Post Processing

[Kit]

There's not much point in discussing about post processing without any images (except the technicalities). How much is too much or how little is too little should be decided case by case depending on the photographer's intention.

 

[LittleWolf]

I dun mean that individual taste should be killed but at least there should be some decent standards like in controlling the blown highlights, shadows, a lil decent contrast, decent saturation for the norms...

Who decides what decent standards are? You can set technical standards (e.g. clipped highlights, but technical standards don't say much about the artistic merit), but contrast and saturation? Looking at a lot of "nice" pictures and the "hope you don't mind, I took your photo and posted an improved version" posts on Clubsnap, it appears that the local taste emphasizes stark contrast over blown out highlights, and Walt-Disney/Technicolor-like kitsch colours over natural rendition. To my eyes, more often than not acceptable pictures get "improved" to eye-stabbing monstrosities that should be banned by the Geneva convention.

And there are discussions about "over- and underexposed" pictures if viewers would prefer a darker or lighter version, or if they look at the picture surrounded by a glaring bright or a dark screen background. (Honestly, the Clubsnap colour scheme for viewing posts/the gallery is a poor choice for looking at pictures, but the admins don't even bother to reply to politely formulated feedback.)

Different viewers should naturally have a set of different views. Although there's a very noticeable Lemming mentality: pictures get little to no comment, until someone starts the ball rolling: "this is to bright/dark/badly framed/etc, and I would do this", and all of a sudden there are numerous posts regurgitating the very same thing over and over again, especially if the first comment came from one of the better-known Clubsnappers with some perceived authority. And all of a sudden, there's a "standard" because everyone agrees with the naked emperor instead of using their own brain to form their own opinions.

What I want to say is, we should at least be able to know how to get the right effect first

The only "effect" that can somehow be argued to be "right" is the colorimetrically and photometrically accurate reproduction of a scene. This automatically excludes any contrast and saturation manipulations, white balancing, etc. and will most time result in pictures that cannot be reproduced in print or on screen. Strangely (or certainly?) enough, I never see people opting for this route.

 

[zac08]

Good point.

But without being at the scene personally, how can we know if the reproduction is correct? And also your points brought to me another different issue. Monitor calibration.

How many shooters actually calibrate their monitors? If their view of their own picture is flawed due to a biased monitor profile, wouldn't everyone see a different image than what the photographer sees??

 

[Kit]

it appears that the local taste emphasizes stark contrast over blown out highlights, and Walt-Disney/Technicolor-like kitsch colours over natural rendition. To my eyes, more often than not acceptable pictures get "improved" to eye-stabbing monstrosities that should be banned by the Geneva convention.......

Look around, this is not exclusive to this part of the world...

.....Different viewers should naturally have a set of different views. Although there's a very noticeable Lemming mentality: pictures get little to no comment, until someone starts the ball rolling: "this is to bright/dark/badly framed/etc, and I would do this", and all of a sudden there are numerous posts regurgitating the very same thing over and over again, especially if the first comment came from one of the better-known Clubsnappers with some perceived authority. And all of a sudden, there's a "standard" because everyone agrees with the naked emperor instead of using their own brain to form their own opinions......

Stay around, you'd find that honesty is not always appreciated. I do agree that the attitude towards generating meaningful criticism is mediocre at best.

 

[LittleWolf]

But without being at the scene personally, how can we know if the reproduction is correct?

A "correct" reproduction would be a fairly sophisticated measurement. This is e.g. done in astronomy and other scientific imaging applications, but beyond the reach of amateurs and the vast majority of professionals alike - and they don't NEED it. They want to produce images that they/their clients like, not objective measurements.

And also your points brought to me another different issue. Monitor calibration.

How many shooters actually calibrate their monitors? If their view of their own picture is flawed due to a biased monitor profile, wouldn't everyone see a different image than what the photographer sees??

Take a finished print or even a painting. How often is it precisely specified under what illumination it is to be viewed? What about human colour perception that varies between individuals?

 

[LittleWolf]

Look around, this is not exclusive to this part of the world...

I didn't see it to this extent before, but admittedly my recollection of other places is a bit dated.

Stay around, you'd find that honesty is not always appreciated.

That's one side of the medal. The other side is that people appear to boost their reputation by regurgitating someone else's opinion as soon as they feel reasonably safe that it bears some authority. This phenomenon is not limited to critiques. How often asks someone a technical question, nobody seems to know a good answer for quite a while, then finally someone hits it. Within a very short time, there are several bootleggers repeating the answer in the tone of authority, although everything has already been said.