Post processing is a big bad Wolfe? I don’t think so

Tweet
Share

Right at the beginning I must say that what I'm about to post about today is an controversial subject matter regarding photography which was addressed by many before me. I myself have read dozens of blog posts, journal discussions and polls of this sort. And after so much argument and disagreements to technology still the human race has agreed and abide to use it for whatever the reason they can put their hands on. So yes the topic would be the ‘modern technology and its use in photography as an art’. Or simply saying is post processing photographs are fare or total on location photography process is?

If I explain the subject a bit more for the readers who has little knowledge over the specific terms which we photographers use I would say this. You go and take a picture of a sunset with your digital or film camera. On this particular location you give attention to the composition, focus and light and manages to come out with a good shot. And you are totally pleased of how it looks and thinks no further. This is on location photography process.

Another person takes the same shot go home and download it (or scan the negative if its film) to the computer and add some more details to the shot using a software. Most of you may call this Photoshoping just because it’s the most common software which is used around the globe for this task. He adds/enhances colors, lights and adjust the composition by cropping (cutting off unwanted areas) clone off (erase) unwanted details etc till he gets satisfied with the result. This is called photography post processing.

Post processing using RAW converter

So the eternal argument is what method is honestly photography. Many professional and veteran photographers and even newbie’s argue that on location photography Is what matters and the rest is cheating. And some say post processing is equally important because photography has come a long way and it needs to be tweaked and tested with the new age and technology. I’m sure you must have heard this before and was a part of this conversation somewhere with others or in your head for sure.

My intention here is not to get in to the pros and cons of on location vs. post process but to find the right balance of both these ends. I thoroughly believe on location part for any photograph is severely important for a good photograph. The reason is that even how powerful your pc is or advanced your software is some details when its lost on location you cannot retrieve or fix them at home. Same way even how powerful is your lens or advance your camera is some elements are hard or impossible to control in real location. This is where the balance between these two are important.

A modern day photographer should not be just a photographer. He must possess knowledge in photography and post processing both for him to be identified or to go beyond his limits and achieve the best work. To create the best photographs which will be forever embedded in memories of their fans. I agree once this was done purely on location. But the point which many now don’t remember or know is that there was also the place called the DARK ROOM in old age. Even from the beginning days of photography little bit of post processing was done using different methods and chemicals right inside this “covert “ dark room. So who ever believe that photos of world war i or the bombing of pearl harbor to be entirely on location and unedited, think twice. Little people know so they never complained that it was cheating.

Dark room - google images

Someone once told me that post processing is not acceptable because natural beauty of nature is what he is going after. If it’s what he wants that’s fine by me. But then again he should know that the very equipment he uses which is the digital camera has its own agenda of post processing once the light peaks through his lens and on to the censor. The camera determines the light values, color values and even the color temperature values and makes a decision to adjust what and to leave what as it is. Even you use the most sophisticated manual DSLRs this happens up to the extent which you don’t control all the aspects of the shot. So he believe that he takes a 100% natural photograph on location but the camera has done a lot for him which he gladly accept!! One photographer I know said if you don’t like post processing then go and shoot Polaroid’s. I agree with him.

There is no limit to post processing. It is completely up to the photographer or the editors choice to which extent he want to push the image. Some take a total natural shot and makes it a wonder of art in post process. Some just adjust minor details and leave it at that. Whatever it is the final result should be the image which the photographer is proud of. And the image which fans love. That’s all it matters. Even though some disagree when correctly done post processed shot looks amazing!! Each and every shot which you see on magazines and most respected websites are all have gone through some kind of a post process.

The taste for art is purely relative from person to person. Same way creating of art is also relative from artist to artist. There for finding a perfect match between and art and a fans mind getting pleased by it could be a tricky task since the options are fairly large numbered. Yet due to the similar nature of human brain we do get fans and artists who are in one line and understand each other very well which creates art which applies to a larger audience. Therefore one art is graded as more successful or great apart from another art from the way it applies to the audience. More audience it grabs more it gets popular. This is the rock bottom rule in creating art which makes the whole point.

I will write some more on widespread post processing methods and use of software in future posts. Below is an example of artistic post processing which I have done using one of my work. Over and out!!

Before

After (post process applied Hue/saturation, Color balance, Gradient,Curves,Channels)