- This topic is empty.
Processing Snobbery
-
I seem to be coming across more instances of processing snobbery, if that is the wright way of describing it,
purity might be another way. Maybe…In the beginning I noticed it more with film and people who scan negatives, posted with descriptions of, (this is not an exact description, more of a generalisation) ‘neg scan, no additional processing’
I find it a bit strange to be honest, a bit snobbish even, mostly silly I think.Maybe I notice it more on Flickr, but, it’s far from exclusive to there, it happens other places too.
And the same for digital, there seems to be a processing snobbery there too, lots of people like to print (or post to the web) ‘straight out of the camera’. Fair enough, I suppose.
But, what irks me a bit about the digital snobbery, is frequently people will say something along the lines of, yes, ok, nice, but they used a LightRoom preset.
What’s wrong with that?
Anyway, it all seems a bit snobbish to me. Am I over reacting? Does anyone one else have any thoughts on the matter?
Note: This is not a discussion about Film v Digital
Sinead
Surely anything that goes through an electronic or mechanical device has been processed?
Straight out of the camera means a jpeg that has been processed based on the settings established in teh camera and the algorithms that those settings utilise – is this going to generate a new form of purism?
The temperature, length of time even the brand of chemicals used in producing a negative/slide determines something about the outcome – a traditional form of purism/snobbery?
Perhaps the “no further processing” eqwuates to nothing done in lightroom, etc. – but so what …
Lightroom presets are just the same as in-camera presets – that could even be exyended to include which metering technique applied. If we use a macro (preset) instead of 25 steps, is that not the same as going through each of teh 25 steps? Most of us prefer less time at teh PC and more time out with the camera.
I once saw comments along the lines of
“There was no Photoshop used in these photographs” Proud as you like…
Unfortunately it was followed by
“I only used Lightroom when processing these”
No matter what side of the argument you fall on, you can’t help but see the irony in that. The person was genuinely proud that Photoshop hadn’t been used to doctor the shorts…. that he had “only” used Lightroom… obviously a much purer application
I’ve a couple of images out of the 17,000 on file that look good enough for me to leave alone and not post process. But it is good to see that it can happen and as Brian says we like to spend more time in front of the camera (EDIT – behind the camera too!). I wouldn’t call it snobbery to declare it, more bemusement that an accident happened!
We do get images that with a keen eye it’s obvious that some manipulation took place but processing happens as soon as you press the shutter…or remove the lens cap, or remove the opening of the pin-hole. Paper used, ink used, developing process…so I wouldn’t call it snobbery, just innocent declaration…or naivety.
Alan
You do see this a lot on Flickr, especially in film groups like the LOMO group.
I don’t edit. Its film, doesn’t quite seem right.
In replies there I have called these people “Nouveau Analogue Purists” and then went on to call them “naive and misguided”. I suspect many of these people have never been in a darkroom so don’t realize that without processing it’s very difficult to get a photograph.
And just because they are not doing it, it’s very likely their scanner (or the lab’s scanner ) is doing the processing.
I was writing the same thing so often I ended up saving my answer on my blog http://blurdotblog.com/?p=105 so I could just copy and paste the response. I end my post with
Now, it is everybody’s prerogative to post what they like. But the negative contains a lot of information. It is shame to see so many flat and dull photographs on the Internet that could have easily been made into something decent if only those nouveau analogue purists knew a little more about the process of making a photograph.
Shyte… I just posted me first few film scans on Flickr today and didn’t process any of them as I thought I might be slapped around for creating a digital/film mutation/abomination. Well… that’s a bit of an exaggeration, truth be told I just wasn’t arsed… instead I retired to the bed and watched a movie.
Ah… Curves, Levels, Masks, Unsharp Mask here I come.
BTW: We must have a Digital v. Film debate someday… maybe tomorrow… seeing as everyone seems so scared to have one no better man that nfl to get one going. Now I’ve done both I can tell the world what I love about one and what gives me a pain in the cave about the other :)
Edit: 5000 posts… I want a 6th Pie.
We must have a Digital v. Film debate someday… maybe tomorrow
Make it early…I’m on a half day. :D
As a former Photoshop Challenge winner I’d just like to say…
Obi Wan
“Get it right in the camera nfl”Morpheus
“Don’t shift the pixels, shift your mind”Miyagi San
“No need shift pixel nfl san, prove nothing”Adrian
“Win Rocky, win”This is a great post… it has me thinking about how I’m going to post my next image for critique… how I’m going to process it… the commentary I’m going to supply with it… this could be the spark I’ve been looking for.
Your scanner should give you a lot of control over the digital capture of the film original.
If somebody else is making the scan, then you have no control,
and post processing is the only way to match the image to your vision.So it’s no big deal, although I’d prefer to make my adjustments in the pre scan,
with the exception of sharpening, which is more to do with the resolution of the print,
and dust busting, which I prefer to do in photoshop.There is a benefit to getting it right in the scanner,
particularly if you’re working with unfeasably large files-
You really don’t want to be doing much post processing with those-
unless you’re using a large and fast machine, small edits can take ages to apply,
and heavy editing can be destructive anyway.So it’s kinda in your interest to be happy with your scan-
Lightroom? I don’t use it, so I’m not sure I know what you mean-
do you mean adding that text layer to one of your recent pictures?
that sort of thing?Well I have posted a few images from film captures and have stated
“no PS” or “No post process”TBH I find it a bit of a contradiction to tane a picture on a holga,
scan it to digital and blow the arse off it in PS or lightroom.I want to present the image as close as possible to what the camera
produced than something made up.If you are going to the trouble of processing a film based image
would it not be easier to forget about film shoot digital and make that file
look like a film capture. I have a preset somewhere for a Holga Effect !Why am I bothering going to the trouble of shooting film, carrying it to the lab
coming back the next day and scanning it into the computer to add this and
add that to get it somewhere close to what I could have done with the digital cameraPersonal preferences . . . I wonder if I didnt state whether it was processed or not
would people ask ?Wow did that really come from a holga?
yea, but i used 5 lightroom presets on it!
great isnt it?
aoluain wrote:
I want to present the image as close as possible to what the camera
produced than something made up.Depending on the film type, the camera will produce negatives. (slide film won’t of course)
But there needs to be some processing to get a photograph.
That’s either done in the dark room using chemicals or in the scanner or PS, Lightroom, etc if you use a digital darkroom. And unless you turn everything off, don’t forget the scanner will be doing a whole lot of post processing on your behalf.
I don’t think I usually post processing information unless someone asks. Other people include the info with the photo.
Some people don’t like a photo with too much post processing, some people don’t really care as long as they like the finished product.
Some people enjoy post processing and would have no problem spending 3 hours working on the image, others will get p*ssed off after 5-10 minutes.
Some people love a good raw steak, some like it well done, others refuse to eat meat.
Some people drink Pepsi, personally I prefer Coke.
Some people think Rap is Crap, but for me it just depends on the song as to whether I like it or not.
It’s all just human behaviour… different tastes, different opinions…. we’re all different… if someone thinks that it’s great that a photo has no post-processing then good for them… if someone thinks that 3 hours of HDR and a stack of layers in Photoshop is required then it’s their time, their photo, their choice.
Some girls will, some girls won’t
Some girls need a lot of lovin’ and some girls don’t
Well, I know I’ve got the fever but I don’t know why
Some say they will and some girls lieSineads original part post was . . .
“In the beginning I noticed it more with film and people who scan negatives, posted with descriptions of, (this is not an exact description, more of a generalisation) ‘neg scan, no additional processing’ “
as JB7 says it is beneficial to get it right in the scanner, and that is fine [imo] for saturation, contrast, sharpness and noise reduction but applying all sorts of masks and plugins and pressets in lightroom and PS is what I was commenting on.
Just to re-iterate I have a Holga plugin for PS why dont I sell or bin my film gear and just
PRETEND an image came from a holga?Just press a button here and there and violla . . . holga image . . . and mark it Holga Digital file.
or not
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
