Photo's without post production

[Ardy]

Had a friend of mine around for dinner last Saturday and we were talking photography, he is a good landscape photographer. He said he was pissed with a famous local landscape photographer when he found out he did a lot of work in photoshop on his expensive prints. He thought he should have been able to take the shot as exposed which is what my friend does.

The question is: Do any of you do NO adjustments to your shots and have them without any post processing. Can you post examples please?

The reason I am asking is that I am moving more in this direction. I am sick of farting around with PS (or Corel in my case because it is easier) trying to make a shot look how it looked to me UW.

 

[Gilligan]

I can't think of ever taking a digital photo on land, and especially underwater, without post processing. That's the great benefit of digital photography.

 

[beautybelow]

I guess the question is who is famous and selling more photos.

If he is talking about a little dodging and burning in photoshop, that is something Ansel Adams did years ago I am pretty sure.

 

[victor]

Yes Ansel Adams did pleanty of post processing in the printing phase, I read a very interesting article on the subject.
Given the challenge of lighting underwater photographs and debris in the water no post processing is gling to be a challenge.
Removing the reflection off debris in the water, correcting the colour balance, etc is fine.
On the other hand excessive post processing to create a "new" image I don't see as photography, it may be art but not photography.

 

[alcina]

Why wouldn't you use all the tools available to you to control and create the best image possible?

No amount of post (that I'm willing to do, anyway) will make a crappy image good - you gotta start with gold and polish it

 

[miketsp]

Had a friend of mine around for dinner last Saturday and we were talking photography, he is a good landscape photographer. He said he was pissed with a famous local landscape photographer when he found out he did a lot of work in photoshop on his expensive prints. He thought he should have been able to take the shot as exposed which is what my friend does.

The question is: Do any of you do NO adjustments to your shots and have them without any post processing. Can you post examples please?

The reason I am asking is that I am moving more in this direction. I am sick of farting around with PS (or Corel in my case because it is easier) trying to make a shot look how it looked to me UW.

Do you really believe that back in the days of photography with real film, that professional photographers didn't adjust their prints?
40 years ago, when I got married and was going to move from one country to another, I asked the wedding photographer (a well known professional) if, in addition to the album we had ordered, he would let us have the negatives as their would be no time for us to make a further selection to run off additional copies for our families.
The short answer was - NO WAY. He stated that 90% of his work was in the post-processing to produce the print to meet his aesthetic standard and it would have been totally unacceptable for us to believe that we would get the same result by taking the negatives round to our local pharmacy to run off more prints. Plus if anyone ever saw those prints and found out who the photographer was, his reputation would be shot.

 

[ScubaSteve]

I am FAR from an accomplished photographer (or even an amateur) so take this for what it is worth. I find it very unlikely that your friend would be able to take the identical shot as the P-shopped shot from the famous photographer. For me, I will adjust the red level in an underwater photo but I do not have the patience to do anything with particulate. Topside, I cannot imagine doing anything other than adjusting RAW levels to get the picture to what my mind's eye remembers it as along with some cropping. I have tried to p-shop out a raindrop once (it fell on my lens as I was snapping) but could not do it and leave the photo where it was not obvious so I never displayed that shot. I am the worst critic of my pictures usually which is why I post so few. I have to see something in the picture I post for me to post it and when I do, a bit of p-shopping is acceptable in my opinion.

I would hope that a "professional" would be able to get the better shot with less p-shopping. Otherwise they are far from different from amateur photographers.

 

[Absolutbill]

To me there is a difference between some post production (sharpening, white balance etc..) and retouching (removing or adding things from other photos). Most digital or traditional photos need some type of post production to get the best quality.


Sent from my IPad using Tapatalk

 

[Larry C]

The only way to avoid postprocessing is to take the same picture multiple times, using different camera and lighting settings and select out the best one. I know photographers who spend an entire dive on one subject and then cull out the two shots they're happy with. Even they post process, but minimally to remove the odd flaw or bit of backscatter. I'm not that patient and I'm not that good.

 

[IanBrit]

I shoot raw so I *can* post process. As other posters have commented, post processing isn't new or unique to digital photography - it's been around forever. Ask your friend "what would Ansel do?"