:) Makes Me Feel Better

[persephone]

LINK

excerpt

Want to see what kind of work goes into turning a masterful photograph into an iconic print? Pablo Inirio, the master darkroom printer who works at Magnum Photos‘ New York headquarters, has personally worked on some of the cooperative’s best-known images. A number of his marked-up darkroom prints have appeared online, revealing the enormous amount of attention Inirio gives photos in the darkroom.

[huga]

Why does it make you feel better? Knowing that even the greats processed their work, some of it quite extensively?

I think it's all part of creating something amazing - it usually needs a bit of something - some more than others.

[Lasareina]

crikey. Looks all a bit complicated! I think I have got as far as "autocorrect" on microsoft picture editor :laugh: They may have a point about the digital generation losing some of the detail and expertise of the old skool developers!

[redangel]

Tweaking the exposures, dodging and burning in PS these days is similar I believe.It was a lot harder id imagine back in the film days. I think that such changes are great for taking focus off some parts of the picture and highlighting the main focus to the subject. HDR isnt a fav of mine , but done subtlety can show a range of light in a picture that enhance the scene to the viewer.

I am encouraged to see how photos can be improved with processing, I dont feel challenged by such works, just encouraged to learn more about what evolved to "get the shot". I dont think processing in any way can make a badly taken photo look like a masterpiece. Composition, use of light and the subject are more important to making a good image in my opinion, processing completes it if necessary. Im no pro photographer though Pers just my opinion.

[Are You Serious Jo]

People seem to think in the good old days the masters just took a shot and that was it and these days we cheat with photoshop. Reality is those famous shots were extensively worked on. I always laugh at those people that smugly say this is straight out of the camera, yep, it shows :laugh: No one takes around their negatives and asks people to view those, they show processed pictures. Editing RAW files is the same as processing film. how far the person goes is up to them, but nobody should kid themselves that the best film photographers in the world would not manipulate in their darkroom.

[huga]

So true! I love the SOOC smug :laugh:

There were some amazingly processed images judged at APPA over the weekend. I wouldn't even know where to begin to get some of these looks:

http://www.appa.aippblog.com/index.php/congratulations-tony-hewitt-2013-canon-aipp-australian-professional-photographer-of-the-year/

Check out the wedding category winner!

[minimax]

So true! I love the SOOC smug :laugh:

There were some amazingly processed images judged at APPA over the weekend. I wouldn't even know where to begin to get some of these looks:

http://www.appa.aippblog.com/index.php/congratulations-tony-hewitt-2013-canon-aipp-australian-professional-photographer-of-the-year/

Check out the wedding category winner!

Wow. Does there ever come a point where photography crosses the line into digital art? I mean, those started out at photos ... many many many lightroom edits ago :laugh:

[huga]

You can't do that in LR! :laugh:

Interestingly, I discussed that with some friends on the day. The lines definitely get blurred, especially in the illustrative category, but those images all started off as photos and each element has to be taken by the photographer (textures etc). But part of being a good photographer is being able to do it all - get the shot right, process it beautifully and be able to print it correctly.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Photography is just another art form, there is the same range of styles and all are important in their own right. I really love Peter Eastway's landscapes, http://www.petereastway.com/showports.taf I love looking at the AIPP winners too, gives me a goal to keep working towards.

[minimax]

How random, I was just looking at the APPA winner and the name Darren Jew looked really familiar ... he sent me a bunch of photos once he took of my dragon boat crew racing in Sydney :laugh: I had/have no idea who he was, he might have been at the event with someone I was paddling with coz it was random, but now it makes sense why the photos were so awesome

[Guest hankodie]

Working in the darkroom is great because you learn a true understanding of the whole process, from taking the actual picture to processing the final print. Some of the techniques are really awesome, like using a wooden skewer with a piece of paper attached to the end to dodge & burn or using multiple exposures to create composites.

Photo manipulations were done way before the digital age, it was just a more tedious process.

PS and other editing softwares are great tools. I think it only becomes "lazy" if the person taking the shots only relies on it alone for the final product and doesn't bother with setting up their photos properly.

[Roova]

I think the problem with seeing so many amazing photos from great lenses and clever post processing is if you don't have the tools, photography can turn from fun when you first start to depressing when you know what you're missing. :laugh:

I can't afford LR or PS and as a hobbyist I often look at photos I've taken where I've tried to think about composition, exposure, shutter speed etc and the end result can look so bland!

Just out of interest, for pro photographers do you feel the need to edit every single photo, or are their times when you're happy with straight out of camera?

Also are there a few things always changed like saturation and contrast or is there a never ending list of things you need to change depending on the look you want?

[huga]

I edit every single photo - even my personal ones. Because I am (a) a control freak and (b) I only shoot in RAW, therefore they need work (they come out of camera a bit soft and bland).

ETA Every single photo that I keep, obviously. There's a lot that get turfed.

Edited September 18, 2013 by huga

[Guest hankodie]

I think the problem with seeing so many amazing photos from great lenses and clever post processing is if you don't have the tools, photography can turn from fun when you first start to depressing when you know what you're missing. :laugh:

I can't afford LR or PS and as a hobbyist I often look at photos I've taken where I've tried to think about composition, exposure, shutter speed etc and the end result can look so bland!

Just out of interest, for pro photographers do you feel the need to edit every single photo, or are their times when you're happy with straight out of camera?

Also are there a few things always changed like saturation and contrast or is there a never ending list of things you need to change depending on the look you want?

You're definitely not missing much Roova! The great thing about photography is that there are so many variables that contribute to the final shot and very little of it has to do with equipment. There are famous photographers out there who have made a career out of using only a point and shoot with little to no post processing. I think it just comes down to what you're shooting and the overall look you want to achieve.

For me, the most important variable is lighting. Early morning or late afternoon are my favourite times of the day to shoot because the light is softer, less harsh and so easy to work with (especially in Autumn and Spring - something about the light during these times is magical!)

I find the photos that have the perfect lighting need very little post processing in the end.

It also depends on your subject - I shoot a lot of real estate for work and I find that as long as I take a bit of time composing the shot, there's not much that needs to be done in post.

Shooting preferences are also another factor. I always make sure I'm generous with exposure, I don't rely on the camera meter alone.

Whens shooting people (or doggies!) I use a lot of color correction, only because I love a certain kind of look. It's more of a look and feel type thing rather than a technical thing.

Some of the lenses and cameras that I use also capture colour beautifully but I often have to sacrifice sharpness which I sometimes correct in PS.

I think relying heavily on your camera settings is a fantastic way to hone in on your skills, also being able to read and understand light is the greatest tool :)

Edited September 18, 2013 by hankodie

[Are You Serious Jo]

As huga has said, if you shoot RAW every photo needs some editing, the way the digis record RAW data results in tweaks needed, they all need sharpening and usually at least contrast corrected. With jpeg the camera decides for you what the shot should look like so auto jpeg shooters can get some shots that are ok out of the camera. Hankodie has explained it well, editing is also about stamping your shots with your own style.

[JackC]

I am a complete novice when it comes to this but after a few years of playing with photoshop I have found that a few small tweaks really make a huge difference with my shots, sometimes its just a simple contrast or tone tweak, other times its a full blown colour and shading adjustment, I am slowly getting better now with my camera, only really started taking photo's a few months ago and learning all about aperture, iso and shutter speeds now