richardlpalmer

I was in the Critique forum and was looking at an image. The first thing I noticed was it was rather flat looking and a bit blury at the top of the subject. Not bad by any means, just some things I noticed.

Eric then did a bit of PP on it and the image really popped, comparitively speaking. I cut my teeth in photography with film. And even after I was introduced to the digital world (used some of the first on the market) I still owned my 35mm and all the associated gear until recently.

This made me wonder about something. In the world of motorcycling having a bigger displacement motorcycle can be considered a "crutch" of sorts. The rider doesn't have to be "good", he can simply twist the throttle to make it go fast. And it also allows a rider to be "lazy" because he can pretty much leave it in any gear and have enough power to get out of any situation on the street.

So by way of comparison, is PP the "crutch" of the digital photographer? Now before you get upset with me I don't mean this derogatorily. My assumption is that it's very similar to the above motorcycle analogy. Where a noob would use it as a crutch, but a more experienced photog would use it in a different manner.

When I was in photography classes we were using film and "PP" was limited to what magic you could accomplish in a dark room (and I'm not talking about Bromoils or anything esoteric like that). Cropping in the field, not in the dark room. Using filters in the field, not in the dark room. Etc. These were the mantras of the day.

What do you think?

jezterr

no, the crutch you're looking for to match the motorcycle analogy is getting a bigger, better camera to compensate for lack of skills.

the proper analogy for post processing would be someone taking their riding a step further and doing a track school.

post processing is a method used for all kinds of reasons, and they did it with film, and way more than you'd like to think. does that make people like ansel adams or steve mccurry any less great photographers?

to me, post processing is no different than adjusting your camera settings to get the picture just right. you just happen to be adjusting after you've taken the picture.

eric

werd to the jezterr. I think it goes back to photography is art not a duplication of reality. Most of the tools in photoshop are based off techniques with film, now it's just quicker and easier.

Bimjo

The post processing "crutch" pre-dates digital. The masters conquered dark room techniques to achieve what they wanted from a print.

Computer post processing is the same thing, it's just easier to accomplish. Therefore it's much more prevalent. The internet obviously plays a role as well, since the sheer number of photos to view is exponentially larger than it was in film days.

richardlpalmer

K

jezterr

"three months later..."

__________________

richardlpalmer

Sorry man, I sometimes don't get back for a while. And your reply was a bit terse so I was afraid to say anything...

jezterr

YOU'RE terse.

__________________