Each and every aspect of a successful photograph is important – the concept, the subject, the intention, the planning, the lighting, the composition, the final presentation, the list goes on and on….
Despite this, all too often the post-processing stage is neglected. Some photographers even condemn the practice, uttering arguments along the lines of “wishing to capture the scene exactly as is was”, and using this as an excuse for avoiding any post-processing effort. I’d like to have seen them have this discussion with Ansel Adams!
The reality of the situation is that no scene is captured “accurately” by a camera. Converting the 3-dimensional scene to a 2-dimensional photo has a dramatic effect all by itself, and this is further exacerbated by the choice of lens (and thus perspective). Technology’s limits come into play too – both the dynamic range and the colours that can be recorded are determined by either the choice of film or the capacities of the digital camera’s sensors. At this early stage the captured image is already a severely altered version of reality.
Furthermore, digital camera users who resort to JPEG mode have inadvertently decided to let the camera post-process their images for them, in accordance with the preferences of the camera’s manufacturer. The firmware of the camera will apply its own contrast curve, saturation adjustments, noise reduction, sharpening and colour balance to create a rendition of the image that is intended to be “pleasing” to the average user; it’s anything but “accurate”. This is intentional – the results, aesthetically speaking, are more interesting than trying to reproduce the reality as accurate as possible. Thus any personal attempt to capture reality has already failed – the camera’s done its best to create an improved version!
Those who prefer a RAW workflow take control of all of these aspects for themselves. I believe that this is without a doubt the best approach for most serious photographers – I would never dream of letting my camera guess at my intentions when I create an image. Developing a RAW image is the first (and possibly last) step in the post-processing stage. This is the point at which a photographer imposes his or her personal vision on a photo.
How far should one go with the post-processing? Photographers will each have their own objectives; a journalist may indeed strive to create a neutral image that reflects the reality of the scene, whereas a fine-art photographer may change many aspects of the image. The important point is that in all cases the photographer should be making these decisions and understanding his or her actions, rather than believing blindly that setting the camera to JPEG to avoid more work later is the right – or righteous – thing to do1.
Since I’m a commercial photographer the post-processing phase is of utmost importance – it can make or break an image. Advertisers don’t wish to convey reality; they wish to suggest something better – something that provokes an emotional response. In my case the changes are often quite small, but they can make a huge difference to the final result. The example in this post is from a recent shoot; I’m loathe to show my out-of-camera originals – but hey, it’s for the greater cause. I’ve displayed the end result again for easier comparison.
Before
After
I’m embarrassed to show you the “before” version – it’s very rare that my original is quite so far removed from the final result, however as an example that demonstrates the importance that post-processing can have, it’s ideal.
Before the shoot I already had the final shot in my head, so I knew what I was aiming for. This example is particularly appropriate because I couldn’t have captured the image I wanted without post processing. The final image dictated that I use a wide-angle lens, but it would at the very least need cropping, and cropping is one form of post-processing all by itself2.
I asked the model to wear a bright red t-shirt so that it would clash with the surroundings. This would be easier to select in post-processing later, thus allowing me to make adjustments to the colour palette of the final image based on experimentation.
Although the original photo is well exposed, I decided to over-expose the final image to create the “raw” feeling that comes with high contrast. Finally, I’ve warmed up the image by changing the white balance, added a little Lightroom clarity and a slight vignette, and I’m finished.
In the original the foot is blurred and the trainer’s dirty, the model has been decapitated and the colours are uninspiring, I don’t like the model’s overall body position or the composition. Nevertheless I was able to see past all this because I had an intention and because I’m willing and able to post-process my images. The actual post-processing work in this example is quite limited, however the result is dramatically different. It corresponds to both my intention and my personal style. I’m very happy to place the result in my portfolio.
Happened upon this site via a link or two from an enthusiastic Matt Kloskowski of ‘Lightroom Killer Tips’. Glad I came. It’s always fascinating and informative to peak at the creative process behind a finished image so generously accompanied by its original.
That footpath looks inviting – South of France, I guess.
WOW….OK i’m a FAN. You will be hearing from me.
-Rd