Hello my friends !

lol I think the subject says it all.

I do a lot of postwork, but you know it's that kind of 'invisible/enhancing' postwork like yours lol so, in these last weeks, i took a real pleasure to discover my pics and tell myself : this pic don't need real postwork, just a little 'level' + border and it's okay.

Not because it is a perfect pic !!  no no no ! Just because i feel it like this..

So, where is the real pleasure ?  Postworking a pic is a pleasure, but doing it to each pic could be  hard&long&boring...
When we were working on non-digital, in our B&W labs, we were doing postwork yet ! By masking or playing with different grade of paper, or....etc.

So there is the questions i'm asking : Do you do postworking ? Do you think it's a must ? Could you try to do without it (but levels/contrast of course) ? How do you feel it ?

Thank you for reading ;o)
seeya ? :o)
Olivier

Great tread and question Olivier!

I do post work a lot, I am not a great photographer so I do many mistake what Photoshop can correct so a final shot looks acceptable. But, very often I take photographs in a light tent and I don't need to touch it up, because I got a right tone and mood what I was aiming for straight away. (perhaps not for everybody's liking, but I am happy with it) Also I have few landscape shots  happened to be a right one at a begining so I just add frame and title. I never swaped sky on my shot and never cloned nothing out .( except spots )

seeya  Tunde

Well, some people have all the equipment, time and money to set up a shot perfectly... I'm thinking about the perfect lights, reflectors, filters, metering instruments and so on. Chances are the resulting shots will not need any postwork... For the rest of us, at least a percentage of the shots will require postwork... to bring out the shadows, or contrast, or colors... I see this as a necessary step (but not always); I don't see much sense in not trying to enhance a shot if you have the chance to do so. The discussion about doing all the necessary work before or after the shooting doesn't make much sense to me. So, of course I do postwork, if I can enhance the image... because I don't have the necessary equipment to do it before the shooting. Another note: I expressly set up my camera preferences with later postwork in mind: in-camera sharpness, contrast and saturation are all set very low (at minus 2 ot 3), and I usually underexpose my images by -0.7 stops exposure compensation, so that the camera doesn't loose any detail in the extremes. I can always bring those details out later on. And yes, I used to develop and print my photos in the pre-digital era..; 'doodling' was just an integral part of the process, even then...

ditto what Geert said.  My workflow is such that postwork is incorporated into the process right at the point of taking the picture (my camera is also set to neutral) - you would be incredibly surprised at how some of my shots look straight out of the camera.  And the clone/healing tool is invaluable for removing dust which can be a problem - all of my recent uploads on the beach had a massive lunar shaped dust speck on the top left 3rd intersection.  Without postwork all of those shots would have been "ruined" ;)

Also as far as portraiture is concerned i am fairly sure that postwork is a fairly routine part of the workflow, even with the control you get from using a studio setup.

as a case in point - this is probably one of my most recent and most postworked shots. Looking at it you wouldnt think it could be in the top 5 commented photos in my entire gallery ;) And just so you know how much post was done - this is exactly the crop you see in the [ final picture](http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1421605) as you can see, those tire tracks arent in there anymore - tho knowing they were there makes you realise some "distortions" in the bottom left, i could do a better job if i were bothered, but no-one pulled me up on it ;)

oops - i think i just spilled the beans... but, as i said, this is the most recent "most postworked" image - a lot of images just needed a bit of levels and curves and a smattering of shadow/highlight.

Thank you so much Olivier for this thread.. A very important question tho..

Now... I totally agree with Girsempa.. But at the same time, you really don't need that kinda money or time to get a perfect results straight out of your camera tho!

These days, I guess any DSLR camera comes with a very nice number of built in profiles, settings. Specially the warm colors profilts, type of colors and the levels..

The thing is, if you guys can get more deeper into these settings, I bet you won't need even to add anything else but cropping and bordering! You know what I mean..

About colors, level, tones or sharpness, contrast or brightness.. I always list my used camera settings/profile(s) under my shot.. If its mentioned that my shot as is, that means its as is from the camera, I also add that its cropped and added border and/or typo..

I do manipulate shots that can go under mix medium/manipulation like my dark art for example..

Even the glow, dreamy effects.. I know many members cannot afford to buy filters for the camera lenses, or even a plugin for their photo editor..

I do all my Glamour'e shots, dream, glow shots, straight from the camera by using some glowing/dreamy effect filters. Sigh! Just like the cross 6 star filter to get this RESULT!

I mentioned it on my shot, but seems when people just wanna comment cause they are late on commenting others.. They just post wow what an effect and nice postwork!!

Oh well.. its always nice when the artists post what kinda enhancements/manipulation or even postwork been added or done to their posted images eh! :D

Like here for example. hope Rich won't mind my edit:

1- Auto contrast
2- Auto Level
3- Fixed The Noise/Grain
4- Cloned The Black Spot " About three and 1/2 cm from the left, just below the further cloud
5- Framed

Now i better run to work, after an hour i will be fixing my new 2000W Car Audio Pioneer System.. Heeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa :D

See ya all around my friends,

JOE

hoho ... hem .. i like your answers and i thank you for them !!

i understand you consider the postwork as a part of photography. But where is the limitation ?

Do we enhance or do we modify the pic ? or just... do we follow our feeling because the important is the result... I like the last possibillity.

This is my more postworked pic (i think lol, 4 hours of work), clic on it ;o) here the pic has been completely modified to show how was my feeling at this moment, at the first look.

This is not easy to consider.... I agree with you nattarious, there no need of very much money, but very very much time to 'beforework' & 'postwork.'

It's very intersting inshaala ! You are thinking postwork while you take picture... wow ! ... i cannot do that lol when i'm postworking, I just try to remember the feeling when i was taking the pic & reproduce it.

hem .. ok.. i'll think more about it again lollllllll

tks !!!!
Olivier

I was always told that digital editors such as Photoshop are just modern-day "digital darkrooms" recreating many of the "tweaks" and effects that can be done by a good photographer with film and chemicals - maybe, nowadays, there are many more other things that can be done with the ever-growing number of plugins etc and the other manipulations that can be done to make pictures 3D etc., but as a basic enhancement to get the best out of the photo - in my case, to try to recreate the scene that I didn't capture correctly at the time of shoot, is surely acceptable and is exactly that, an enhancement and not a manipulation in any way!?

I personally enjoy postworking, perhaps because I am still learning what to do with Photoshop and it's multitudes of filters etc., but I have to admit, although there are very few, I have got more satisfaction as a complete novice, when I have been able to do nothing more than adjust the "auto levels" add a frame and my signature - then receive praise for that shot - that to me says that I am progressing and moving on in the world of photography, and in the right direction!

Also, as a footnote, I would rather see a picture enhanced than see all of it's "flaws" - I know (from my own experience) that some flaws are there to stay, such as white-out skies etc., (unless you know a good friend by the name of Joe who can create a whole new sky for you with Terragen LOL!!) but at least if you've managed to get the enhancements right on the rest of the picture, then it shows you at least care about your work - that's just my opinion and many will probably disagree - but hey ho, had a terrible day in work and don't care any more if people disagree with me LOL!!

Good question though Olivier and one which I doubt will ever get a unanimous answer for.

Chrissy xx

Yes Bibby, when I see some images where the author mentions: "no postwork done", I often think like: "Man (or woman), why didn't you..? This shot could have been so much better with just a bit of postwork retouching..." Also, it's exactly through the frustration of trying to postwork an image that you just can't get right, that you will try to shoot the next image right the first time... not all images are 'postworkable'... And the most important thing, the main objective, should remain the image, and not the postwork.

Olivier: So, where is the real pleasure ? I find both pleasure in taking the photo and then helping it reach its full potential (IMHO) through postwork. Do you do postworking ? Of course. Do you think it's a must ? No, but it is a rare image that won't benefit any form of tweaking. Could you try to do without it (but levels/contrast of course) ? Sure, sometimes that (and sharpening) is all I do. How do you feel it ? About postwork? I love it. It think it helps the artists more fully express their unique artistic vision. A photo is a good starting point, but what you do with that photo often makes or breaks it. Good discussion everyone.

Yes Geert, indeed, and that's exactly what I'm trying to achieve each time I go out with my camera - it doesn't always work - as I improve on what aspect that I've been doing wrong, I end up messing up some other part - eventually, the aim is to get all aspects right, but that's where time, patience, dedication and a lot of time and love comes into the equation (and hopefully a new DSLR  :biggrin: )

With all this said, I can't find a picture that I'm happy with to upload to my gallery tonight .... will have to search harder I think!!

Chrissy xx

Well - i competed for a while over on worth1000.com where you get stock images and make them un-real - if you get what i mean... this is one i did a while back:

this is made up of three images - the girl on the rock, the desert infront of her and the boat, all put together in photoshop - into what is (i hope) a convincing image. So when you do things like this for a while you get to know how powerful photoshop is in "creating" pictures, so when i go around actually taking pictures of things, i sometimes make the decision of "i cant be bothered to wait for that person to move, i'll just clone him out later" or "i'm not going to find a better spot on the beach for this shot, i'll just get rid of that tyre track later"

So i would tend to agree with you olivier, i think the final image is what counts, after all that is what you are appreciating when you view it, not the lack of or use of postwork.

The problem comes when people are expecting to see a photo and just that. My mum constantly ask me when i show her my new stuff  "yes rich, but have you enhanced that photo to make it look like that?" to which i inevitably reply "yes, but that is how digital photography works"

All photography for that matter Rich. Very nice composite. I see a bit of clipping in the hair, but overall very convincing. And I agree. The final image is what counts.

yeah - hair is always awkward in that respect ;)

Thank you, Olivier, Chrissy, Kort and girsempa...

Guys, I don't how different people can think or thinking.. But postwork to me means the following:

1- Image retouching
2- Colours, tones, levels, saturations enhancement
3- Adding a filter or two at max to sharpen or focus blur the image

Now i noticed that, many members either here or in a different places thinks that manipulation is a postwork! I totally don't agree with that! Because manipulating is a manipulating... When people seach for job as a graphic designers.. I am pretty sure that they come a cross a job as : WE NEED MANIPULATOR! Graphic, Audio or Video!

And @ Rich, what you presented here, is a manipulation 100% and not a postwork, unless postwork means to you manipulation! That is what the mixmedium and i also doubt that defenition!

I can tell that... Enhancement/Postwork is needed to improve the shot to the taste of the artist and the viewer!

Manipulation is a totally different type of art and still has its lovers!

So what you guys think?

Thank you and regards

JOE

Did you know that the May, 2004 Photography Forum challenge was
"No Postwork"? 

--
Martin

Well I'd be consistent in losing at that one too!! LOL!!

Joe - i disagree...  manipulation is doing things like your evil series.  Getting rid of a tyre track to preserve the scene is just that - although it might not strictly speaking be postwork, I wouldnt classify it as manipulation because it isnt actually adding anything to the scene, it is merely taking it away to create (although falsely) a "perfect" scene, or what the original scene should have looked like in the eyes of the photographer.  Otherwise removing dust is manipulation as it was present in the make up of the image and thus part of the scene ;)
Nor is it "mixed medium" or anything else, because only one image was used and the essence of that image was not altered. I would classify my "Paw of the Beast" more towards manipulation than i would that beach shot...because it no longer is a conventional photograph due to digital enhancement...  maybe it's just me

Or were you refering to the girl on the rock? because that is definitely manipulation in my book ;)

LOOOOOL@Rich!

I am talking here at your post (Girl On The Rock) :)) Of course it is a manipulation tho... Hummm.. Take a look at Andreas dedi.. Is that a manipulation or postwork? But don't let the model eats your mind and make you forget which is what! :tt2:

hehe. now you have a wonderful weekend Rich.. I gotta render something ;)

JOE

hrm... I gotta go to sleep i think, 5:40am... have fun staring at a progress bar - hehe :tt2:

Because I shoot 100% RAW, I always postwork.  I see nothing wrong with correcting the limitations of either the camera or my creativity at the moment I pressed the shutter.  IMHO, the process of taking a photograph doesn't end with the pressing of the shutter, but the final save in Photoshop.

I've been thinking about this thread this weekend and decided to post my my opinion. Since I've been into digital photography I have wondered whether it is "proper" to perform postwork on a digital photograph or not, and if you do, is it expected that you inform the forum or community that postwork was performed on a posted photograph?

With film, the development process in the darkroom was an integral part of creating the photograph. You couldn't go back and alter the negative, but there were many variables you could play with during development and printing that could greatly affect the final photograph. With digital, it's just the opposite. You can go back and alter the "negative" (via RAW settings), but there isn't a "darkroom" anymore. The photograph doesn't ever get "developed" with digital, it's (arguably) "final" when it is downloaded from the camera.

Does that mean digital photographs can't benefit from postwork? Absolutely not. To me, ideally, the perfect photograph would come out of the camera and not require any postwork at all. Unfortunately, at my skill level, that hasn't happened yet (or probably anytime soon). Personally I haven't "found my groove" yet in photography. I am still trying different approaches in making good photographs. Since my photographs are not coming out of the camera "perfect", I usually do perform level adjustments and blending layers on most of my photographs to get them to a level that I am happy with. Cropping, resizing, and rotating images doesn't fundamentally change the photograph itself. Hopefully as I get better in photography the amount of postwork that I perform will decrease over time.

But to me there is a difference between tweaking a photograph's levels, sharpness, or contrast, and altering the subject/scene of the photograph itself. My opinion is that if objects in a photograph are cloned out or cloned in, that image is no longer representative of the original scene in which the photograph was taken. There are some fantastic photographs here at Renderosity. Unfortunately I would bet that many of those photographs do not exist in the real world as they have been presented, which to me classifies those images as a "mixed-medium" image and not as a photograph.

Matt

Just had a thought - maybe we could have one of the member challenges as "Straight from the camera" (ie only in-camera settings are allowed). See how people do :)

Yeah right!!!!!!  :scared:

Like I DON't think so for us mere beginners -  I'd be lost without PS!! LOL!  I think there are maybe only one or two of my uploads that have come straight from the camera (with the exception of resizing and title!)

Oh please Noooooooooooooooo - I can't keep losing every challenge!  :lol:

start playing around with desk lamps, coloured stuff (for background, light, and subject matter), a steady something (read: tripod), and your camera sharpness, saturation, contrast settings and you will find that it is easier than you think ;)

Surely it is postwork to set parameters within the camera for: sharpness, saturation, etc. . . . .

@Onslow;
You beat me to the punch....

Add to that hue adjustment, white balance, tone compensation and the ability to upload curves to cameras...all these "tweaks" are done in camera....

Some cams allow multiple exposures....
Some cams create a B & W image....
Some cams create a sepia image....

Yet, none of these "tweaks" performed by the camera are necessarily representative of what the "eye" saw.

For you older folks familiar with "film"....you will know that most of the "classic" images involved a certain degree of "postwork"...done in the darkroom.  It was just a process not easily available to the average photographer.  Now, it is something everyone can do easily in front of their PC with editing software.

That being said.....there is good postwork...and there is bad postwork.  As with the darkroom days, the modern tools also require a great deal of skill.

In the end, it is the final result that matters....if the artist is happy with it....then fine.

@inshaala,

Just had a thought - maybe we could have one of the member challenges
as "Straight from the camera" (ie only in-camera settings are allowed).
See how people do :)

That's a thought ... but it might be difficult to convince the camera to create images that would meet the pixel and file size upload criteria. 

@gradient,

For you older folks familiar with "film"....you will know that most of the "classic"
images involved a certain degree of "postwork"...done in the darkroom. 
It was just a process not easily available to the average photographer.

Quite true. 

My own experience with film hardly ever included my working in a darkroom.  It was rare for me to even use a professional lab.  For those reasons, I have always tried to shoot the final image in the camera. 

Even though I no longer use film, the old habits aren't easy to get rid of.  I still try to finalize the image at the time it is captured.  That having been said, I do recognize that Photoshop is a useful tool and now use it in specific limited ways. 

--
Martin