Is post production more important than Gear?

[Luckypenguin]

But are you saying that any image that is processed later on a computer isn't thought about carefully from the very beginning? Attempting to somehow salvage a technically AND compositionally poor image in post-processing is just more work than it's worth. Delete.

 

[Briar]

I'm just trying to catch up on this thread on the rickety bus back home. I'm doing all I can to not fall off my seat, so I'm looking forward to reading this when I get home.

I'm curious if the conversation is helpful to the OP? I may lose my grip on my seat if I try to go looking to see who it was. I don't like leather seats on buses!

 

[Briar]

Sorry WT21. Just read your first post. Someone kindly sat beside me so I'm now sitting wedged up against the window.

Is there a particular style of processing that you are trying to do? It would be helpful to see what you are wanting to achieve.

I think the right gear is the one you are most comfortable shooting with regardless of how good a score it gets on DP Review. Don (Streetshooter) is forever saying that the best camera is basically the one that doesn't get in the way of his view. You need to know it well so you don't have to think about the camera when you see the image developing before your eyes. Any distraction due to fiddling with camera and you lose that moment. That's the first thing you need to get right. I've lost a lot of good shots because I don't always know my camera (i have a few cameras thanks to the GAS infection I caught here).

Having an eye for a good picture. Well some have natural talent, some learn it and some get a lucky one every now and then. But really, a good picture is purely subjective. As long as you like what you frame then you are there for that step. Hmmm maybe my order is mixed up but I'm still happy with my points.

Post processing ... I just like to play. You can take good shots that look great straight out of the camera but look crap as soon as you start to post process. The ones that excite me most are the ones that have potential. Did I say I like to play? I guess that's why most of my flickr pictures are post processed. There's maybe more of me in them in that final image than my good out of the camera shots.

 

[pdh]

But are you saying that any image that is processed later on a computer isn't thought about carefully from the very beginning? Attempting to somehow salvage a technically AND compositionally poor image in post-processing is just more work than it's worth. Delete.

oh heavens no, not at all ... Clearly it's not "either/or", and attempts to argue that that's how things are tends to betray reactionary and undisciplined thinking.

I only have to look at my own photographs to know that some images are "found" in PP in an unexpected way ... ... some images you find, some you plan. As I get more deeply into image-making it's become more of the latter than the former.

I'm certainly not an advocate of "if it ain;t right in the camera it ain;t right at all" ... on the other hand, I do think that taking photographs without having an idea of why one is doing so or how you want the end result to look is ... well, I think it's bizarre ... and on the other hand (that's a third hand, which is also bizarre) perhaps no-one does that, perhaps it's straw-man argument on my part ...

 

[Isoterica]

I am weighing in way after this discussion began and am a bit lazy on reading all the responses though I did skim. My 2 cents is that there is no straight out of camera, the camera us using internal software to process. So.. you either let the camera process for you which by the way even though it was there its eye is not nearly as accurate as yours, or.. you post process your own. Sometimes its just adjusting white balance or tweaking contrast. I would not say that post processing is more important than gear but it is a necessary compliment to whatever gear you have.

 

[Boid]

Things that one needs to get right when capturing an image -

1. DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL (this means pixel level detail, regardless of whether you're making a print for web or a 24X36 print, pixel clarity matters)
2. Wide dynamic range with no blown highlights
3. The moment (be it expression, foreground/background, etc)
4. DOF
5. Frame (with tolerances for cropping in)
6. Polarized light (sometimes)
7. That's it

Everything else can be fixed/corrected/improved in pp. Stuff like color, WB, sharpness, emphasis, skin tone, graduated filtering, any kind of filtering, etc

Examples of pp and image-making (I love visual clues) of what capturing good detail gets you - Triangle Triangle

Do feel free to correct me if you feel otherwise.

 

[kyteflyer]

Do feel free to correct me if you feel otherwise.

I'm glad someone was able to say what I was thinking but unable to communicate effectively at all.

Thank you, Boid.

 

[KianO]

Things that one needs to get right when capturing an image -

1. DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL (this means pixel level detail, regardless of whether you're making a print for web or a 24X36 print, pixel clarity matters)
2. Wide dynamic range with no blown highlights
3. The moment (be it expression, foreground/background, etc)
4. DOF
5. Frame (with tolerances for cropping in)
6. Polarized light (sometimes)
7. That's it

Everything else can be fixed/corrected/improved in pp. Stuff like color, WB, sharpness, emphasis, skin tone, graduated filtering, any kind of filtering, etc

Examples of pp and image-making (I love visual clues) of what capturing good detail gets you - Triangle Triangle

Do feel free to correct me if you feel otherwise.

I don't feel you need to be corrected, you've said it all IMHO - well ... I'd add: use a tripod for low light, even with a modest iso cam a tripod makes wonders, I'm not experimented with tripods but I do see the difference, well focused subjects contribute to the pixel clarity that will make a difference in print, not experimented in printing neihter but I have many cool shots that look good on web viewing but are a pitty when I print them.

 

[flash]

Things that one needs to get right when capturing an image -

1. DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL (this means pixel level detail, regardless of whether you're making a print for web or a 24X36 print, pixel clarity matters)
2. Wide dynamic range with no blown highlights
3. The moment (be it expression, foreground/background, etc)
4. DOF
5. Frame (with tolerances for cropping in)
6. Polarized light (sometimes)
7. That's it

Everything else can be fixed/corrected/improved in pp. Stuff like color, WB, sharpness, emphasis, skin tone, graduated filtering, any kind of filtering, etc

Examples of pp and image-making (I love visual clues) of what capturing good detail gets you - Triangle Triangle

Do feel free to correct me if you feel otherwise.

I can think of a few.

* Shooting under some types of artificial lighting. Sodium Vapour lampsa re the most common culprit. As they don't use the whole visible spectrum WB a skin tone is literally impossible. You'll need a suplemental light source.
* Some tilt shift effects. Including the Schlemflug principle.
* Perspective via lens choice.
* Mixed foreground/background temperature using gelled flashes.
* Recovering or adding DOF.
* Shadow and highlight placement. (Theoretically possible but so difficult as to be impractical) As well as most artificial lighting techniques.
* Capturing facial expressions.
* reversing slow shutterspeed blur.

I'm sure there are more.

Gordon

 

[Lightmancer]

So.

My belated take on this is as follows:

1. The process of image capture is a chain, and as such is, as usual, no stronger than its weakest link. More often than not that weakest link is the nut that holds the camera There is no such thing as the "perfect" image, but there are many in which all the elements come together to form a harmonious and pleasing end result. Some but not all those elements are under your control, others are not. In street photography, for example. everything is constantly in motion. You are reliant upon your skill to pick out the instant that matters - you are also of course reliant upon that instant being of interest in the first place. A still life on the other hand is far more under your control. Every link in the chain must be optimised.

2. On the subject of more vs less PP, I can see the merits of both camps. 80% of what I shoot receives minimal or no post processing. 20% I work on assiduously to get the result I previsualised. But the point is this - you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. A fuzzy, impressionistic capture will result in a fuzzy, impressionistic end result. If that is what you wanted, fine but it is limiting. A well composed, well exposed, well seen, well timed image will usually beat a "happy accident".

 

[pdh]

"detail" is massively overrated ... massively ... the importance attached to it vastly outweighs the difference it actually makes to the impact of a photograph, and it's only really become prominent in discussions as digital technology has made it more visible.


what is "pixel level detail" anyway ?

 

[Boid]

"detail" is massively overrated ... massively ... the importance attached to it vastly outweighs the difference it actually makes to the impact of a photograph, and it's only really become prominent in discussions as digital technology has made it more visible.


what is "pixel level detail" anyway ?

I'm afraid we might be talking at cross purposes. If I might limit my discussion to one that's been brought up in this thread. The discussion, if I'm not mistaken, is how important is the gear and how important is post production, after the process of capturing an image.

I'm not talking about the "art" of photography, just the digital process of making an image, given current technology and processes. I feel 'detail' (the stuff that shows up on your screen and lets you see the pimple on an ant's ass) is what you finally work with and what shows in the final image you produce. To me, that's important. Daido Moriyama might not find it important, I might not find it important in in certain situations, but that to me is an artistic process and judgement, which is another discussion. I'm most certainly not discussing the "impact" of an image. People make 'impactful' images from a pinhole camera, again not what I'm discussing here.

By "pixel level detail" or clarity (though it certainly is not a technical term, or if it is I have no idea about it) I mean that at 1:1 resolution, stuff that shows up on my screen is what I see as the difference between an image from a D800 vs Foveon Sensor vs a 1/2.3" sensor on a point and shoot.

I hope that clarifies matters.

 

[pdh]

no I'm afraid it's still rather confusing. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.

it does on one interpretation seem that you're saying that only an image captured with a
high level of resolution can be worked with. which is clearly not true.

i think you're trying to separate issues (what Bill (Lightmancer) and I have both called links in a chain) that really can't be separated.

read what Bill (Lightmancer) said, it ties up all up a neat bow and is beautifully eloquent to boot.

 

[Amin]

My understanding of Bill's OP was that he was asking whether - assuming that photographer vision, technical ability at capture, and photo content are accounted for - postprocessing matters more than gear. I don't know if postprocessing is more important, but I'm sure it is important, at least for most types of photography. Good postprocessing adds a lot to the immediate impact of an image. I've also come to realize that much of the visually striking pro work I'm seeing would not be possible without creative use of off camera strobes, something I'm completely ignorant about.

If you're looking for great postprocessing without a ton of effort, I can't recommend enough Alien Skin Exposure, which is all about presets. It's expensive software but no more so than a modest camera or lens and for most people will have a greater impact on the results than an extra bit of gear would. The film simulations in Exposure are really, really good. Another great product is Nik Viveza, which I don't use quite as much because it's easy to go overboard.

 

[Ray Sachs]

I'm not talking about the "art" of photography, just the digital process of making an image, given current technology and processes. I feel 'detail' (the stuff that shows up on your screen and lets you see the pimple on an ant's ass) is what you finally work with and what shows in the final image you produce. To me, that's important

No problem with that, but I don't read the OP to be talking about the same thing at all (Bill, please correct me if I'm wrong). I read him as being fully satisfied with the level of technical proficiency in his shots, but that he's bored with the "shoot it as I see it" approach - ie, the literal view of what's in his photos. And by looking for more "eye-popping results", I read that as how much the image grabs him visually rather than how well he can see the pimple on an ant's ass. Since even the cleanest and purest image of a pimple on an ant's ass isn't gonna be much to look at - I don't THINK, since I've never actually seen one!...

So, based on my interpretation of the original question (which, again, I'm happy to stand corrected on), I'd say that PP is more important than gear. I think he is talking about the visual impact or "artistic" part of a shot - what makes one shot really grab you and another not... And once you get to a level of pretty competent gear, shooting in light conditions it can handle, the level of detail is pretty much gonna be good enough to get very strong shots from. Whether they hold up to wall-mural sized prints is another question and not the one I hear being asked here. And then its down to a combination of the artistic vision in the original framing and composition of the shot and how it can be enhanced through PP to more fully communicate the intended vision. And in some cases that might be a very very clean Ansel Adams type of approach and sometimes it might be a very impressionistic Daido type of approach...

-Ray

 

[wt21]

I'm a little hesitant to reply on what my intentions were in the OP, as the conversation is far more interesting to hear people's thoughts, than to literally bring it back to my question. The conversation has evolved in so many different ways.

But, Ray, Amin and Gary are all correct in some ways (or, the question has grown and changed in my mind, having read their responses). TBH, I am not one for great vision. I know I need to work on that, but I'm not there. I have spent so much time this last year or two chasing gear, but I think I'm beginning to see that almost all the gear I've tried is perfectly capable of rendering anything I need. But what I'm struggling with, is what do I do with them after the snap. One of the questions is -- how does color, contrast, sharpness, etc. really relate to each other. I can manipulate them in isolation, but have trouble understanding how they work together. Second, how do I use them (in isolation or together) to get to a vision, and what is my vision (or maybe i'm thinking more style here than vision)? Is there a particular look, feel, etc that I gravitate towards? If so, can I become more consistent in rendering that through pp? Finally, is Gary's question -- can I see the final image before taking it? I feel so far off the last point that I'm frankly intimidated, so I think I'll work on -- do I have an output style that I prefer, and how can I use the PP tools to develop/enhance/evolve that. I think at this point that gear is not the issue, though it is an easy distraction.

But that's just MY interpretation of the original question. I think the question is communialy owned now.

 

[Ray Sachs]

I think I'm beginning to see that almost all the gear I've tried is perfectly capable of rendering anything I need.

I think I've been of this opinion since I got back into photography in 2010. At least in good light. For low light, I think we're there now, but definitely weren't in 2010, at least in these smaller sensor cameras, including the 12mp m43 sensors. Most of my gear lust in the past couple of years has been about an interface and performance that makes getting the shot easier / possible (also big improvements since 2010). I'm so satisfied with the X-Pro and OMD that I wonder what it might take to re-ignite my gear lust? I don't doubt it could happen, but until this Spring, there were always features or levels of performance that I had on a list but hadn't made it into any of my cameras - now everything on that list exists in at least one of my cameras, so I just honestly don't know what it will take to make me want to upgrade. Even with compacts, the RX100 is so good that I'll eventually update that one on interface/handling grounds, but on IQ, low light, etc, its THERE...

But even with my first setup with an EP2 and Canon S90 two and a half years ago, any shot in decent light that I could actually GET I could pretty much always work with and produce images I was very happy with. So, as far as I've been concerned, the gear has been there for quite a while in terms of making images that work as well as I can make them work. In terms of getting the shot and expanding the conditions in which its possible to get the shot, that's where there have been some really major improvements...

-Ray

 

[Pelao]

I think I've been of this opinion since I got back into photography in 2010. At least in good light. For low light, I think we're there now, but definitely weren't in 2010, at least in these smaller sensor cameras, including the 12mp m43 sensors. Most of my gear lust in the past couple of years has been about an interface and performance that makes getting the shot easier / possible (also big improvements since 2010). I'm so satisfied with the X-Pro and OMD that I wonder what it might take to re-ignite my gear lust? I don't doubt it could happen, but until this Spring, there were always features or levels of performance that I had on a list but hadn't made it into any of my cameras - now everything on that list exists in at least one of my cameras, so I just honestly don't know what it will take to make me want to upgrade. Even with compacts, the RX100 is so good that I'll eventually update that one on interface/handling grounds, but on IQ, low light, etc, its THERE...

But even with my first setup with an EP2 and Canon S90 two and a half years ago, any shot in decent light that I could actually GET I could pretty much always work with and produce images I was very happy with. So, as far as I've been concerned, the gear has been there for quite a while in terms of making images that work as well as I can make them work. In terms of getting the shot and expanding the conditions in which its possible to get the shot, that's where there have been some really major improvements...

-Ray

+1
Saved me a bunch of typing.

 

[Gary]

Things that one needs to get right when capturing an image -

1. DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL (this means pixel level detail, regardless of whether you're making a print for web or a 24X36 print, pixel clarity matters)
2. Wide dynamic range with no blown highlights
3. The moment (be it expression, foreground/background, etc)
4. DOF
5. Frame (with tolerances for cropping in)
6. Polarized light (sometimes)
7. That's it

Everything else can be fixed/corrected/improved in pp. Stuff like color, WB, sharpness, emphasis, skin tone, graduated filtering, any kind of filtering, etc

Examples of pp and image-making (I love visual clues) of what capturing good detail gets you - Triangle Triangle

Do feel free to correct me if you feel otherwise.

Not that you need to be corrected ... but I have a different viewpoint probably because I come from a different background. I have divided my take on viewing/rating/appraising photography into two camps:

A) Image Quality (IQ) - the technical aspects (your #1, #2, #4, #5); and
B) Image Impact (II) - the gripping, emotional, dramatic side of photography (your #3)

Photography is communications, similar to writing. The better one communicates the more successful the photograph. IQ is relative, the lower the IQ the greater the technical aspects of the image distracts from the message. I have found that the greater the image impact, the less 'good" IQ is required for it to be successful. Conversely, the less the image impact, the greater the 'good' IQ is required for it to be successful.

Case in Point:
The image of the Nick Ut's photo of the Vietnamese child running naked down a road screaming, (absolutely horrible IQ, but the image impact is so hauntingly high that I doubt anyone who has viewed that image will ever forget it).

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The bell pepper photos of Ed Weston, the success of the image comes from the high degree of technical expertise (the object itself hasn't any impact)

With landscape/architecture photography typically, one needs your 1-6 for the image to be successful, for other genres that isn't necessarily true.

1)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Not a lot of fine detail here, only well defined stripes.

2)

No dynamic range here.

3)

Nothing but blown highlights

4) meh

5)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

No cropping

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

No cropping

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

No cropping

6)

Unpolarized light

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

 

[Boid]

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 59745

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.