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.
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?
Watch this and decide for yourself.
Canon EOS 7D | EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 | EF 24-105mm f/4L | 580EX II
Panasonic Lumix LX5
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
which is akin in a way to changing ur saturation / modes on ur DSLR
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
just do your own thang. why do u care what other people do with their photos?