Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 165

Thread: is PP really needed???

  1. #61

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by leews2001 View Post
    to TS,

    unless the pictures are meant to disseminate evidence,
    just do whatever that is needed to be done to get that picture of yours out.

    its much to your benefit to stop nitpicking over such trivial issues.
    if not, might as well argue that industrial light and magic is the mother of all cheaters.

    go have fun.
    he needs to look at your flickr.

  2. #62

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy1 View Post
    I guess skill photographer is experience enough to minimum or do not use the PP.
    I doubt they depend much on that ?

    If PP can do wonder, then why we still need a 1Ds3 or D3s ?

    Actually its the professional photographers are the ones who do a lot more PP than hobbyists. It's standard operating procedure for them.
    They get paid good money to produce good results, so they are expected to do PP to do just that. The higher end cameras just allows them to print in very large format as well as very high ISO performance. But in very good light, a D90 can produce almost the exact image quality as a D3.

  3. #63

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Cool.. dint know so many of the features in PS were developed from film techniques.
    As to whether PP is needed. No, not needed but wanted. dont you want your photos to look good?

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Singapore, east-ish
    Posts
    2,291

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy1 View Post
    That will depend how good is your camera skill.

    I find that if u are confident on the picture u are taking, then no need to use PP so no need for RAW image. Likewise, if u wanted to really perfect a photo ( maybe it's something that u are in doubt or some very nice scene ), then use PP.

    Professional photographer usually do nothing or little using PP.
    No offence but you haven't a single clue on what you're talking about

    It is true that some professional event photographers do little or no pp. The same cannot be said for other professionals, say...landscape photographers or portrait photographers.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    762

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Watch this and decide for yourself.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U
    Canon EOS 7D | EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 | EF 24-105mm f/4L | 580EX II
    Panasonic Lumix LX5

  6. #66
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    As a hobbyist dabbling with only personal pieces, I personally believe if the volume of postprocessing served to adversely derails viewing attention from the point of focus or somehow unsettlingly detaches it from reality, then it becomes a bummer. As to how far fetch or when to draw the line, your mileage may vary.

    Some see art in the shots ( just look at how processed the shots in say OP magazine are ), some cry foul on very same shots.

    For me PP is a mutual part of photography. Sometimes it is not necessary, but sometimes it is. Composition is still core business in a way whatever I PP must be right in the first place, and PP is never for salvaging of shots ( it is way too noneconomical in terms of time, and i hardly have time for my hobby ). And yes, deliberation, composition and clicking the shutter gives me the greater part of joy


    Quote Originally Posted by welspain View Post
    hahaha. choosing film is PP

    PP means POST processing unless you want to change it to PRE processing
    In a way.. if u want more saturated colors for ur landscape u can use films like Velvia
    which is akin in a way to changing ur saturation / modes on ur DSLR

    Quote Originally Posted by welspain View Post
    now a days.. too many PHOTOSHOPGRAPHERS.:
    I kinda agree that with digital media, digital manipulation is much more easily performed. For some new DSLR users, PP especially HDR / exposure blending seems to take precedence over compositon ( when it shld be much the other way round )

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy1 View Post

    Professional photographer usually do nothing or little using PP.
    Look at some of the industrial big names like Darryl Benson, Gallen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Marc Adamus, Annie Leibovitz to name a pinch. Really little . no PP ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy1 View Post
    If not, why do we still need a 1ds3 or d3s ?
    Actually people buy them for their other functions such as higer resolution / fps / weather sealing etc. I am not sure if they got better postprocessing processor in them that does better than the lower end bodies.

    Quote Originally Posted by leews2001 View Post
    to TS,

    go have fun.
    beautifully said!

  7. #67

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by Snooze View Post
    I guess in this digital age we need both... We need craftsman skills and PP skills... Certain things like Cross processing can't be done on the camera, The exposure, Contrast etc...
    We can't deny the fact we need PP skills... But still Craftsman skill is needed too...The composition, getting the exposure right, DOF etc. This in turn save us a lot of time doing Post processing, cropping etc... One is left hand, one is right hand and we need both hands to clap to produce that master piece...
    I agreed with you.
    My gears: 6D | 600D | OM-D E-M5 | Some lenses n flashes | flickr

  8. #68

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Hi, A pro photographer does not do PP, even in dim lighting. But an amateur with a pro 3 D does PP in poor lighting. However, PP is time consuming. Taking several shots only need deleting the bad photos and keeping the good ones without PP. Nevertheless, PP is a good subject to learn as it compliments photography.

  9. #69

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by henry soh View Post
    Hi, A pro photographer does not do PP, even in dim lighting. But an amateur with a pro 3 D does PP in poor lighting. However, PP is time consuming. Taking several shots only need deleting the bad photos and keeping the good ones without PP. Nevertheless, PP is a good subject to learn as it compliments photography.
    Please name me 1 'pro photographer' who don't do PP?
    I am curious.

  10. #70

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by iNotion View Post
    Please name me 1 'pro photographer' who don't do PP?
    I am curious.
    seriously curious to find out also

  11. #71

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by UandMe View Post
    seriously curious to find out also
    Well, to be honest, most dont...
    They hire another professional to do it, a retoucher..lol

  12. #72

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by redmonsoon View Post
    Well, to be honest, most dont...
    They hire another professional to do it, a retoucher..lol
    they hired another professional to pp?
    Does it mean the work belong to the retoucher, and not the photographer?

    If the answer is "of cos, it belongs to the photographer",
    Then the photographer post proceed his work.

    "why they hired another pro to pp?"
    1) Cos no time.
    2) Cos they lack skill in the PP dept.

    "**henri cartier bresson himself hired a professional to do post processing for him"
    Last edited by iNotion; 26th October 2009 at 11:04 AM.

  13. #73

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    PP is like makeup. Nuff said.

  14. #74

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    I think I got a better picture here.

    Upgrading is a camera hobby for more & better feature.

    Professional Photographers are also human & nobody is perfect. There is no guarantee that
    all photos taken by them are perfect so PP is needed to achieve wat they want.

    But Professional Photographers who had only film camera last time got such thing like PP ?

    Thanks.

  15. #75

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Post process to enhance the picture, or to touch-up certain things that cannot be obtained from the camera. I don't see a problem here.

  16. #76

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    At this moment, the outcome of this discussion is pretty much open to post processing as long as it does not mislead the intention of the publisher.

    In order to move the discussion further, TS should add more views or scope as to what is consider ok and what is consider not ok.

    My suggestions may be ethics, social, personal, historical, knowledge, humane etc.

  17. #77

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by wkteoh View Post
    PP is like makeup. Nuff said.
    totally agree on this!

    a) For enhancement i think is not cheating. In cloudy singapore, it is quite difficult to get a nice blue sky, PP can help a bit.

    lets have an example.
    I think no matter how good a lady looks, she will look even better with some makeup.
    1) if the makeup result is natural, she will look very good.
    2) if overdo, the lady will look like chinese opera singer.

    so it all brings down to the skill of makeup (pp) to enhance it naturally. I think some shots (especially HDR) are overdone.


    b) Cheating. Extreme Photoshop. Ridiculous results.

    Eg.
    1) reduce the waist of model from 38 inch to 32inch. totally remove double chin. make eyes MUCH bigger. and end up in a totally different person.
    2) Putting polar and penguin in the same photo.

    above examples can be considered cheating?

    Enhancement is totally fine.
    Maybe for some serious documentations of buildings or landscapes, we should be more careful in minimal pp to preserve natural look.

    just a 2 cent contribution.

    ** I have not come to a conclusion to comment on the clone of the bird to enhance the photo. hmm...
    Last edited by vickee; 26th October 2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason: add more points

  18. #78

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy1 View Post
    But Professional Photographers who had only film camera last time got such thing like PP ?
    For those who never entered a darkroom before, never smell the processing chemicals before, never develop a photo before, never manually burn/ increase contrast on a photo, using a blackboard with a hole in the middle... never feel the pain on your eyes after long hours in the darkroom before [classic]...

    Yes. Film photographers do post processed.
    If you watched the documentary, "Henri Cartier-Bresson, The Impassioned Eye",
    there is a scene, a professional artist touching up Bresson's work.
    If you haven't watch it, search for the title in Youtube.

  19. #79

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    Quote Originally Posted by iNotion View Post
    For those who never entered a darkroom before, never smell the processing chemicals before, never develop a photo before, never manually burn/ increase contrast on a photo, using a blackboard with a hole in the middle... never feel the pain on your eyes after long hours in the darkroom before [classic]...

    Yes. Film photographers do post processed.
    If you watched the documentary, "Henri Cartier-Bresson, The Impassioned Eye",
    there is a scene, a professional artist touching up Bresson's work.
    If you haven't watch it, search for the title in Youtube.
    Thanks.

  20. #80

    Default Re: is PP really needed???

    just do your own thang. why do u care what other people do with their photos?

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •