Is post production more important than Gear?

I don't think one has to postprocess ones pictures to get great results. Some of the best photographers I know use JPEGs out of the camera and their pictures are great. And there are a lot of enthusiasts who would better die than shoot JPEGs and a lot of them process their images so badly that it hurts.
 
My methodology-

My personal code is not to use photo manipulation tools/techniques which are not available in a wet darkroom. A RAW file isn't a semi-blank canvas to me, it is a nearly finished product. I label myself a photographer and I feel that creating something completely different than what the camera captured crosses the line between being a photographer and being a digital artist. Many people see the photo as a starting point, for me the starting point begins when looking through the viewfinder, post is about polish not creation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with digital artistry, it's just not my thing. Limiting my post tools is again my thing, my code and I am not judging anyone by my standards, just an FYI.

As to cropping, during the film-only days I used to crop 100% in the camera. If the image required cropping I'd toss it in favor of one which didn't need cropping. The black borders on the hot air ballons are the actual borders of the negative, showing/proving/boasting that I didn't crop. I believe Henri Cartier-Bresson was the first to file his negative carrier to expose the black edges indicating that the photo was not cropped. Recently, I realize the borders also a loud-mouthed, jerk-off thing and I've been removing them.

Crop in the camera when you can, otherwise crop in post. All that really matters is the final image.

(But, cropping in the camera will make you a better photographer ... just don't be arrogant about it like Henri ...)

Gary

On-Broadway-9-W-X2.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Hey Gary, thanks for making this post. I wasn't really talking 'content', just about the process of creation. My split and discussion was just about the process, which is the obvious stuff really. If you have the detail you can work it, if you don't you can't. Once you do have the content captured in the best possible detail, pp allows you to present it in a number of ways. So in that sense one can create an image in post given the necessary detail. I personally like images that carry powerful messages and love and admire photographers such as you have mentioned in your post. (I do wonder if Nick Ut's image would have been better/worse if say he were carrying a Pentax 645D, but that's digressing). I get your point about conveying a message, if you'd allow me to present an image I've shot recently, it might illustrate my point. I've held back from submitting it thus far in the forum because it's not a pleasant image, and I was upset after I clicked the shutter, upset still when I processed the image, but in my mind the image works because of the way it's presented -

View attachment 59760

My point is, I do get what you and Bill are trying to say about making a good image. But I'd much rather have the detail and preserve the choice to destroy in post, than not have the detail to begin with. I don't hold anything that comes out of the camera as is, as anything particularly sacred. The point is to make an image, in any way one can, with all tools at one's disposal. I see no merit in not cropping (as long as there's no loss in detail) neither in having a correct WB or anything that can be corrected in post. All I see is an opportunity to make an image.

Ninja edit - My current favourite camera is a GRD1 that doesn't even shoot RAW (it technically does, but I'd rather gnaw wood than wait for it to finish writing RAW to the memory card) and goes contrary to everything I've said here, but hey, what's life without a few contradictions.

About your photograph-

That is a wonderful photograph of a tragic situation. Full of image impact, nearly empty on image quality.

I am sorry that the photo troubles you, but ... it is a painful image. It troubles me as well. In school, journalists are taught not to get involved in your stories. To be neutral, to merely report and if you are standing back, uninvolved, shielded by your press pass, that everything you report will be like water running off a ducks back. As some point, journalists discover all that talk of reporting and being a spectator will render you unemotionally involved, is poppycock. Unfortunately, this discovery occurs when it's too late to reverse anything, the water has gone under the bridge. Eventually, journalists realize they are as personally responsible for what they see as they are for what they do.

Kevin Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gary
 
With modern hardware and software, I do look at every image at 100% crop, and typically, if it isn't sharp, then I'm not doing my job and it gets tossed. (One of the reasons I get the best gear is that I know if a photo fails, it's not because of the equipment.)
Gary

I really love the picture with the 3 balloons, it is simple, aesthetic and has impact. I would love to see it printed in A3 at least.

Speaking about PP, my approach as of today is that if the shot isn't good to start with well PP may save it to some extent. I personally only use the modern wet room which is light room. I may use any thing that this smart package offers me but usually only spend minutes and not hours processing. I use no presets because I like to understand how they work, I feel many of them are overdone or at least don't correspond to what I want to do with the picture.

I have resisted to using silver effex and color effex up to now, and I frequently finding myself wanting to us photoshop for bettre local contrast settings it offers but still resisting that, I may change so this does not correspond to any philosophcal approach to my shooting except the fact that I take a lot of care shooting it in the first place. I understand your approach and find it very compelling since I like simplicity in everything I do, that's probably what is still keeping me from getting any other software package.

I enjoy this thread a lot, we see that there are so many approaches to take pictures and it is enriching reading all of you guys herein.
 
Case in point, here is a shot I really didn't know what to with it, I was attracted by the colors of the hats, I took a dozen shots at many angles and and the lighting was poor. Just for the sake of this thread I tried to to something with it but I'n not convinced by the resuts so far.

Processed:

dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Unprocessed:

dsc01947-5.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


The shot was salvage up to a point but something isn't quite right. Opinions are welcome!

These pictures were taken as part of rediscovering color after shooting B&W for a long time, I have a lot of work to do for color, my monitor isn't calibrated, neither my printer etc. and that was not so problematic for B&W work but for color it is unfortunately, I'm getting out my confort zone with all that.
 
I think you made a big improvement already!
Just to see what would happen, I cropped the shot even tighter, so that the green hat in the top left just has its left and top edges cropped away (but there's a little triangle of background visible in the extreme corner) and the pink hat in the right just touches the edges of the frame with its right and bottom edges. This does mean the embroided purple thing in the foreground and a good bit of the yellow hat get lost, but I think it creates a bit more tension, like a river of hats going through a rapid, with a definite sense of direction from the green hat (high to the left) to the pink one (low to the right). The current shot has a sort of undetermined direction because it bottoms out in the middle and then goes up again.
 
It seems like a very good idea, I'd love to see what you've come with, thanks a lot for your help :).

I think you made a big improvement already!
Just to see what would happen, I cropped the shot even tighter, so that the green hat in the top left just has its left and top edges cropped away (but there's a little triangle of background visible in the extreme corner) and the pink hat in the right just touches the edges of the frame with its right and bottom edges. This does mean the embroided purple thing in the foreground and a good bit of the yellow hat get lost, but I think it creates a bit more tension, like a river of hats going through a rapid, with a definite sense of direction from the green hat (high to the left) to the pink one (low to the right). The current shot has a sort of undetermined direction because it bottoms out in the middle and then goes up again.
 
I have been using LR for about 3 years now, but I consistently see eye-popping results from Pros, often using the same gear that I'm using (e.g. Robin Wong using an OMD), but with better results.

I've been switching gear for the last couple of years, mainly to reduce size -- look for a size/IQ balance. I'm pretty happy with what I've learned and what I'm using, though I reserve the right to switch again.

But, I'm beginning to feel my real issue is not in my gear, but in my post-production. I'm also beginning to believe I'm very bored with the "shoot it as I saw it" motif. Getting the colors accurate, etc. and have begun to like filters -- be it applied in camera or post.

Overall, though, it seems to me that I should stop messing around with gear -- because honestly it's all really great and competent -- and learn how to better handle post. Also, explore a "look" that I could call my own, and begin applying to shooting sets. Whether it's just tone curve adjustments, or application of vignetting, etc. or maybe even different kinds of fun filters (I'm a home/hobbyist, so I just shoot for myself).

Anyone else have any thoughts/input? Do you think exploring gear, at some point, loses it's appeal/efficacy, and really it's post production as to where the results are at?

Very interesting thread indeed, let me add my 2 cents:
In the original post wt21 was wondering why pros are getting better results than he is and was wondering if this may be due to postprocessing. The discussion brought up a lot of valid and interesting points. Let's look at what is different between a pro and an amateur:
- proficiency using the tools at hand
pros just know their stuff and important advice was given in this discussion to improve (e.g. use only one lens for a period of time, shoot a lot, don't use presets, ...)
- getting feedback
pros are constantly getting feedback by their customers. Since customers pay money for the work the feedback is honest and mercyless, not the kind of "I like your photos a lot" we are posting at each other in this forum. There is a difference between socializing and make the other feel good on the one hand (and there's nothing wrong with that!) and making business and having to deliver on the other hand. If you want to get better (in whatever you do) you have to establish a feedback loop and learn to deal with negative feedback.
- being educated
Obviously there's a difference between being self-taught and having been exposed to a well-structured education.In addition most of the great photographers have a deep background on the work of other photographers and even in other artwork like painting. All this contributes to get it right in terms of composition, quality of light, relationship of colors, proportion and whatever contributes to the success of a photo. So, "standing on the shoulders of the giants" by studying the work of outstanding photographers and other artists is another important measure to improve
- editing your work
The german nature photographer Fritz Pölking stated in one of his books "the most important piece of gear of a photographer is the waste basket" (humble English translation is mine). In some sense this belongs to "getting feedback" and establishing a feedback loop. How often do we fellow hobbyists let pass a mediocre picture in our own image collection. As a pro you simply can't afford it (ok, some will try anyway ...)

Let me know your thoughts,
Wolfgang
 
- editing your work
The german nature photographer Fritz Pölking stated in one of his books "the most important piece of gear of a photographer is the waste basket" (humble English translation is mine). In some sense this belongs to "getting feedback" and establishing a feedback loop. How often do we fellow hobbyists let pass a mediocre picture in our own image collection. As a pro you simply can't afford it (ok, some will try anyway ...)

All good points Wolfgang. I have highlighted this segment of your post because I KNOW I am guilty of this. People will only perceive how good one is as a photographer by what they see. If I would just limit the photos I post to truly great ones and chuck the rest, people will think I only make great photos.
 
David has elaborated on what most of us have said and not in as nice a way as we on this forum.

unsuck-filter2.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And of course his last statement is a boilerplate I think we can all endorse.

"My way of photography is not the only way. It’s just my way. But it’s all I’ve got. We all do photography for different reasons, I get that, too. This is all just one man’s opinion. And God knows there are people out there that think I’m a hack, so here’s to there being enough room for us all out there to do what we do the way we want."

Thank you for the link Pelao.

Gary
 
I do not think that one is more important than the other; the technology has grown so much in the last few years. Cameras can shoot in places and ways that were pretty impossible a few years ago; same goes for the darkroom/post processing. Great gear gives one the most potential just as great pp skills gives one the ability to maximize the image to its greatest.
The thing that separates what the OP called “eye popping” results from pedestrian is usually the either natural or learned ability to see.
Seeing is what photography is all about. Granted my early training of needing perfect exposure, absolute in camera crop, unforgiving film, manual exp and focus taught me how to get the max out of a camera helped but that alone does not teach one to see. Seeing involves not just content but light as well, where content maybe the heart, light is the soul of photography. One needs to feel as well as see light, many times I see images that are sharp, well exposed, nice color balance that someone just took regardless of the light, the images tend to fall flat.
On the other hand there are lots of images that ignore many of the perceived rules of photography that work brilliantly on some level.
Being sharp, or having the perfect dynamic range is not the end all of image making. It still comes down to seeing the image.
As to over or under pping an image if it works it works.
For me post processing crosses the line from photo image to digital art when one starts adding or subtracting elements from image, i.e., removing people, swapping heads, changing backgrounds, altering the direction of light. Honestly though I can appreciate good digital art as well as good photography.

As to personal style, that usually shows up the more you shoot the more you find yourself and what you want to communicate with your images. At the same time one does not have to have only just one style, many of us see events or subjects differently as our perspectives or moods change. I shot cities empty of life in my thirties, now they are full of people.

The more one knows their gear, the harder one edits, the more one shoots, the more one really looks before one press the shutter or pushes the slider the more one can grow as a photographer.
 
The more one knows their gear, the harder one edits, the more one shoots, the more one really looks before one press the shutter or pushes the slider the more one can grow as a photographer.

Lots of great stuff there Bob. I hope you don't mind, but I've added a bit of emphasis to your last line to drive home what I think is the most important part (though EVERYTHING in that sentence is valid). I find that when I'm out shooting that the less I shoot, the better my shots are. Each one has more impact and punch even before I do any processing.

I need to remember to slow down and really look (unless the subject won't wait).
 
I think that what we're talking about here is trying to achieve "best practise" in a hobby/job that we enjoy. You can improve yourself, you can acquire equipment that works better for you, and you can learn how to process images in ways that present them how you want to see them. Each of them, to varying degrees, can make photography a more satisfying experience for you.
 
I think that what we're talking about here is trying to achieve "best practise" in a hobby/job that we enjoy. You can improve yourself, you can acquire equipment that works better for you, and you can learn how to process images in ways that present them how you want to see them. Each of them, to varying degrees, can make photography a more satisfying experience for you.

Nic,

I think the point that many of us are stating is, in the long run, there are no short-cuts. You can buy the best equipment and that will take you so far. You can buy the best pre-sets and that will only take you so far. Or you can spend the time and energy to learn, understand and actually grasp photography and that will take you beyond best equipment, beyond pre-sets and provide a base of appreciation and self-improvement (style) that will last a lifetime.

Gary
 
It seems like a very good idea, I'd love to see what you've come with, thanks a lot for your help :).

This is pretty much what I had in mind... it's not a big change, like I said, I think the direction of the energy in this crop is a bit more defined, but I dunno if you agree :tongue:

dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Here, for comparison's sake, the original photo as edited by you:
dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
[I can't sleep, so I guess I'll wade in these waters...]

There are a number of things that separate the work of the working pros from the rest. Here are my $.02, with the most important things on top:

Purpose
Pros have assignments - either given to them or given to themselves. Sometimes they are mundane - photograph the opening of a new store, photograph a new car, etc... And sometimes they are not - cover a war, cover a speech by a noteworthy politician, go to a remote wilderness and capture epic sunrises/sunsets/etc. Guess which ones make it into print and into their portfolios?

When they go on these assignments, that's their sole purpose. They're not going with the family and trying to sneak in some photography. They're not going to the local park for a walk and hoping to stumble upon an epic shot. Can you get a really nice photo this way? Yes. Can you get a great photo? Not consistently, and you often need some luck/good fortune.

Practice
There was a study a number of years ago that concluded that the key difference between a very good athlete (i.e., college-level) and an outstanding athlete (i.e., Olympian) is simply hours spent practicing. Olympians start training their bodies at a ridiculously young age (some as soon as they begin to walk) while folks that peak at the college-level started getting serious about sports at a much later age, i.e., 9 years old. Those handful of years (and hundreds if not thousands of hours of practice) gives the Olympians a tremendous advantage.

I think photography is much the same way. We've all heard about the Rule of Thirds, shutter should be 1/FL, and other nuggets of conventional photographic wisdom, but who's going to code that into their synapses faster and more deeply - the pro that's shooting and critically evaluating hundreds if not thousands of shots a day, or the weekend photographer? And when the decisive moment flashes in front of you, who's going draw from that knowledge instinctively vs. consciously?

Post Processing
Every single photo in a good magazine is post processed by very talented people that do this stuff 30 hours a week or more. They know their tools. They know their medium. Every single photo in a pro photographer's portfolio is processed by people whose paycheck depends on knowing what they are doing. The rest of us post stuff online - some of it SOOC, some of it PPed a bit (a tone curve here, a slider there, done), and some of it PP'ed extensively. There are some gems in there, but they are buried in a sea of mediocrity/gear tests. No wonder our stuff doesn't measure up.

Gear
Of all the things on this list, gear is the least important. It's not unimportant, particularly in situations with challenging light. But we've got to admit that we're in a golden age when you can buy a 24Mp camera that shoots a nice ISO3200 with very good exposure range along with a kit lens and a 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 and still be under $1000. All this fussing about an extra stop of ISO or thinner DOF of larger sensors is way way way less important that the stuff above.


Personally, my photography took a big leap forward when I started shooting with a purpose, volunteering for an NGO and local non-profits, choosing to photograph the campaign of a local politician, going to Zuccoti Park with the sole purpose of photographing what was happening, and motorcycle travel photography for RoadRUNNER Magazine. I ended up with a ton of photos that I could look at critically, and really hard-wire some key photographic principles and ideas into my brain. I've gotten better at post processing too, but I know that there's a ways to go still. And I'm still fascinated by gear, but now decisions are made with regard to a purpose - the kinds of projects I see on the horizon - not just simple measurebation.

5116056301_ec499e0971_z.jpg


4135511050_b5e6cf5e57_z.jpg


6239022187_95f06771ac_z.jpg


7953726068_c546037f4c_z.jpg


So to answer the OP, it's neither gear or PP.

Good night and good luck.
 
This is pretty much what I had in mind... it's not a big change, like I said, I think the direction of the energy in this crop is a bit more defined, but I dunno if you agree :tongue:

dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Here, for comparison's sake, the original photo as edited by you:
dsc01947-6.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Oh yes, wonderful, thanks a lot :bravo-009: kudos
 
[I can't sleep, so I guess I'll wade in these waters...]

There are a number of things that separate the work of the working pros from the rest. Here are my $.02, with the most important things on top:

Purpose
Practice
Post Processing
Gear
Of all the things on this list, gear is the least important. It's not unimportant, particularly in situations with challenging light. But we've got to admit that we're in a golden age when you can buy a 24Mp camera that shoots a nice ISO3200 with very good exposure range along with a kit lens and a 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 and still be under $1000. All this fussing about an extra stop of ISO or thinner DOF of larger sensors is way way way less important that the stuff above.

Lot's of sound advice, gear is a distracting thing, but I'm unfortunately passionate about it, fortunately it doesn't distract me "too much" although the time would be better spent refining vision, shooting and PP skills!
 
Lot's of sound advice, gear is a distracting thing, but I'm unfortunately passionate about it, fortunately it doesn't distract me "too much" although the time would be better spent refining vision, shooting and PP skills!

There´s an obvious difference between what helps most to improve and what is most fun. For us hobbyists there is nothing wrong to buy new gear just for the fun of it. I should have added this to my list of differences between a pro and an amateur. A pro has to be profitable otherwise he will go out of business. An amateur has a different source of income and therefore can afford to just play around with gear he doesn´t really need. There are a lot of different ways to enjoy photography, collecting gear is one of them.

Wolfgang
 
Back
Top