next thread »

[GIMPel]

Hello, GIMP-addicts ;-)

what do you think.... should photographing not rather be aimed to not
being dependent on programs like Gimp?

When photographing... isn't it better to make the shot that good,
that postprocessing can be avoided as far as possible?

When looking at my photographs it seems to me that I rather select
ione relally good photograph and ignoring (or throwing away/deleting)
the less good things, instead of trying to make gold out of plumbum?

Somethimes, when I thought I need GIMP to make the extremely dark pictures better,
I saw that there is no way 8at least with jpeg).
Then, when using better photographs, it seems to me that "enhancing" is not always
making thinks better, because the "imperfectness" brings in some certain mood,
that would be thrown away, if the picture is given too much "make up".

When do you think is "enhancing" a good idea, when not?
And also: which photographs better to throw away than trying to enhance them?
Or: never throwing away a shot and always trying to make a useful picture out of it?

What is your philosophy about it?

Things like making stuff like in the "Shrinking!" episodes IMHO is abother
class ofenhancement, which IMHO makes sense for fun... but with my questions above
I meant pictures that will be used as they were intended...
... but weren't that good, when shooting it.

If you think my whole mail with those questions does not make sense, then please explain me
your philosophy, so I can learn from it.


Best,
   GIMPel ;-)

[monoceros84]

First of all two links:
Read my answer to the other post: http://forum.meetthegimp.org/index.php/topic,350.msg2889.html#new
And if you understand German, you should read my blog over at: http://www.gedankenquirl.de/blog/. I have written two entries to exactly this issue.

But some thoughts in English too
Editing bad photographs is only worth if you really need exactly THIS image. In most cases you should try everything to get the photograph as perfect as possible to have the best starting point. It will save time, will look better in the end and will train your skills

But then: In my opinion post-processing can't be avoided in digital photography. It depends on the kind of the technology. Digital pictures won't have the right contrast, saturation and sharpness compared to the reality. If you don't want to have nice images but also get them as realistic as possible you should edit.
And of cause there is another way of photography: Not only reproducing reality but also making art. And this is sometimes much easier or only possible in post-processing.

When looking at my photographs it seems to me that I rather select
ione relally good photograph and ignoring (or throwing away/deleting)
the less good things, instead of trying to make gold out of plumbum?

That's the way to do it. Post-processing is not necessarily rescuing bad pictures but also making good images perfect.

[Rolf]

Adding to the above: With post processing you can underline the content of your image. If you look at great images out of the history of photography - nearly all of them have been modified in the darkroom. Only users of slide film had no option to change things later - well, nearly no chance.

If you have a chance to see the documentary "War Photographer" about Nachtwey, you can see such an editing session. It starts with a very good portrait (N. makes good images in camera....  ;-) ) and ends with a stunning image.

The BBC documentary "Genius of Photography" has also such comparisons - AFAIR with an image from Cartier-Bresson.

You should get the image as best as you can in the camera. But after that it has never been as easy as today to go on and improve it. Best done when you don't see the improvement. ;-) 

[fishtoprecords]

Adding to the above: With post processing you can underline the content of your image. If you look at great images out of the history of photography - nearly all of them have been modified in the darkroom.

I'm not sure this generalization is true. While I have no personal way to verify it, I have been told many times that Ansel Adams shots were taken carefully so that the darkroom work could be done by unskilled workers, not artists. Now, its pretty clearn that Adams would stake out a shot well in advance, and shoot at exactly the right time with the exact right zone exposure.

I think most war photojournalism is done without darkroom magic.

And I think there was no post processing on the stunning portrait of a young woman in Afghanistan that was on the cover of National Geographic and won so many awards.

I like The Gimp, and am impressed with what it can do, and how Rolf teaches us to use it. But starting with a great images means less voodoo is needed.

[fishtoprecords]

Link to some WW2 photo shots.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/news/site-updates/15-astonishing-world-war-2-photos-that-bomb-your-senses

I think these all had minimal darkroom work. But I do know that the famous Iwo Jimo shot of raising the flag was actually staged. Or restaged. The photographer asked the soldiers (marines?) to raise it again so he could get the shot.

[Rolf]

Adams' Zone System is a kind of (post) processing in my eyes. It starts in the camera by selecting the film and exposure and continues in the wet lab with the chemicals, concentrations, temperatures and times. Selecting the paper, exposure, doging and burning and the conditions of development were also in the system. This way he could plan his shots perfectly.
I doubt that he had unskilled techs in his lab and I know that the prints of one of his techs get nearly as high prices in auctions than the ones by his own hand.

Most war images are also post processed - at least when they are printed. At least the guy in the newspaper pre-press office adjusts contrast and black point and perhaps even crops the image. In pre-digital times the photographer seldom saw his images for weeks - he posted the raw film to his office were they were processed and published.

This NG iconic image is a masterpiece - but I bet that you would see a difference between the original slide (I assume slide instead of negative film) and the printed image. The slide has way more contrast than the print - and somehow the difference has to be bridged.

I think it boils down to a definition of post processing. You get the same effect with selecting a different grade of paper as with pulling an "S" into the curve in GIMP.

[monoceros84]

Adams' Zone System is a kind of (post) processing in my eyes. It starts in the camera by selecting the film and exposure and continues in the wet lab with the chemicals, concentrations, temperatures and times. Selecting the paper, exposure, doging and burning and the conditions of development were also in the system. This way he could plan his shots perfectly.
I doubt that he had unskilled techs in his lab and I know that the prints of one of his techs get nearly as high prices in auctions than the ones by his own hand.

There is a movie about Ansel Adams that I saw some time ago - with interviews, tech stuff and history of his pictures. And almost all of them (at least the famous ones) were printed several times in different ways. More or less contrasty e.g. It was impressive how much they can do in the dark room, that's why I remember so clearly.

I think it boils down to a definition of post processing. You get the same effect with selecting a different grade of paper as with pulling an "S" into the curve in GIMP.

And not to forget processing in the camera. Most modern cameras do quite a lot of processing just before the image is saved. The better (more expensive) ones can be adjusted in most points but especially the cheaper ones change the picture a lot.

This NG iconic image is a masterpiece - but I bet that you would see a difference between the original slide (I assume slide instead of negative film) and the printed image. The slide has way more contrast than the print - and somehow the difference has to be bridged.

You are right with the slide (says Wikipedia - and they don't lie ). And I have a book where the making-of this image was described. Unfortunately, it's at home and it will last 2 weeks until I can look it up.

[fishtoprecords]

There is a movie about Ansel Adams that I saw some time ago - with interviews, tech stuff and history of his pictures. And almost all of them (at least the famous ones) were printed several times in different ways. More or less contrasty e.g. It was impressive how much they can do in the dark room, that's why I remember so clearly.

And not to forget processing in the camera.

With a view camera, the "processing" is in the setup. Everything is adjustable.

Darkrooms are magic, which is why I spent most of my sophomore year at the university in the darkroom instead of class.

Still, I believe, without any evidence, that once Adams' images were approved, making copies was not skilled.

[Rolf]

Still, I believe, without any evidence, that once Adams' images were approved, making copies was not skilled.

Right, when the recipe was there, no creative or artistic skills were necessary, only good technical skills. A lot of parameters had to be followed and there are a lot of possibilities to ruin the print.

[Dan]

  It's only necessary to enhance an image if it is important enough to increase it's value.
What makes an image valuable?   Isn't it basically the interest?   Determining the importance is quite subjective. 

 Interest in the image is so diverse.  It can be for commercial use, advertisement, documentation, art or for personal or public pleasure.   The value of the photo from a group of photos is based on which has the greatest potential of interest.
 

Dan

[mramshaw]

And I think there was no post processing on the stunning portrait of a young woman in Afghanistan that was on the cover of National Geographic and won so many awards.

There's an interesting story behind that photograph. At the time, releases were not necessary
so the subject of the picture never saw the actual picture. As a fundamentalist [at the time, I
guess] she was appalled at the concept. For the fortieth [?] anniversary of the picture, they
tracked her down. She was still stunningly beautiful.

Funny you should mention NG; in my opinion they are the most unreal [as in heavily processed]
pictures you could possibly point to. It has always frustrated me that any pictures I took did
not measure up to theirs, and now I know that it was all down to trickery [contrary to what
you suggest].

But starting with a great images means less voodoo is needed.

Umm ... duh?

[fishtoprecords]

It has always frustrated me that any pictures I took did not measure up to theirs, and now I know that it was all down to trickery [contrary to what you suggest]

Which gets to the heretic question: how much is talent and how much is trickery?

Which leads to the philosophical question of: what is talent?

If you practice a musical instrument for 10,000 hours, you will reach the level of skill of a working professional. Some say you must practice for 10K hours to have the talent. Others say that folks who have talent are not bored by practicing, so they keep it up.

My daughter played trumpet. She was very good. She played in a college jazz band as a freshman in high school. She went to a summer music camp in Michigan that is fairly famous and very competitive. The kids there play in bands, groups, orchestras, etc. for five hours a day, then have lessons. The kids who are going to Julliard then practice for several more hours. My daughter decided she did not want to be a professional trumpet player, because she didn't want to practice that much.

The kids who played/practiced 8 hours a day were better than my kid. OK, I have no problems with that. Were they better because of talent? practice? or trickery?

[monoceros84]

Others say that folks who have talent are not bored by practicing, so they keep it up.

That's an interesting theory. I like it. Almost nobody can do things without practising but you will always meet "freaks" that do the same stuff all the time and still like it. And of cause they are good at what they do.

[mramshaw]

Which gets to the heretic question: how much is talent and how much is trickery?

Okay, I have thought about this a bit myself and I think there are three components.

The photographer and his/her experience [preparation, visualization, framing, camera selection,
lens and lighting and so on], the camera and equipment itself, and post-processing [the part
that most of us only know for B & W, as colour processing was out of the reach of amateur
(and even professional) photographers in pre-digital times].

I can't afford the second, but I have been working on the first and third. The more I learn on
the third, the better I am able to distinguish between necessary PP (sharpening and contrast
adjustments) and what I think of as trickery (everything else, including what I think of as
excessive amounts of 'necessary' adjustments).

Of course, I am conditioned by my pre-digital experience. Anything the shop would do with
my negatives is obviously acceptable; anything that needed to be done by specialists seems
unfair to expect from the amateur - who does not have unlimited funds to throw around.
This is why I classify the PP done by NG as trickery; it was out of reach to the amateur.

Of course, I am having to re-think all of this now that digital PP has become very affordable.

If you practice a musical instrument for 10,000 hours

You make some good points here. I listened to a podcast interview with a very well-known
photographer who had been a photo librarian for an even more well-known photographer
(Galen?) and he said that one component of his success was that he had seen thousands
of pictures and analyzed in detail what had worked and what had not.

When I am going through my pictures and rating them [which I find pretty tedious] it does
force me to look at them as an outsider and figure out what I either like or don't like about
them, which enables me to try to do a better job the next time round. So I would also say
that a necessary component of developing experience is not just TAKING pictures but also
ANALYZING them. And this last can be done with any picture - by any photographer - that
affects you (like or dislike - you can learn from both). All of this can be work, making your
original point I think.

Incidentally, AA was the grand master of preparation. In the days of heavy frame cameras,
he would lug all of his heavy equipment into the mountains on foot and wait for the perfect
moment. With one opportunity, or perhaps a second if he had brought another camera, it
seems not at all surprising that his trips were better-planned than some military exercises.

[fishtoprecords]

one component of his success was that he had seen thousands of pictures and analyzed in detail what had worked and what had not

I know that for me, looking at many hundreds of my shots was critical learning. And that takes time. Time to take the shots, time to triage them, time to post-process.

I'm just an amateur who has taken photos, none have been "published" in any sense. I think you have to spend time in the woodshed.