Professional Photography without Processing

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Hi

Any pros out there able to upload their images without any form of photoshop/lightroom editing? Perhaps a before/after?

The subject is not important. I am more interested in what level of processing occurs. It seems most photos have something altered on them. Which isn't really what the camera captured.

thanks

[The_Jackal]

Google is your friend
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pro+photoshop+before+after

[Shaoxter]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

It seems most photos have something altered on them. Which isn't really what the camera captured.

Except it is (for RAW files)
Why do you think RAW files look so flat compared to JPEGs? Like it or not, processing is part of photography.

[tog]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

The subject is not important. I am more interested in what level of processing occurs. It seems most photos have something altered on them. Which isn't really what the camera captured.

Two points come to mind with your question. Firstly, the amount of processing varies wildly from subject to subject. Press and newspaper imagery should have nothing changed, apart from crop and brightness, contrast, dodging/burning etc. The guideline is if it's within normal darkroom practice it's usually ok, but don't move any pixels. Most other fields are illustrative and you can do whatever you want really.

The second point relates to what the camera captures. People often harp back to the days of film and how there was none of this computer post production available and what you had was what the camera captured. Digital is exactly the same, the camera records the light intensity and frequency, the photographer takes that data and creates a photograph. The difference is in the variables available during the process. Once, you would choose which film to use to give the look you wanted, from hundreds of options instead of what a handful of sensor manufacturers give us. You could then process that film, and subsequently the print also (for which there were hundreds of papers available), in any way you like, through a variety of processes or chemistries to give a different result. So what the camera captured could appear wildly different depending on the process. Now we just use a computer instead of chemicals

[Lynchie999]

theres a difference between "processing" and "photoshopping" ... 9/10 photoshopping imo is over done.. and is no longer a photo which loos anything like the original scene.. (can of worms)

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Lynchie999 said:

theres a difference between "processing" and "photoshopping" ... 9/10 photoshopping imo is over done.. and is no longer a photo which loos anything like the original scene.. (can of worms)

Too many pedants... I guess I mean photoshopping. Not processing.

I was looking through some "pro car shots" and it seemed that most shots could not have been achieved without additional aids.

I'm wondering if anyone out there can just take a good shot. Without the need for anything else. I kind of figured, if the shot is right in the first place, you don't need to edit... right?

Edited by Jazzy Jefferson on Friday 11th July 14:30

[Nick Grant]

Straight out the camera...

Photoshop-Before by NickGrant.co.uk, on Flickr

Photoshopped....

Photoshop-After by NickGrant.co.uk, on Flickr

Just removed some distractions

Straight out the camera...

IMG_0358og by NickGrant.co.uk, on Flickr

Shopped...

IMG_0358 by NickGrant.co.uk, on Flickr

Asked to rotate for cover...

IMG_0358alt by NickGrant.co.uk, on Flickr

Criminal crop by the art ed...

cc-feb-12-500x500 by NickGrant.co.uk, on Flickr

[trackdemon]

Plenty of not-very-processed shots here:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Nick Grant]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

I kind of figured, if the shot is right in the first place, you don't need to edit... right?

Edited by Jazzy Jefferson on Friday 11th July 14:30

Wrong.

And was always the way, even before photoshop.

Edited by Nick Grant on Friday 11th July 14:39

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Nick Grant said:

Wrong.

Why?
If the shot works, it works. No?

I mean, take your lovely pics... As an example, You edited out the house in the background. Looks much better I agree.

But, what if your location didn't have the house there in the first place? You no longer need to edit it out? I mean.. if you need to remove something, that says to me that the location is wrong.

Is there not a way using the camera and lense to give you that fuller colour, rather than use a program?

Edited by Jazzy Jefferson on Friday 11th July 14:46

Edited by Jazzy Jefferson on Friday 11th July 14:48

[kman]

it really depends on who or what you are shooting for. I shoot 'art' or 'poster' images of cars as thats what I like so often I'm doing a lot in post production.



Also some of my lighting techniques cannot be done in camera (or I don't have enough lighting gear to do it in camera)....



Other images are almost out of camera but with some minor tweaks almost always:

[Rogue86]

It's difficult really; if you're looking at pro stuff, you've got to bear in mind that the end result is for a client and will be shot the way they want it to look. If you're looking at amateur stuff, you've got to bear in mind that they might not have the experience of the pros so might not pay as much lip service to things like composition etc.

It's not a case of 'not being able to take a good photo'. There are always dozens of variables in every image that you don't see. The trend at the moment in the commercial world is heavily edited (particularly as a lot of manufacturers don't release photo sets but renders done in software like showcase...), so those who want to break into the pro automotive world will emulate that style also. There are probably lots of reasons why it's the current trend, not least of which in my mind is that as photography becomes so widespread and with an ever increasing base of people who will work for free, those who make a living from it seek ways of working differently which aren't necessarily accessible to those working for free. You've got to justify why you deserve to be paid and heavy editing is just another string that a somewhat talented amateur might not have. An increasing trend is that a lot of photographers start to pick up video editing instead, anything that will give them a USP.

If I'm honest, the majority of grumbling about photoshop tends to come from the people who can't use it effectively. I come from essentially a press background and now work commercially, so I've gone from years of very limited photoshop to suddenly having to compete with teams of graphic designers with huge budgets. It's not easy but I've got to adapt or else I don't get paid. If someone wants to give me the keys to a Ferrari F40 and an all-expenses paid week to St. Tropez then that's great. Increasingly though, a client will point at a picture a competitor has done and say "I want that but better, here's no budget and you've got a day...also the car has no wheels". If I don't produce the goods, someone else will come along and take the pay-check for me.

[Jazzy Jefferson]

kman said:

it really depends on who or what you are shooting for. I shoot 'art' or 'poster' images of cars as thats what I like so often I'm doing a lot in post production.

Also some of my lighting techniques cannot be done in camera (or I don't have enough lighting gear to do it in camera)....

Fair point.

This is difficult to word without sounding like a dick, so bare with me..

The white R8 image is what lead me to start thinking about this. I reckon most people could get the photo. It's fairly standard in my opinion.

However, to turn it into what you have, takes a massive amount of talent that I think most people will not have. I certainly do not.

Is it then fair to say the "professional" part of taking photos is what you do with them after. Not what you take in the first place? Which is perhaps what others are getting at in this thread?

Or is it, because the hardware is in practical or unavailable? You're more forced into using a computer?

Analogue vs digital argument I guess.

Edited by Jazzy Jefferson on Friday 11th July 15:00

[Nick Grant]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

But, what if your location didn't have the house there in the first place? You no longer need to edit it out? I mean.. if you need to remove something, that says to me that the location is wrong.

LOL If budget and time were not important yes you could create exactly what you want in camera with lighting and set design BUT it would still get processed for sharpness and colour balance. Check out Gregory Crewdson for example. He spends a movie budget on stills, they still go through photoshop afterwards. Before computers dark room techniques were used to do the same thing. Why would you not use all the tools available to give you the best result for your time and money?

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Rogue86 said:

If I'm honest, the majority of grumbling about photoshop tends to come from the people who can't use it effectively. I come from essentially a press background and now work commercially, so I've gone from years of very limited photoshop to suddenly having to compete with teams of graphic designers with huge budgets. It's not easy but I've got to adapt or else I don't get paid. If someone wants to give me the keys to a Ferrari F40 and an all-expenses paid week to St. Tropez then that's great. Increasingly though, a client will point at a picture a competitor has done and say "I want that but better, here's no budget and you've got a day...also the car has no wheels". If I don't produce the goods, someone else will come along and take the pay-check for me.

Yeah I hear you mate. I'm not grumbling about photoshop however. Just trying to see what difference it makes, and to what capacity. You'd be right, most can't use it, myself included

[Shaoxter]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

Lynchie999 said:

theres a difference between "processing" and "photoshopping" ... 9/10 photoshopping imo is over done.. and is no longer a photo which loos anything like the original scene.. (can of worms)

Too many pedants... I guess I mean photoshopping. Not processing.

Erm that's not being pedantic, mahoosive difference there.

[Jazzy Jefferson]

Nick Grant said:

LOL If budget and time were not important yes you could create exactly what you want in camera with lighting and set design BUT it would still get processed for sharpness and colour balance. Check out Gregory Crewdson for example. He spends a movie budget on stills, they still go through photoshop afterwards. Before computers dark room techniques were used to do the same thing. Why would you not use all the tools available to give you the best result for your time and money?

Excellent. That is what I was getting at I think. Great example.
We could create the right photo, but time and money will prevent this.

I do a lot of work in the music industry, and it's the same. You could use instruments and sample them all yourself individually, which would take days. Or use a program that's just as good and quicker.

[Nick Grant]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

Excellent. That is what I was getting at I think. Great example.
We could create the right photo, but time and money will prevent this.

I do a lot of work in the music industry, and it's the same. You could use instruments and sample them all yourself individually, which would take days. Or use a program that's just as good and quicker.

Spot on. But even if you used all instruments, I bet the sound still gets processed in some way to improve it. Same with photos

[Mr Will]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

Is there not a way using the camera and lense to give you that fuller colour, rather than use a program?

If I'm shooting jpeg my camera gives me a choice of neutral, vivid, black and white, etc for the colours. It doesn't take the picture any differently, it just applies a different set of processing to the RAW data inside the camera and then throws the RAW away.

If I shoot RAW then I can choose neutral, vivid, black and white or whatever I want on the computer afterwards. If use the Canon software even the rules applied will be exactly the same.

What difference does it make if it's the processor inside the camera applying the rules rather than the processor in my computer? What about the cameras that allow a variety of instagram-style filters to be applied in camera? Is that somehow more legitimate than doing the same in Lightroom?

[kman]

Jazzy Jefferson said:

Is it then fair to say the "professional" part of taking photos is what you do with them after. Not what you take in the first place? Which is perhaps what others are getting at in this thread

Edited by Jazzy Jefferson on Friday 11th July 15:00

No, there still requires a huge amount of thought and work in the shooting stage, even to get this image - choosing your composition to start with, introducing lighting (I had to light the car with about 15 shots to get the final version). Not to mention you need to have the foresight of what you want your final image to look like even when you cannot see it in the scene in front of you.

Pro's don't use photoshop primarily to fix all their inadvertant mistakes and errors, rather to get round technical or pragmatic constraints and enhance an image to what they envisioned before they even picked up the camera.