data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/59b1e/59b1e8dfab6023c2628da9cb9607717b4f411fb7" alt=""
Working backwards today, just for the hell of it.
Photography is a funny art form. Inherently, it lends itself to arguments about purism, since you can just take a picture and print it. Done. Only two steps: push the shutter button, and push the print button.
Some people would say that the two-step photography is the only
real photography. I tend to disagree.
Ever since I started shooting raw images (because, and this is a certainly a post for another day, they capture so much more detail, and they're much more flexible in terms of being able to change them after capture) I
have to process them. They are by their very nature, by their very
definition, unfinished. They
need my post-processing input to be complete.
I would argue that in no other kind of art would people view a piece as 'better' because it only took 1/100 of a second to complete. But in photography,
post processing is often a dirty word.
"That image looks soooooooooo Photoshopped."
You've heard it. We all have. Hell, I've even said it myself. So I'd say there's a boundary, between enough PP and too much. Where is too much? That is so debatable I will not even touch it with a ten foot pole. However, I will point you to
this article, which I feel has summed up a lot of the main points pretty well.
Anyway, the image above has had a significant amount of that devilish post processing applied to it. Do you want to see how I got there?
This is the image out of Lightroom, below. In the (gasp!) Photoshopped image above I added some more sharpening, darkened the background a little, and then added a curves layer to create some more contrast where I felt it was lacking.
In the image below, I took my raw file and decreased the saturation of the colors almost (but not quite) to zero. Then I played around with contrast and making the image a little darker, and darkened the blue of the shirt so it wouldn't pull the viewer's attention away from my beautiful subject's face.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7f0ab/7f0ab2ab22b0399f24f534b991d03c26bb4799d1" alt=""
The image below is what would normally come out of Lightroom. I took my raw file and just made it look a little better. I did no major edits, just adjusted exposure, brought up the color, and did a little sharpening. Nine point eight times out of ten, this is what I use Lightroom for. But today I thought it was a little boring and decided to see what else I could come up with.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46ae8/46ae8e75272b18354f2037b056162e7befe29fa6" alt=""
And finally, this is my raw file, straight out of camera. You can see that it needs some processing to make it look good. Although, it's not bad.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a4c31/a4c31b43941cc9fc6ac7853b1db918ea93f9d3d4" alt=""
So, which version do you like best?
Be brutally honest. Brutal honesty is the best kind.