Views on pre & post processing and 'realism' of pics

[anupmathur]

Extraordinarily well written travelogue!

...but let me be the Simon here: One look at the skies in the various pics and you can see how too much post processing has detracted from realism!
Spectacular pics, yes! But real? No!

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Extraordinarily well written travelogue!

...but let me be the Simon here: One look at the skies in the various pics and you can see how too much post processing has detracted from realism!
Spectacular pics, yes! But real? No!

Post processing?? Anup ji very few pics are post processed.
Infact my post processing regimen is this
1. Slight sharpening - Same as any P&S does
2. Slight contranst enhancement via level - Same as any P&S does.



As for the deep blue skies, even P&S travelogues at this altitude show deep blue. Some of my pics have deeper blue due to polarizer. So I am just showing a polarized sky, the same you would see through high end spectacles. Polarizing will also cut the haze, hence clarity.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

As for the deep blue skies, even P&S travelogues at this altitude show deep blue. Some of my pics have deeper blue due to polarizer. So I am just showing a polarized sky, the same you would see through high end spectacles. Polarizing will also cut the haze, hence clarity.

LOL, the simple reality I live with is that I have no 'high-end' shades, if any at all!
Hence the confusion, perhaps?!

BTW, I have yet to find a shutterbug that agrees on anything at all about post processing! Pardon me.

[tsk1979]

I agree with you about post processing. Therefore I do not do it. What you see is polarizer effect. infact the deep blue skies of polarizers cannot be recreated in post processing.
Even the lake pic if you see the reflection on water are minimal and you can see the bottom very clearly. Its all due to polarizer.
ITs one amazing filter, and world over its the most common filter in landscape photography.

The only difference between these and unedited photographs is the sharpness which is slightly more, colors and contrast is mostly same.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

The only difference between these and unedited photographs is the sharpness which is slightly more, colors and contrast is mostly same.

I could not disagree more!
The colours are completely un-natural!!

[kdacharya]

Tanveer and Anupji,

My two cents, if you do not mind the observations of a self taught novice:

In such situations, I try to expose for the water or the foreground, this makes the sky much lighter, which can be darkened later.


OR take 2 exposures one for sky and one for water and Photomerge.

OR lastly using a graduated neutral density filter combined with the polarizor (which is very cumbersome to use) which are used by most semi serious to serious photographers. I find that I do not have the patience for that.

Anupji,
In the real world the pictures that you see in all the photo magazines, such as Outdoor phtographer, National Geographic, Popular Photgraphy, etc, all have have moderate to a lot of post production work on it. In fact in the times of Ansel Adams, who was know not only for his photograhic skills, but as much for his "darkroom skills" (not the other darkroom ) in which he did in those day as much post picture taking editing and correcting, as do all the photographers in the modern days using softwares.


Tanveer, in fact I think I read somewhere that there are softwares that now can polarize without using lenses.

Hence it is very subjective as to what is "normal" editing.

In my humble opinion, if the editing makes the picture look as close to the reality as possible, we the humble shutterbugs have acheived our purpose. As I always maintain, the culmination of the process of photgraphy is the utlimate enjoyment of the pictures by others.

Great captures, Tanveer. what an adventure. Awesome.

Lastly Anupji,
Like an old "saasuji" you are getting more critcal of the bahus (that's us) in your golden years.. just kidding......remember Saas bhi kabhi bahu thi....

(I think I have opened a can of worms here, sorry Tanveer)

Originally Posted by anupmathur

LOL, the simple reality I live with is that I have no 'high-end' shades, if any at all!
Hence the confusion, perhaps?!

BTW, I have yet to find a shutterbug that agrees on anything at all about post processing! Pardon me.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

I agree with you about post processing. Therefore I do not do it. What you see is polarizer effect. infact the deep blue skies of polarizers cannot be recreated in post processing.
Even the lake pic if you see the reflection on water are minimal and you can see the bottom very clearly. Its all due to polarizer.
ITs one amazing filter, and world over its the most common filter in landscape photography.

The only difference between these and unedited photographs is the sharpness which is slightly more, colors and contrast is mostly same.

Originally Posted by anupmathur

I could not disagree more!
The colours are completely un-natural!!

[sourav21]

The pics look cool - giving that "alien world" effect.

On a lighter note - Opinion seems to get polarized better than light.

[pushpinder]

Without getting into too many technicalities, I would like to add that a lady going for a party does a bit of post processing to herself to look nice!

How much? Well, thats a personal choice!!

[anupmathur]

KD, my view here is, of course, only my personal view.
However, amongst my family & friends it is a clear consensus that pics that look like nothing that anyone has seen, or in fact look 'impossible', are not a true portrayal of a place since no viewer of these pics will ever find such a sight to behold, regardless of what time of year and in what weather conditions he visits!

To us, a travelogue is supposed to convey a realistic idea of how the traveller saw things and which would be there for others to see if they visit under similar circumstances. Are we expecting too much?
If I look at just a few of the pics clicked within the short span of under two hours (M-La route) I see colours of the sky that are so radically different that it is clearly not natural or real. I know it is highly subjective, but even then there is only a certain range that one will ever get to see. You will never, with the naked eye, under any circumstances, see some of the colours that you see in those pics.

This is the pre or post processing that I find excessive and I usually do point it out. It's my view, as a 'saas', LOL!! If a 'bahu' has different liking, I have no 'objection' except that it ought to be somewhere clarified, to unsuspecting viewers, that that is not what you will be seeing because: 1) you do not have high end shades and, 2) that is not what you will be capturing in your pics because you do not have CPLs or whatever!

Again, it is my view that the intention behind the technology was to render things more real & accurate rather than unreal.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by pushpinder

How much? Well, thats a personal choice!!

And don't some of them become the subject of much sniggering behind their backs?!!