Post-processing (Photography, Video etc)

[Melooon]

Post-Processing

I'm curious about peoples thoughts on post-processing! In todays photography and video production its very common (its even expected) to do some sort of post-processing on media before its considered complete. In fact many professional photographers take their pictures using the RAW format, which is a file format that's intended to be post-processed before its considered usable, and it actually often looks much worse out of the camera because it contains extra information that's meant to be developed on a computer in order to complete the image.

Outside of professional photography, most mobile phones do a HUGE amount of post-processing automatically, they sharpen images, play with colors, smooth faces - on the extreme end, people now remove things from images, like editing out background features or even modifying expressions and opening eyes.

Its worth noting that post-processing is absolutely nothing new, its been a part of photography and film since those formatted were first created; and its been very common since digital photography started. However, over the past 10 years it does seem to have gone from something optional, to something that's both expected and unavoidable; and I think that's an interesting shift to think about.

I also don't think its particularly an indie v professional thing; for example, DeviantArt in the 00s was full of super post-processed photography that went way further than most professional photographers would have done at the time.

Many people in the web revival are familiar with the classic In Defense of the Poor Image article, and it has influenced some projects like PicLog! I also know many people like to take flip-phone images or use DS cameras. I also think its worth bringing up the Dithering thread, since its a very common kind of web-aesthetics post-processing!

I thought it was worth discussing more broadly though how people feel about post-processing. When is it ok, when is it not ok? Are you a professional or hobby photographer? Do you do post-processing? Where do you like to draw the line? Do you see any greater value of truth in a non-processed image, or vice versa? 

[ThunderPerfectWitchcraft]

When is it ok, when is it not ok? Are you a professional or hobby photographer? Do you do post-processing? Where do you like to draw the line? Do you see any greater value of truth in a non-processed image, or vice versa? 

First off, I don't think that it is a morale question - the only situation when post-processing is not okay is when you are pretending that you don't do it (e.g.: Stating that everything is "authentic" and no post-processing involved, or when partaking in a no-post-processing photo competition). Imho, the relevant question is rather: When is post-processing a good idea? And the answer is highly depending on what you want to do - a highly processed, cropped, photograph will have a very different effect when compared with the "raw" photograph, and bear a radically different message. But in any case, we deal with a high-tech medium that is in no case a depiction of a reality, and in both cases, a good part of the message stems from the medium itself - authenticity in photography is an illusion, that can even be increased by well-executed post processing.

Personally, I don't do any post-processing on my photos, but quite a bit on my music when recording acoustic instruments or singing (primarily to work around the limitations caused by my rather simple recording equipment). I'm a full-blood hobbyist in both areas :).

[BlazingCobaltX]

@ThunderPerfectWitchcraft has a good point mentioning audio. Whenever I gear up for an analog recording (either a single voice-over or a whole band), I do the recording with the post-processing actions in mind already. I'm compelled to think that for modern audio production it is pretty much not done to NOT use compression or an equalizer at the very least: Basically any recording sounds better with these tools. But also acknowledge the time where there was no audio post-production, or the tools weren't widely available. But said audio was also played on different (perhaps inferior) devices.

Progress in technology makes it automatically so that we will use all tools available in the arsenal, if anything because the newer tech makes us notice increasingly smaller imperfections. These things up the standard. I think making an informed choice in what and how you will do post-processing always ups the quality of the art, even if the result is perceived as 'imperfect'.

[windit]

Hello! Former professional filmmaker here, who has recently been doing some portrait photography work and thinking about this very topic.

The other week a client asked me to 'fix up the bags under his eyes' and I've never actually done extensive editing like that to change a person's features. Adobe Lightroom does now OF COURSE have built-in AI so I decided to experiment with it and it was HORRIFIC. I masked the area under his eyes and the feature removed his eyes and generated new ones. An image I can't unsee. I just lightened the skin under his eyes a bit and he looked human and fine. 

In my filmic life it's standard to shoot 'raw' image - like Melon described - which requires colour-grading at the end of the process and looks washed out and terrible until that point. Grading is a niche and specific skill to do really well, and for most of my projects I'd bring on someone specifically to do that one job.

BUT this year I am trying to approach film-work with a more ziney, DIY mindset, and simplifying that process is part of that. So I am starting to shoot footage with a burnt-in colour profile. It pretty much always needs some colour correction at the end (just to even out the light between shots etc) but speeds up the process way more and means I can do that work myself.

I mostly take portraits for artists who need an author headshot and don't have much money, so I don't shoot raw - so that the image looks pretty good and usable immediately - and offer to 'touch up' a couple of photos from each shoot for them, which pretty much always means minor re-framing and evening out colour and contrast.

I don't use a smartphone, but it drives me insaaaane how much automatic post-processing they do without informing the user. I used to teach photography and for the sake of accessibility some students would shoot on their phones, but the 'aperture' value is - well - fake. On a phone camera there isn't really an 'eye' that is opening and closing over the lens to let in more or less light (which is what 'aperture' measures), and if there was it would effect focal distance - i.e. how narrow the part of the image that's in focus is, which can give that nice bokeh effect with an out of focus background. Phone cameras are doing this entirely through digital post-processing, and honestly misleading users. Old man shakes fist at cloud.

tldr;

Post-processing is fine and good and helps make your work 'pop' / live up to its potential.
Burning in a colour profile when you don't NEED to shoot RAW simplifies work-flow.
Automatic post-processing by phone is rude and disempowering.

[pepper]

Great replies in this thread already but I wanted to throw out some information on post-processing when it comes to analog/ film photography.

When shooting on film, most pictures you get back from the lab are going to be touched up after a scan and will go through some amount of post-processing. Your negatives will be raw, just the silver halides that got hit by light, but the lab is likely going to scan the negative, then manually touch-up the photo using the scanner software before sending them to you. A good lab will let you give a preference in how this scan is done and will always give you your negatives back!

Now getting even more analog: printing black and white photos in a darkroom on an enlarger will likely also involve some amount of post-processing. When I print one of my negatives, I'll make a test strip at a base contrast grade, and find where the most neutral exposure is for the darks in the shot. Then I may adjust the contrast filters I'm using (physical red-colored transparent sheets) to adjust the highlights relative to the shadows. Then, there may be a section of the photo I want to stand out more, or a section I want to get less exposure. I can "dodge and burn", manually, using my hands or pieces of cardboard and waving them in front of the enlarger's light, to burn in more exposure to certain parts of the image than others. I can also get real fancy and do what's called split-grade contrast filtering, where I use two different contrast grades in two different exposures of the same photo to achieve even more fine control. There is also the choice of chemistry: different developers are going to give you slightly different results.

So, even when doing photography without anything digital ever touching the photo, there will still likely be some amount of post-processing done. Photography is an art, after all, there's plenty of ways to tell the story captured in the image, beyond just releasing the shutter 

[windit]

@pepper That's all super interesting and makes me want to try out developing my own film, which I've never done before! Because I'm a 'camera person' friends keep giving me old film cameras even though I haven't shot much on film at all - maybe this year is the year. I also checked out your website and the photos on there are v cool, v inspiring.

[pepper]

@pepper That's all super interesting and makes me want to try out developing my own film, which I've never done before! Because I'm a 'camera person' friends keep giving me old film cameras even though I haven't shot much on film at all - maybe this year is the year. I also checked out your website and the photos on there are v cool, v inspiring.

hehe ty! I've been meaning to make a thread on this forum for offering to share what I know (not a whole lot but also not nothing) to anyone that wants to learn film photography. It's really not as scary as it sounds, and you absolutely do not need to do what I did and make a darkroom in your house (although it isn't prohibitively difficult). Depending on how rural/city a person is there is likely a darkroom, either community or classroom/ arts center, that they can access. Even if you don't want to do home developing and home printing and just want to shoot film and get it scanned (seems like most film photographers go this route), there are still plenty of options to ask for when getting film done at a local lab in terms of getting specific creative things from film. (I can't believe I didn't even mention pushing/pulling film in my post above  )

And thx I am glad you like my photos! I put a lot of work into them 

Your films are beautiful I really enjoyed your experimental short films, very touching <3

[windit]

hehe ty! I've been meaning to make a thread on this forum for offering to share what I know (not a whole lot but also not nothing) to anyone that wants to learn film photography.

Please do that    I have been sporadically shooting film and taking it to get developed and scanned at a local place for years, but am just moving out to the countryside so it could be a really fun time to try locating or setting up a dark room and doing it myself. If you're willing to break down a guide I would bookmark that bad boi and try it out this year 

[toblerone]

A lot of good stuff has been said in this thread already. For me, it entirely depends on what feel I'm going for, and what I'm shooting with. My visual preferences/camera equipment both lend themselves towards a more crisp, controlled style. I end up post processing basically everything I take, including if I'm shooting with a phone. I always shoot in RAW, and play with it in lightroom later. Most video stuff I've done I also did some color grading on. I enjoy making the media "feel" the way I want it to, and outside of a controlled studio post processing is the only way to get that next level of control.
However, I don't always think it's the thing to do. I've been shooting on a vintage lens recently (no photos up yet, hopefully soon). The photos you get end up a lot more "glowy" and "dreamy". I find this to be a style in its own right, and one that benefits less from post-processing as it loses a bit of authenticity. Overall, I agree with the above that there's absolutely no right or wrong and everybody should create the way that they like. I just love the process!