People edit to much.......

[Siegfried]

Looking at different pictures presented on platforms like dpr, facebook, flikr and so much more I believe people are just editing too much.

Take for exampe HDR. HDR started because the dynamic range of the sensor was smaller than the real thing. Quickly HDR developed into something that battled to keep a natural look and feel.

Then things like no shadow detail, noise and so many other weaknesses of the lens, camera and other influenced the pic. Software plus plug-ins were developed and quickly funny looking pictures appeared.

Not to mentioned presets, overlays and finally art filters in the camera....

Just think about it......should one not start a new look......how about getting the pic to look like you intended it too...or as it really looked that day or night....

Take a simple thing like shadows or contrasts....can we still get them as it was....?

Best

Siegfried

[Simon.fairclough]

Agreed!

[Siegfried]

Should one have different categories again.....will it not be great to see great technique coming back.....

What about the future camera doing all for us?

[Simon.fairclough]

It is better spent time behind the lens than time by the PC!
You can't polish a turd.
Good input gives good output.
This is why the good pros like Lightroom over PS CS4.
---------------------------------------
I don't think my D80 is any better at photography than my FE.
But it has made it easier, and the best benefit is knowing you have the shot before you leave the location. Oh and its a lot cheaper on film.
You see I really want a simpler camera I don't use all these bells & whistles, I have never turned the dial on my G7 or D80 to running man or lady with hat. I wouldn't know what they do. Programme is as good as it gets for me with auto otherwise its A and M.
My brain is analog, it works better with dials than buttons.

[geckophoto]

Looking at different pictures presented on platforms like dpr, facebook, flikr and so much more I believe people are just editing too much. (There is some truth in it but it depends on your goal. It's a common thing these days, not only with photography, that people are to much occupated making everthing perfect. That's why cosmetic surgeons doing good business, its crazy! The world is going to be a sterile place.)

Take for exampe HDR. HDR started because the dynamic range of the sensor was smaller than the real thing. Quickly HDR developed into something that battled to keep a natural look and feel.
(Most HDR's look far over the top, that's why i deleted most of my HDR attempts and step back to the, to my opinion, most correct exposed picture for postprocessing.)

Then things like no shadow detail, noise and so many other weaknesses of the lens, camera and other influenced the pic. Software plus plug-ins were developed and quickly funny looking pictures appeared. (All these things like noise, shadow detail etc. can also be used creative. A few days ago i showed a landscape picture made with a fisheye lens, making the shot i tried to keep the horizon to look as normal as possible. Using the fisheye lens was the only way to get the shot i wanted, i did mention the usage of the fisheye. Guess what... some guy was telling me that the horizon wasn't straight and i should correct it by about, lets say, 1 degree. I am getting so bored about this.)

Not to mentioned presets, overlays and finally art filters in the camera....
(Most of them are useless, shoot RAW, be creative in PS or what so ever postprocessing program)

Just think about it......should one not start a new look......how about getting the pic to look like you intended it too...or as it really looked that day or night.... (To my opinion i like the result on my screen or print, how it really looked is not that important to me, i am not in for documentary photography and the endless discussions "how it really was")

Take a simple thing like shadows or contrasts....can we still get them as it was....?
(Don't forget our cameras see things in a quite different way our eyes see it. If our aim is to get a look as our eyes have seen it things are really getting complex....looking at dynamic range, perception of color, depth of field, field of view and so on...)

Best

Siegfried

Best regards,



Rob

[swandy]

Hi Guys,
Very interesting discussion.
What I see is too many people pay less and less attention to the actual taking of the picture (like getting the exposure right) figuring they can "fix it in post processing". Now while there is some truth to this - and let's be honest, some of the greatest photographers LOVED to play around in the darkroom to get the picture the way they wanted it - but many people take it to extremes.
And I agree with the statement that "photographers like Lightroom better than PSCS4". I certainly do. I would say currently that 90% of my post processing is done in LR.
But I can appreciate the people that have the ability to create what I would consider "art" in PS. Wish I had some of their creativity and talent.
Steve

[Paul Sels]

What about a wordwide obligation on each picture that is publicly presented, to indicate which Post Processing was done? (Excluding minor items like a WB correction or a small level correction, i.e. corrections to the shortcomings of in camera processors.)

We all know the 'professionals' use PP extensively, this way they would to admit to which extend.

rgds
Paul

[Simon.fairclough]

I look at it this way, I find its a time management exercise. I would rather spend the time taking photos than siting at a screen. Also if you expect your audience to spend their time looking at your images then you need to spend sometime making them. I try not to use PSE although last year it was almost a full time job, I now use it mostly for distortion correction, sharping and increasing contrast.