photos after digital retouching, not worth of appreciation?

[juzjames]

hello peoples and fello photographers =)

newbie in the house!

anyways, here's my dilemma... i'm not all powerpacked with SLR, so what i got is a fuji finepix 3800, it's a semi manual camera (6x optical, 3.2mp)

so naturally, there's almost 0 competetion against a nikon d100 in technical term. i can't even change my lense!! okk,
the next thing is that i can't afford diffusers, reflectors and fancy studio umbrellas ^^, and so for diffusers, i use torchlights with paper or colored plastics, styrofoams for reflectors, and umbrellas? nah don't know how to use em yet! :sweat:

so here's the real problem, i have a picture in mind, i get down to the field to snap away, and my pictures have the right subject, but just ain't powerful enough. and next solution is a digital retouch in my computer!

my thoughts are : as long as the final product is as desired.
however!! i do put it clearly, i enjoy and do maximize my capability with the camera settings. the rest and the fine detailing are done with computer.

some responded
:heart: i don't know how you do it, but i like how it looks!
:bheart: have you re touch it? it's not bad, but it's retouched.

how about everybody else? do you think they're worth to be appreciated?

(ps: ppl who develop their own photos in the darkroom, do dodge and burn, push and pull the process... that's editing too right? haha!)

 

[ckiang]

Does anyone has a problem with appreciating the works of the great Ansel Adams? Those have been heavily "processed" in the darkroom.

Having said that I always believe in getting things right in-camera instead of having the thought that "aiya, nevermind lah, can retouch later".

Regards
CK

 

[tucker]

the whole cocept is what ya have visulised. not what ya by chnage will realise later.
just like what AA does, he 'heavily processed' his print, coz he has visualised them.

it's subjective I guess, if pple don't like just move on.

 

[bigbluesky]

my stance is this:

do your best when you're lookin thru the lens

and your best afterwards (post-processing).

the final result may not be reportage, but it is your vision, your art.

if it strikes a chord, it is always appreciated.

 

[TrailsofLife]

Last time, no adobe photoshop to do retouching, so retouching is done in dark room, we call post processing. Even the negative have under and over processing, we call push and pull process.

But everything is still the same, just more convenient now, not wet like last time.

 

[MatthewSCL]

i used to ask myself this question also..." i think i am more of a post editor then a photographer..." but was answered by someone in clubsnap (cant rem who), but really boost up my morale and till now i still rember what he told me...

"Doctors dont have well high tech equipments in the past to save lifes"
Now they have....does that mean they are no longer good doctors?
The equipments basically helps them to save more lifes...

in photography terms:
PS helps a photographer to enhance his pics...to reach for a higher level, resulting in more beautiful pictures.......just like doctors.

cheers.... ;p

 

[Wai]

I found that post processing is also part of photography

It is like putting on makeup, to enhance the looks further, which is sometimes necessary because of the limitation of the equipment.

For me, even I am using one of the best camera which can produce good colour and sharpness, I still like to tweak the colour and sharpen a bit to get my desired results.

Even Ms Universe also need a good make-up artist to enhance her features right, so no need to feel :bheart: because someone say that you do digital touch up, he is just implying that your touch up skill is good

 

[jOhO]

Does anyone has a problem with appreciating the works of the great Ansel Adams? Those have been heavily "processed" in the darkroom.

Having said that I always believe in getting things right in-camera instead of having the thought that "aiya, nevermind lah, can retouch later".

Regards
CK

yeah well said, i think it's important not to rely on the fact that retouching can sometimes correct mistakes. get it right the first time, and do any extra effects/corrections that can't be gotten with the camera, that's cool.

i think the main thing that get's touched in digital photos is WB. sometimes with mixed lighting conditions, the cam is fooled. unless u're gonna get a white card reading each time u take a shot, then perhaps it's more convenient to do it in photoshop.

 

[CaeSiuM]

Effort needs to be put in before and/or after shooting a frame. However if you do not get it right when you shoot, post processing is not going to be your panacea. The old adage "garbage in, garbage out(GIGO)" is true.

Most of the so-called post processing are mediocre at best(myself too) with the exception of a few.

 

[Malakite]

wah dude... hahaah just join already doin polls... hahaha james james james... sup man? how life in indon?

anyway back tot he thread... i suppose in this age.. who can really tell if some images are processed or capture just rite...

ma 2 cents la...

 

[tomshen]

Do whatever you feel like, the images speak.

The more I shoot, the less I care about technical, but artistic issues. Now I wish to become an artist, instead of a photographer, depending on how you term it.

 

[oeyvind]

Photoshop is basically the same tools as the old darkroom, the concept is basically the same.

A bad photo is a bad photo... no post processing can make a bad photo good.

But proper processing can better enhance a not-so bad photo.