Sharp enough?

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
voffeveranda.jpg

Can I brag about that this is a superb, tacky sharp photo of my dog?
Taken today, March 1st 2017.
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
AKR_0986feat.jpg

The reason for my asking is this photo (not d750, sorry)
I need to know some things before I walk on my life with d750. The confusment is great now :)


Most of friends, if not all, have TWO commandments when it comes to photo;

1: Ye shall not touch the photo when coming out of camera
2; Ye shall not use post processing

SInce I converted from film to digital back in 2002, I have never complied to that, I have found my photos were unsharp and dull,
giving them a light touch up in Photoshop

Today, on of my friends an 80 year old very respected Nature Photographer and me had a bad discussion about this,
and he again repeated them two commandments.

What is going on ? Am I all wrong? Why are all my friends saying this do not touch them "negatives" ???
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
The reason for my asking is this photo (not d750, sorry)
I need to know some things before I walk on my life with d750. The confusment is great now :)


Most of friends, if not all, have TWO commandments when it comes to photo;

1: Ye shall not touch the photo when coming out of camera
2; Ye shall not use post processing

SInce I converted from film to digital back in 2002, I have never complied to that, I have found my photos were unsharp and dull,
giving them a light touch up in Photoshop

Today, on of my friends an 80 year old very respected Nature Photographer and me had a bad discussion about this,
and he again repeated them two commandments.

What is going on ? Am I all wrong? Why are all my friends saying this do not touch them "negatives" ???
I am not going to pretend to know what is going on, or why your friends are telling you what they are telling you, but what I will tell you is this: That is unquestionably some of the stupidest "advice" I've ever heard. Full stop. All of that is illogical, and simply *wrong* on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin refuting it.

This is your photography and your artistic path we are discussing so of course you're free to do as you choose; but since you asked that is my opinion on the matter.
.....
 
Last edited:

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
OK, so we agree!
And I will continue my postprocessing

I am deeply into fashion, women haut couture!
Today, I found a fashion blog I havent read before . She uses a Canon 5 d mk II -- might be comparable to d610/ d 750 -- what?

She states on her blog -- NO postprocessing at all No Photoshop at all!

So I asked her why not? She gave a kind of defensive wollen answer, concluding in saying "when I say no photoshop, no postprocessing my readers will know this IS me and nothing is added or subtracted"
And finally she said;
"Even brands and magazines are under the same scrutiny; Modcloth signed a no-Photoshop Pledge"

This worries me a lot. IS there a consensus in the fashion blog arena NOT to fix any photos, being afraid readers will suspect this making them "being prettier" than they are in real world??

So I know that. And I know for sure my photos of Norwegian Nature WILL be postprocessed. As you see in that dog and snow photo. This one too;

_DSC2096.jpg

My problem is I never went to any school learning how to do this, but I end up like this afte cropping, doing some shadow/highlights adj, adding yellow boost and finally smart sharpen (0.4 px, 93% NR:6%) ;
voffedurter.jpg

 
Last edited:

Danno

Senior Member
I agree with HF. Our eyes see things with more depth and clarity than a camera lens. Post Processing allows me to bring out what I actually saw.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
OK, so we agree! And I will continue my postprocessing

I am deeply into fashion, women haut couture! Today, I found a fashion blog I havent read before . She uses a Canon 5 d mk II -- might be comparable to d610/ d 750 -- what?
I would say a D600, roughly speaking. It's not easy to match Canon bodies to Nikon bodies perfectly...

She states on her blog -- NO postprocessing at all. No Photoshop at all!

So I asked her why not? She gave a kind of defensive wollen answer, concluding in saying "when I say no photoshop, no postprocessing my readers will know this IS me and nothing is added or subtracted". And finally she said;

"Even brands and magazines are under the same scrutiny; Modcloth signed a no-Photoshop Pledge"

This worries me a lot. IS there a consensus in the fashion blog arena NOT to fix any photos, being afraid readers will suspect this making them "being prettier" than they are in real world??

So I know that. And I know for sure my photos of Norwegian Nature WILL be postprocessed. As you see in that dog and snow photo. This one too;

My problem is I never went to any school learning how to do this, but I end up like this after cropping, doing some shadow/highlights adj, adding yellow boost and finally smart sharpen (0.4 px, 93% NR:6%)
In short, I'd like to see the blog this woman posts. Her "No Photoshop" policy is based on the premise the camera gets an awful lot right without any help from post processing; things like exposure, white balance and color. And the simple fact of the matter is, the camera doesn't do that. It's a machine that captures light and that's a whole lot different than "seeing". A lot of people think if you use Photoshop you're doing it to deceive, or manipulate the photo in some way so as to fool the viewer when in fact what we're doing is correcting problems in order to make the final image appear more lifelike.

What I hear, when I hear people say they don't believe in post-processing is, "I'm afraid of technology so instead of learning this important aspect of my art/craft, I'm going to take this false, moral highground and decry it instead of taking the time and putting forth the energy required to instead embrace it, learn it and grow as a photographer." I admit there are exceptions to what I admit now is a generalization and I'll afford those pardons as they present themselves.

Once again, just my opinion.
 

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
I have yet to take a photo that couldn't benefit from post processing. I agree with what's been said about those who won't use it. It's like those who say they only use natural light. Usually because they don't know how to use a flash.
 

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
I really, really shouldnt do this, but here she is, her camera on a tripod, she is whirling in front of it;

hennesmak.jpg


I have just done a very subtle refresh in the photoshop, dont know if that was "perfect", but I tried to get the best out of the sweater which was the main topic (Kitten knits), then the lady and her makeup/ red nails. I also cropped the photo, I mean she is the motiv, not the castle she is standing infront of. I didnt get the original, so I did a 130% magn in photoshop, the photo might be a tad suffering from that.

A Clothes Horse (A Clothes Horse)
 
Last edited:

robbins.photo

Senior Member
Ok, keep in mind folks that there is no such thing as "no post processing" in the digital age. It just doesn't exist. If she's shooting in RAW format they have to be converted to JPG for upload. That is post processing.

If she's shooting in JPG then guess what, there is a lot of post processing going on - it's just being done by the camera rather than photoshop. The picture is being sharpened, etc - by internal algorithms built into the camera.

The notion that you shouldn't post process pictures is quite frankly ridiculous to my mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting as much right on camera as you can - but when that becomes a driving obsession you really start to lose track of what's ultimately important, that being the end result.

So yes, I post process and will continue to do so - I'll remove noise because I shoot a lot of stuff at high ISO. I don't have the luxury of carrying lighting equipment with me and in a lot of the scenarios I shoot in it would actually do more harm than good.

I agree with the previous poster, anyone who advocates for no post processing frankly is handing out the absolute worst advice imaginable. Ask any pro from back in the days of 35mm shooting, they'll tell you there was plenty of "post processing" and "fixes" being applied even back then, but when dealing with film negatives it was a more laborious process, that's all.
 

Samo

Senior Member
You will find many basic digital photography courses where they do not allow auto and where they propose that post processing is not photography but rather image manipulation. They do this at the entry level to keep students focussed on the exposure triangle in other words the real meat and potatoes of the craft. When the student really grasps the fundamentals it makes the more advanced part of it, photo manipulation, an effective tool as opposed to a means to an end. The means to an end use of post processing is what we often see everywhere we look. This is where the cooked pictures come in. Post is a very valuable part of the process but do not make the mistake of using it as a crutch.

An observation about the image in post 13. Cropped at the knee. Don't know about that. Maybe she was just showing the skirt but it sure does bug me when photographers crop at joints. She does have 900+ pages there so she must have acquired some skill already....but cropping at a joint???
 
Last edited:

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I wouldn't engage in constant debate with your buddies. I would let them know it isn't up for discussion, but you may like the debate. That is up to you if you want to continue to discuss it with them, but it looks like they are affecting your confidence.

Get the best in camera images you can, but if you need to sharpen one up. Do it. You don't need permission. Want another person's opinion, that is ok too.

I don't read blogs as a general rule. There are too many people giving bad advice and perpetuating myths with zero accountability. Not all bloggers are like that, but there are too many people who just start posting their opinions as facts or just lie. When I do read one, anything posted there gets questioned and researched for validity. In fact, anything I read gets that treatment. Good for you for questioning her philosophy and making her back-up her opinions.

Post-processing isn't bad, but poor post-processing is terrible. That is my opinion. Want me to back that opinion up? Let me pull out some of my early attempts.:distracted:
 
Last edited:

Dawg Pics

Senior Member
I said it in PM and I'll say it again now...

If you're being told all the photos on that website were posted SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera), with absolutely ZERO post-processing, I do NOT believe it. Period.

....

I went back and read her FAQ page. She just started using Lightroom for photo editing, and she doesn't use "Photoshop" ( using the term as a verb) to edit her body or face. She is a fashion blogger who states she isn't a photography expert. I don't see a problem here as far as what she is representing photography-wise.

Many people use the term "Photoshop" incorrectly. Clarification is needed anytime the word isn't used as a proper noun.
[MENTION=41839]Borga Voffe[/MENTION]
True to my philosophy of researching what I read, I found this.
https://blog.modcloth.com/behind-the-scenes/contests/photo-editing-process/

They edit the photos, but what they don't do is completely change the body type and manipulate the clothing. In other words, a large model with some bulges, keeps them in the image. The clothes blogger was using "Photoshop" to mean no body/face correction to make her look thinner or more voluptuous or whatever.

I just think there was a vocabulary/language barrier at work here.

"No digital plastic surgery".
 
Last edited:

Borga Voffe

Senior Member
This is where it all started;

Moselyng.jpg

I had just sold my Nikon F4 with the fifteen year almost worn out Nikkor 55 micro, and I had just trashed some forty rolls of fresh Kodachrome 64. Sigh!

Bought an Canon G3 was very happy with it. This photo, I dont remember how much this was postprocessed. I could have reprocessed it, but for this purpose, I just
wanted you to see how I did it back in 2003, a full 14 years ago ......

I learnt a lot in this thread THANK YOU for all your valuable input!
Of course as a Norwegian, I dont understand all that english words - so I do know I dont understand every nuance.

I was 45 when I ditched the worlds best photo gear. Bad advice? Dont know, we were so eager to hop on that digital tranda thatdays....

I am getting more and more concerned about that I havent learnt anything important in the retouching arena in these 14 years. All that has happened is that I am back to a full format Nikon and I have now bought all them lenses I used back then.

So, my style of photgraphy remains the same, maybe just the old dull ways of taking landscapes :)

What I think I have changed is a bit more experience in post processing. But as my friends dont do that, I have no one to teach me that, In fact I have now been the master -- thats a weird thought ;-)

This photo, this is me as of 2016. With my new d750. And a oooold Nikkor 24/2.8 D. I am happy with it. This covers my own personal experience of what that cold, moist day in November in 2016 was like. A day I remember sharp as tac when seeing this picture ;

LOMtjDSC1489.jpg
 
Last edited:

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I went back and read her FAQ page. She just started using Lightroom for photo editing, and she doesn't use "Photoshop" (using the term as a verb) to edit her body or face. She is a fashion blogger who states she isn't a photography expert. I don't see a problem here as far as what she is representing photography-wise.

Many people use the term "Photoshop" incorrectly. Clarification is needed anytime the word isn't used as a proper noun.
[MENTION=41839]Borga Voffe[/MENTION]
True to my philosophy of researching what I read, I found this.
https://blog.modcloth.com/behind-the-scenes/contests/photo-editing-process/

They edit the photos, but what they don't do is completely change the body type and manipulate the clothing. In other words, a large model with some bulges, keeps them in the image. The clothes blogger was using "Photoshop" to mean no body/face correction to make her look thinner or more voluptuous or whatever.

I just think there was a vocabulary/language barrier at work here.

"No digital plastic surgery".
Maybe I'm getting confused because I was looking at this link provided by the OP:
Those shots are, in my opinion, clearly post-processed.

....
What further confuses me is this, taken from Post 9 of this thread (emphasis mine)...
"when I say no photoshop, no postprocessing my readers will know this IS me and nothing is added or subtracted" ... And finally she said; "Even brands and magazines are under the same scrutiny; Modcloth signed a no-Photoshop Pledge"
Which seems very much at odds with what their FAQ states.

I do have to say I very much appreciate the degree of transparency they exhibit regarding what they find to be an acceptable degree of post-processing. I like the fact very much they stay away from digital "plastic surgery" to borrow your phrase, I think that's admirable. My confusion stems from the photographer being quite clear in her assertion there is no post-processing being done when clearly there is. I suppose we could chalk it all up to using "Photoshop" as noun vs verb, or some other ambiguity of language or usage but frankly, I'm just not buying it.

Now, all that being said, I don't wish to sound argumentative and I hope I'm not coming across that way. I don't have a dog in this race and really don't give two hoots how much, or if, someone post-processes their photography. My only concern was, and still is, that the OP appeared to being misled; whether intentionally or unintentionally. He posted a link to site that I still contend contains professional photos that are undeniably post-processed which may be contributing to my confusion of the matter. If I've misconstrued something in all of this it wouldn't be the first time.

Cheers! :)
.....
 
Top