S. If there are other threads I didn't find that you know about and think I should read, please let me know.
I tend to land in the first camp, if for no other reason than I am admittedly Photoshop lazy. I want to spend as little time working my images as possible and natural world documentation tends to fit well with my personal interests as well.
I suspect there is a lot of overlap here, though. There really isn't a right or wrong answer - again, it really depends on your goals for the images.
Kent in SD
My philosophy is that nature photography should be natural as much as possible. If someone wants to interpret nature that's fine, but as Hank implies the photographer should be honest about what has been done to the image.
The tricky part of all this is where to draw the line between "necessary" post processing and interpretation. We all draw this line a bit differently. For my work I won't add elements to an image, I won't move elements within an image, I won't substitute backgrounds, I won't clone out major elements (but I will occasionally clean up flotsam from the water's surface as with my current grebe post). I also don't do set-ups or bait subjects (but I will occasionally take shots of birds in our back yard where my wife puts out seed and meal worms).
Now, I wouldn't submit that image to a contest, because it isn't what came from the camera, but I would have no problem selling it and if someone asked I would explain what I did to the image and why I did it.
- Luke
I do as little in postprocessing as I can. There are times I take between 5,000 to 10,000 images in a month, that takes time in the field. Then there is culling out the images whose quality is not acceptable to me which takes quite awhile to do. When I finally get to postprocessing I don't want to spend a bunch of time trying to make my images something they are not.
I try to present my images as natural as they were when I took them, with believeable saturation and contrast.
I don't do set ups but once in awhile takes images of birds in the backyard near the feeder. If there is a glaring (to me) OOF item in the foreground there are times I clone it out, but state that I have in my post. If I think the background of an image isn't going to be acceptable to me I move around to try to find a better one or I just don't take the shot.
If I get it right in the camera I don't have much postprocessing to do.
One more factor to consider in this non-debate: I hear many folks saying they like to minimize the amount of post-processing they do in order to present them "as natural". This, of course, assumes that the camera perfectly (or nearly perfectly) renders the scene (in terms of colour, colour saturation, contrast, etc.) and that it "sees" the scene the way your eye does (in terms of the dynamic - or brightness - range). I don't think is a very valid assumption and it's my view that the minute the lighting gets really interesting (think dramatic sidelighting, backlighting, etc.) the camera makes more and more errors (some of which can be corrected in-camera, but many have to be adjusted during post-processing).
This means I end up doing a LOT of post-production work on my images. I ATTEMPT to do it in the direction of what I saw but, of course, I have only my memory to rely on in re-creating the scene. I tend to be a vocal in my opposition to adding or removing things from images (at least my own), but ultimately I do believe this is totally up to the individual and the only thing that bothers me is misrepresentation (i.e., those that clone out a significant portion of an image - or add something - and don't own up to it when questioned).
But it's obviously a big slippery slope!!
Cheers...
Brad
YES.
Easiest General Discussion question ever!
I look at a scene, and visualize a print in a frame. Then I use what tools I have to create it.