In quotes because it's a phrase I think is often misused. It's usually used to refer to shots that can be printed straight (or with minor auto- or bulk-correction) from the camera.

But half of the creation of a digital image is in the post-processing - just like half of the creation of a film image is in the developing and printing. (Let's not forget: Ansel Adams wrote three books - so maybe it's 2/3s.) Post-processing is where you should be making conscious decisions about contrast, tonality, and color.

What I see on a lot of websites are great moments and great compositions - with blown-out highlights, blocked-up shadows, and garish skin tones. High-contrast imagery can be a great artistic technique - but it shouldn't be used as a matter of course just because it lets you skip half of your job. (There was a reason why no one ever shot weddings on transparency film.)

And if you want to know what's going to look dated in 20 years - that's it.

Good post!

But, David Ziser did photograph with slide film for many years, just so he could use a projector (the old carasel one) as part of his sales presentation.

I look at that phrase to be a Great starting point to the post process part. Maybe it should be 'Proper Exposure'?

Granted, post processing is a wonderful tool for a photographer. I think that a lot of use use it as a correction tool rather than an enhancement process.

Get the exposure close....I can correct it Photoshop. Not if you are too far off.
Proper white balance.....I can fix that.
Improperly composed images....you get the point.

"Nailing the exposure" can greatly lessen your workflow woes. Mix that with proper lighting and white balance and you can produce proper predictable results. This is the ideal situation for studio work. Keep most post production as enhancement. With weddings there are a few more variables with lighting.

I knew there was something we could agree on!

Yes. It's like believing that darkroom skills are only needed when you have a poorly exposed negative.

Wow. Invoking the name of Ansel, then saying that you should think about contrast, tonality, and color AFTER releasing the shutter? If you read his book "Examples", you'll see that he decided all of that - down to the choice of developer, developing technique, paper to be used, etc., BEFORE taking the shot.

Sure, you don't have twenty minutes or more to decide all of that when you're shooting a wedding. But you're not allowed to invoke the name of Ansel unless it's in keeping with what he actually said and did...

here are a couple more ansel adams' quotes to think about concerning the topic

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit."

My favorite quote from him.

What I feel will look dated (and I am probably just as guilty as the rest) is the OVER PROCESSED look that so many are doing today - along with too many actions.

Again, I am just as guilty - so no stones please.

I know exactly what he said and did. He visualized the result beforehand - but the whole point is that he realized that what came out of the camera was only the raw material for the final image - not the final image. And he had much less freedom than we do. He had to choose many of the parts of the final process at the time of exposure because of the limitations of working with film (film choice affects developer choice which affects the negative contrast and density which affects how you can print it). In some ways, we have a lot more leeway - in some ways less (exposure latitude) - but you still have to know ahead of time what the primary effect is that you are trying to realize in post-production (which is why I said it's half of the creation - not the entire creation - the point is that it takes two halves to make a whole).

What we have in the Wedding photography industry are people who think their job ends (so their free time can begin) when they download the image and slap a couple of actions onto it (often to "fix it" like Tracy says), instead of seeing postprocessing as half of the creation of the final image.

Just a question:

Do you think that former (and current) film shooters have a distinct skill advantage in that they had to pay for their mistakes as opposed to the photographers who started digital and rely on Photoshop to consistently correct?

I would think that kind of negative reinforcement would have to make a photographer more cognizant of how she/he is shooting.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking to my wife about last night! Weird.

I was going on and on about how I want to grow to the 'next' level - and for me that means going the fine art route in my photography. I told her that I regret never paying more attention in my art classes and that I want to study the masters of ALL art mediums, not just photography.

I really like this post John.

Man John this is 2 times this week I am going to have to agree with you darn… I think I am starting to like you even .. You are starting to sound like my old boss who shot film and was one of the best guys I have ever worked with as far as lighting goes.

+1 to John.


Simply put; yes.
But to be more accurate, it isn't because we had to pay so much as it was because we couldn't easily fix what wasn't shot correctly. If you didn't have the skills to do it right in camera you would have a hard time making a living.
For example, if my clients wanted a white background and I underexposed a corner a little it was a major production to fix it so I made sure that didn't happen. It was very important to get things right in the camera as it was time consuming and expensive (scan, edit, output to slide film) to fix a problem like that.
Before PS it was even worse to screw something like that up...ever try painting in a white background directly on a neg?

Good stuff to think about, although, spending too much time in post means we're not out chasing that shot of a lifetime.

I think "chasing" is the operative word. I do mostly pj work and I've found that chasing the shot or the action never works. You have anticipate it and be patient enough to wait for it.

The problem with good pj images, of course, is that they should look like you haven't done any post-production to them at all - and that means that clients don't really understand how much time and effort went into them. (They already don't realize how much skill it takes to consistently capture good pj images in the first place.) It's easier to charge a lot for a poorly yet obviously manipulated image than a skillfully manipulated pj one.

...because "you just snapped the picture"

Right?

Yep.

Everyone who attends a wedding with a point-and-shoot gets at least one good shot (and deletes all the rest) - so they figure that candid photography is easy. All the pro is being paid for is his time to be the dedicated "picture taker." (The first person who ever approached me about a wedding wanted to buy the film and pay me $20 an hour.)

Ansel jumped out of his truck, threw up his view camera and shot off some sheet holders without a single thought as to exposure when he spotted 'Moonrise over Hernandez, New Mexico,' The sunset and the scene was gone before he could get an exposure reading. In 1984 a print sold for $71,000 which at the time was the most ever. No one can reproduce the image, because the negative is horribly under exposed. He spent his life traveling and seeking the perfect image. He is known for his darkroom genius as well as his compositions. Sometimes he just came upon something beautiful or camped in Yosemite for weeks waiting for the perfect light. He didn't plan everything.

Great post John and great replies everyone.

98% of the time my exposures are dead on because I had to shoot slide film for ten years when I was at Cornell. Labs used to love to print my wedding negs because they were all the same (something I always took for granted and thought all pros did). I don't really think about it a lot though because it is almost second nature.

There is a big difference between shooting with a view camera (under the cloth) like Ansel did and shooting 35mm though. To me view camera stuff is much more relaxed, thought out, planned imagery. Ansel also measured the shadows and highlights, exposing for the shadows, and processing for the highlights, or vice versa, a la the "zone system". Exposure and processing go hand and hand, working together to get the best dynamic range, control, and tones where you want them.

We paid a lot of money to use polaroids for instant feedback, and a lot more for each roll of film, so we made sure it was right. Understanding the zone system makes everyone a better shooter because you visualize beforehand what something will come out like.

Shooters that only have digital experience lack most of this knowledge and it hurts them in a lot of situations.

Education (self taught and formal) plays a huge part too because the study of Art history, history of photography, philosophy, sociology, psychology, and current images being created is essential to a photographer. We are documenting life and thus need to learn as much about it as we can. Sometimes the old timer has the edge here because they have lived more life and can incorpoeate it into their images. Composition and lighting become more natural because you have studied it and learned all about it.

At R.I.T. they taught us tons and tons of stuff about everything you could imagine. The most important lesson though (and not everyone gets it) was forgetting what you learned and just doing what you love, trusting what you learned to influence what you love.

35mm shooting, weddings, and events are diferent though. All of the above applies and make you a better shooter, but the important thing is the shot.

It is usually more important to shoot first and think second!
If you can think beforehand, then great, but NEVER miss pulling the trigger because you had to think about something.

This makes your argument more clear and I have to agree. In fact I have been that person before and learn more and more every day how important both parts of creating an image are.




All solid points
I am so glad that I started out with B&W film and learned to develop my own images in the darkroom. gives you a better respect for learning your craft, and justifies our careers.

good thread

I am so glad that I started out with B&W film and learned to develop my own images in the darkroom. gives you a better respect for learning your craft, and justifies our careers.
[/quote]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is B&W film? Does that go over my lens? Also, when you are in the darkroom, doesn't the light from your computer monitor kinda ruin the dark part?

I did just enough darkroom work to realize it's not what I wanted to do. I didn't start professional photography until it was possible to scan your negatives and do all your post-processing on the computer. But I already understood the purpose of post-processing and I spent a lot of time with Photoshop learning how to duplicate the look of darkroom work.

I think this one cut both ways. I wonder how many shots I passed up and how much it slowed down learning when I had to buy film. I quit shooting for a while because I got sick of getting film developed. I still have rolls that are years old! My skills now are head and shoulders above what I did with film.

I did some of my own B&W developing back then also which gave me an understanding of darkroom work. I think that helps me look at a picture and know what I need to do to it.

But honestly, I don't think there was any advantage to actually shooting film for me besides making me "play it safe". YMMV

John can you explain this?

Well if you hand someone a shot that's had soft-focus, glow, vignette, and super-saturation or cross-process actions applied, it's obvious that something has been done to it (even though it might just have consisted of clicking the mouse four times).

But if you hand someone an image that looks great - but completely normal - they won't know that it might have taken a lot more work to get it to look that way. You might have had to go in and correct for mixed lighting, do dodging and burning, and even a add bit of background or motion blur to delineate the subject and emphasize the action, but the final result looks completely "natural" - like it came out of the camera that way.

That's why you see the few pj photographers that are actually left doing extreme wide-angle shots all the time - it's the only way to get something that looks out of the ordinary. (The problem with that is that you have to be right in your subject's face half the time - and a lot of people want a pj photographer precisely because they don't want the photography - and photographer - interfering with their day.)