Kendra Paige wrote:
When I said 'in-camera' I was referring to the skills associated with how a photo is taken. It was regarding the technical skills associated with capturing the picture (camera settings, studio lighting, knowledge of angles / tones / colors, etc). It's not so much a discussion around analog-everything purists versus photoshoppers, it was about a person's skills leading to their final image.

Are your skills that allow you to take a picture what most dictates the final look, or is it how you plan to process it?

I get it 95% right in-camera - it's not very difficult if you learnt with Kodachrome 25, and it saves work later. My cameras are setup to closely match the results from my film work.

Having said that, it would be much easier if I produced composite fotos - but for some reason I've never thought there was any point doint so - I might as well be a painter. I've never even added a different sky to a foto.

i saw this - and went WOW:


Then I saw the plastic horse, and went MEH...


If it's one of my shots, the girl is on the horse, and we are both in the water...

... maybe that's a style.

Lachance Photography wrote:
Try to get it as right in camera as possible, with minimal post.

Meh.


I try, and suggest, that people get what they need at each step of the process to best set themselves up for the next step, while keeping the final output in mind.

I know that's more up in the air and less defined than what you said, but it is also more to the truth of working in a digital workflow, or really, any workflow.

Your minimal post comment is too funny and dumb to even take seriously. An image needs as much post work as it needs. Sometimes its not a lot, sometimes its to the point where its more of a digital creation than a photo. Neither way is more correct than the other, and it all comes back to the idea and subject the image is trying to convey.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

Meh.


I try, and suggest, that people get what they need at each step of the process to best set themselves up for the next step, while keeping the final output in mind.

I know that's more up in the air and less defined than what you said, but it is also more to the truth of working in a digital workflow, or really, any workflow.

Your minimal post comment is too funny and dumb to even take seriously. An image needs as much post work as it needs. Sometimes its not a lot, sometimes its to the point where its more of a digital creation than a photo. Neither way is more correct than the other, and it all comes back to the idea and subject the image is trying to convey.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Lachance has a valid comment but interesting critique of his opinion.

There is creating a photograph and creating a digital image as in the example above with the horse, which is awesom btw.
I look at that a a composite creation of manipulating several images to get the desired effect. I envy those with those post editing skills,
But what chance photo is saying is a straight photograph exposure. Minimal post is very valid, I can show you current examples of a shoot I just did where after loading it into Lr all I needed was two slight bends in the curves, a dodge here and a burn there and viola, that's it and done and ready for print.

Disrespecting someones workflow says a lot about ones character, remember that.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
Meh.


I try, and suggest, that people get what they need at each step of the process to best set themselves up for the next step, while keeping the final output in mind.

I know that's more up in the air and less defined than what you said, but it is also more to the truth of working in a digital workflow, or really, any workflow.

Your minimal post comment is too funny and dumb to even take seriously. An image needs as much post work as it needs. Sometimes its not a lot, sometimes its to the point where its more of a digital creation than a photo. Neither way is more correct than the other, and it all comes back to the idea and subject the image is trying to convey.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

ok. so you're against trying to minimize the amount of work needed to achieve one's vision.

Meh.

to each their own....

L U B E N H E I M E R wrote:

ok. so you're against trying to minimize the amount of work needed to achieve one's vision.

Meh.

to each their own....

That is not what he said. He said that people should try to get the most out of each step of the process. Some seem to have the view that this is an either/or scenario, as if photography and post production are at odds, so you must choose one over the other in your work. I believe than Andrew is trying to say that they are not add odds, but are both an important part of the process. They are not mutually exclusive. I happen to agree with this view 100%.

Just because a photographer relies on his or her post work to polish images or complete his or her vision, it does NOT mean that the photographer didn't get it right in camera. There is a big difference between perfecting an already great image so that it meets one's final vision and fixing unnecessary mistakes in post. I always work to get it right in camera, to avoid the latter. But, my work is not finished until it is finished in post. And, this is not limited to digital images, either.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
That is not what he said. He said that people should try to get the most out of each step of the process. Some seem to have the view that this is an either/or scenario, as if photography and post production are at odds, so you must choose one over the other in your work. I believe than Andrew is trying to say that they are not add odds, but are both an important part of the process. They are not mutually exclusive. I happen to agree with this view 100%.

Just because a photographer relies on his or her post work to polish images or complete his or her vision, it does NOT mean that the photographer didn't get it right in camera. There is a big difference between perfecting an already great image so that it meets one's final vision and fixing unnecessary mistakes in post. I always work to get it right in camera, to avoid the latter. But, my work is not finished until it is finished in post. And, this is not limited to digital images, either.

lachance wrote this:

Lachance Photography wrote:
Try to get it as right in camera as possible, with minimal post.

and the response was this:

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
Your minimal post comment is too funny and dumb to even take seriously.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
That is not what he said. He said that people should try to get the most out of each step of the process. Some seem to have the view that this is an either/or scenario, as if photography and post production are at odds, so you must choose one over the other in your work. I believe than Andrew is trying to say that they are not add odds, but are both an important part of the process. They are not mutually exclusive. I happen to agree with this view 100%.

Just because a photographer relies on his or her post work to polish images or complete his or her vision, it does NOT mean that the photographer didn't get it right in camera. There is a big difference between perfecting an already great image so that it meets one's final vision and fixing unnecessary mistakes in post. I always work to get it right in camera, to avoid the latter. But, my work is not finished until it is finished in post. And, this is not limited to digital images, either.

Yup





Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
lachance wrote this:


and the response was this:

Correct. Andrew took issue with the "minimal post" portion of that comment. Getting it right in camera does not mean that post work is somehow automatically minimal or that it should be. It just means that time in post it is not being spent fixing unnecessary mistakes. It makes post work more efficient, not minimal. As Andrew said, you spend the amount of time at each step as is needed for your image to match your final vision. Even if you get everything as close to perfect as possible in camera, you may still require quite a bit of post work to achieve your final vision, depending on what that vision is. And, the amount of post work can vary greatly from one concept to the next. Both photography and post work deserve however much time and attention they take to get the final images that are desired.

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Correct. Andrew took issue with the "minimal post" portion of that comment. Getting it right in camera does not mean that post work is somehow automatically minimal or that it should be. It just means that time in post it is not being spent fixing unnecessary mistakes. It makes post work more efficient, not minimal. As Andrew said, you spend the amount of time at each step as is needed for your image to match your final vision. Even if you get everything as close to perfect as possible in camera, you may still require quite a bit of post work to achieve your final vision, depending on what that vision is. And, the amount of post work can vary greatly from one concept to the next. Like I said earlier, the two things (photography and post production) are not mutually exclusive. One does not necessarily have a significant impact on the other (at least it doesn't if you give each step the time & attention it deserves).

i agree with that.

but if you take a photo and there is a lot of trash in the photo that you now have to remove in post, then your post work will be a lot more than if you had taken the time to remove the trash before you took the photo. if you remove the trash first then your post work will be minimal compared to if you hadn't.

that's the point lachance is making. to call it "too funny and dumb to even take seriously." is just crazy talk.

i do as much post as needed for each of my photographs, but i am able to minimize my post processing by taking care of as much as possible before taking the photo.

but honestly this thread is supposed to be about Style...

Mikey McMichaels wrote:
Someone should put together a series of photos from one photographer in a tutorial style like Eastwood's perspective tutorial.

The point would be to show a bunch of photos that are clearly from the same person even though the look is different.


Or Ellen Von Unwerth's book Couples. Every photo is so clearly her, but there are drastically different looks.

It's an interesting conversation.  I agree with the others that there is a distinction between "style" and "look".  I shoot a variety of work that I think has particular style.  It took me a long time to sort of settle into it, but that was mostly because I enjoy shooting in few different styles.  Over time, however, I came to learn that those who hire you want to see one specific style - but it can look many different ways.

I shoot both film and digital, some work is highly processed (composited) some has a high level of production (lots of pre-production and on set work) and some is quite simple (single light, plain background, LF film), but it should all have a similar feel to it.

Look is very superficial, style is how you tell your stories - it's your voice.

My work is narrative in nature.  I'm a filmmaker who takes still photographs, so for me the narrative aspect is key.  I initially learned to light as a gaffer (films) so when I started working in still photography I went about learning to light as photographers did at the time (Large soft light sources, as few as possible, etc.).  This led to pleasing photos that looked like everyone else's, but did not reflect the way I saw the world.  Eventually, I went back to lighting photographs the same way I would light a film.  Lots of small light sources, specific set lighting, etc.  This, I feel, works much better in telling the stories I like to tell.  I use this method now whether I'm shooting a composite shot, an on-set, production intensive shot, or a simple film portrait. 

Example of a composite shot:







Example of on-set shots where everything was done in camera, yet some grading was also achieved in post:







Example of simple film portraits:

Andrea Acailawen wrote:

Neither. It's my vision as a photographer and how I choose to convey that vision that determines the final look at any given time. The photography and choices I make in post are obviously a part of that process, but so are concept development, team selection, location, prop and styling choices, choice of model(s), etc. etc. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, its the choices I make that shape the final look of my images, not what specific techniques or tools I use to create them. Hope that makes sense.

Very clear to me, and I fully agree!
Paul

Kendra Paige wrote:
As I continue to improve my technical skills in photography, I look to other photographers and artists for inspiration and guidance. A photographer's style is often split between their in-camera skills, along with their post-processing skills, which makes deconstructing images a bit more of a challenge.

I was curious, when it comes to your own 'style' as a photographer, do you feel it has more to do with your technical skills in photography, or in your ability to process and retouch the images afterward? I know there is a balance between the two, but I'm interested in your personal take on what comprises your style.

BOTH ! , (in camera, AND in post), but my approach to an image has little to do with style. I have always said that you "get it right in camera", but get it AMAZING in Photoshop. ALL of my images are aggressively Photoshopped, but I ALWAYS start with as good, well exposed, and composed image as possible. Each image dictates the style, but there are a few criteria that nearly always apply - LOTS of "local contrast", NO artifacts, and no distracting elements, (pretty nearly any distracting element can be painted out in Photoshop, IF the image is worth the effort in the first place).
-Don
EDIT: A "good image" is a separate issue from style. there is style, then there is good, skillful image making.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
i agree with that.

but if you take a photo and there is a lot of trash in the photo that you now have to remove in post, then your post work will be a lot more than if you had taken the time to remove the trash before you took the photo. if you remove the trash first then your post work will be minimal compared to if you hadn't.

that's the point lachance is making. to call it "too funny and dumb to even take seriously." is just crazy talk.

i do as much post as needed for each of my photographs, but i am able to minimize my post processing by taking care of as much as possible before taking the photo.

but honestly this thread is supposed to be about Style...

Again, I believe his comment was regarding the idea that getting it right in camera means minimal post work. That may not be what Lachance meant my his comment, but I could see how Andrew might take it that way. It's a perception I've seen shared in the forums many times by those who are against post processing. Again, I'm not saying that was Lachance's intent. I'm just addressing the comment made by Andrew based on his understanding of what was being said.

As for this thread being about style, I'm not so sure that it really is. I say that, because what determines a photographer's style is really not just limited to photography and post processing choices. It is ultimately determined by the photographer's vision and how he or she chooses to carry that vision across to the viewer. While lighting, composition, and post production influence the look and feel of an image, a set of images or even a larger body of work, it is the photographer's vision that set the tone for his/her style and ultimately dictate what techniques he/she may choose in post at any given time. At least, I know that for many of us who are conceptually driven, that is certainly the case.

I usually have a well thought out concept, as well as a good idea of what I want my final images to look like and what I will need to do once I get into post, before I pick up the camera. That is true of more than 99% of my work. And, each concept influences what steps I take to produce the final images I have in my head. My style isn't just determined by my lighting, composition or post production choices. Those, these are things to clearly do help establish my vision in the images that I produce. So, I think this thread is more asking which plays a greater roll in the look of each photographer's overall body of work. It's an interesting discussion, either way.

Lachance Photography wrote:
Try to get it as right in camera as possible, with minimal post.

Same here, depending on the desired product/effect.  I am a big fan of getting done in camera/lighting etc. and not so much depend on post work.  Then again, we should not let post work be as a crutch for not getting right in camera.

The two do compliment each other.

My 2 cents.

Jake

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Neither. It's my vision as a photographer and how I choose to convey that vision that determines the final look at any given time. The photography and choices I make in post are obviously a part of that process, but so are concept development, team selection, location, prop and styling choices, choice of model(s), etc. etc. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, its the choices I make that shape the final look of my images, not what specific techniques or tools I use to create them. Hope that makes sense.

fotopfw wrote:
Very clear to me, and I fully agree!
Paul

Andrea Acailawen wrote:
Correct. Andrew took issue with the "minimal post" portion of that comment. Getting it right in camera does not mean that post work is somehow automatically minimal or that it should be. It just means that time in post it is not being spent fixing unnecessary mistakes. It makes post work more efficient, not minimal. As Andrew said, you spend the amount of time at each step as is needed for your image to match your final vision. Even if you get everything as close to perfect as possible in camera, you may still require quite a bit of post work to achieve your final vision, depending on what that vision is. And, the amount of post work can vary greatly from one concept to the next. Both photography and post work deserve however much time and attention they take to get the final images that are desired.

I agree with this.  For the shot of the girl sitting at the vanity with the man in the foreground, we spent days building the set (laying a floor, building two flats and wallpapering them, hanging a drape, refinishing the vanity, propping it, lighting the set, etc.).  Try as we might, I could not find the right vanity stool.  After walking through all the prop shops in Queens and the one that is left in Manhattan, we came up with the one we chose, which was the best option.  But the wood was too light and the fabric was a creamy gold.  That's not what I wanted, so it was changed.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Any photographer who tries to manufacture a 'style' through certain techniques, either in-camera or in post, is barking up the wrong tree.

Not exactly sure what you mean by that.  Hell, The Zone System is a "technique".  I don't think anyone using it is/was barking up any wrong trees. 

Then you have those that do depend heavily on post production work for their "style".  Jerry Uelsman is a perfect example.  http://www.uelsmann.net  Creates/created beautiful imagery through darkroom manipulation.  It's his art. 

Another example is the work of Joel Grimes.  http://joelgrimes.com
A lot of HDR.  A lot of post processing to get "the look" he is known for.  That is HIS art. 

He doesn't fail as a photographer (as someones else said) just because he has a radically different look in his "finished" images.

They both still posses master camera and lighting skills but also use their post production wizardry to produce images that are very unique.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Any photographer who tries to manufacture a 'style' through certain techniques, either in-camera or in post, is barking up the wrong tree.

Mike Collins wrote:
Not exactly sure what you mean by that.  Hell, The Zone System is a "technique".  I don't think anyone using it is/was barking up any wrong trees.

The zone system is a process for ensuring that optimum exposure is obtained.

What I meant by "technique in-camera" was stuff like always using certain lighting setups, long or short lenses, certain repeated compositional 'tricks' etc. - things which affect the 'look' of an image - to impose a visual uniformity on the images in an attempt to manufacture some kind of faux 'style'.

Mike Collins wrote:
Another example is the work of Joel Grimes.  http://joelgrimes.com
A lot of HDR.  A lot of post processing to get "the look" he is known for.  That is HIS art.

The 'look' of the images is not synonymous with the photographer's style.

I could start processing all my images to 'look' like that but I would never have the same style.




Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

GM Photography wrote:
In many cases, technical skills and "style" are linked together.  There are certain photographers that have a very distinctive and easily recognizable look, in large part due to their lighting and/or post work.  A few examples that come to mind are Dave Hill, Joey L, and of course the infamous Terry Richardson.

I'll never understand the whole "get it right in the camera" thing.  Of course it's important to start with the best shot possible.  It's not "wrong" to stop there, however with the tools available today, for many photographers, that's merely the first step in the workflow. 

To imply that a photographer can't or doesn't "get it right" because they choose to take their images beyond the limitations of the camera is a very limited viewpoint.  Whether it's ignorance, or a defensive measure to cover a fear of learning how to use Photoshop and other tools designed to help photographers "develop" digital negatives, it's not very flattering to the person making those comments.

If someone spends some (or a lot) of time processing an image, it doesn't mean it was "bad" to start with, it simply means they are using the tools at their disposal to create a _finished_ image that portrays their intent and conveys their vision of what they want to present.  Sometimes it's "digital art", other times it's an interpretation of "perfection", and sometimes it's a lot of subtle or not so subtle polishing.  Just because it's polished, doesn't mean it started out as a turd.  In fact, we all know that you can't polish a turd, so all the retouching in the world won't rescue a bad image.

This.






Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Ali Choudhry Photo wrote:
I think too many people get caught up on having a 'style'.

For me, I just shoot and what/how I shoot actually is how I see the world around me.

Guess what, you just described Your style of shooting without realizing it

Hugh Alison wrote:
I get it 95% right in-camera - it's not very difficult if you learnt with Kodachrome 25, and it saves work later. My cameras are setup to closely match the results from my film work.

Having said that, it would be much easier if I produced composite fotos - but for some reason I've never thought there was any point doint so - I might as well be a painter. I've never even added a different sky to a foto.

i saw this - and went WOW:


Then I saw the plastic horse, and went MEH...


If it's one of my shots, the girl is on the horse, and we are both in the water...

... maybe that's a style.

Disney could have done a better job of the postwork....

The contrast on the girl overpowers the contrast on the horse...

the lighting is even different..

side lighting on girl. front lighting horse...

also that's not style... that's Photo Manipulation to the max...

Hugh Alison wrote:

I get it 95% right in-camera - it's not very difficult if you learnt with Kodachrome 25, and it saves work later. My cameras are setup to closely match the results from my film work.

Having said that, it would be much easier if I produced composite fotos - but for some reason I've never thought there was any point doint so - I might as well be a painter. I've never even added a different sky to a foto.

i saw this - and went WOW:


Then I saw the plastic horse, and went MEH...


If it's one of my shots, the girl is on the horse, and we are both in the water...

... maybe that's a style.

For 20 years I made music with the mindset that you have - that there's something inherently better about organic and natural. Not that digital manipulation was cheating, but if you could nail it for real it would be more powerful.

It was understanding photography that got me to rethink music over a period of a couple of years. I literally asked myself and a few other people, if you want to tell a story, why make music or a photo? Why not just take a pen and paper, write it down and be done with it?

Once I could answer that for myself things changed and I thought of music more as what's coming out of the speakers than what's being put in and decided that the idea of excluding any tool on principle made no sense. Even the idea that a recording of a song should be an emulation of a live performance made no sense. Who cares if a real drummer would need three arms to play the part? If it's right for the music, it's right.


With photography I don't enjoy the post production as much. I've made composite images, but only on jobs I've been hired for.

I'm not intending to disagree with you, just share my perspective change - who knows, I may change back.

The one question worth asking is why is it important to be a "photographer" rather than a "visual artist"?

Suppose you shot photos, printed them out, painted them and reshot them. Let's assume it's good. Does that make you somehow less valid?

Identity is a very deep issue. Is an identity something to choose or discover? Should it be static or dynamic? What if you're inherently an artist and not a photographer and that if you didn't choose to make photos strictly within the photographic process, you might find that your medium is a combination of things - maybe you'd end up making sculptures, and shooting them with people and composting and making videos that play back out of the sculpture. Who knows?

I don't think the answer is that important, but I think it's very worthwhile to ask the question.

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:

Meh.


I try, and suggest, that people get what they need at each step of the process to best set themselves up for the next step, while keeping the final output in mind.

I know that's more up in the air and less defined than what you said, but it is also more to the truth of working in a digital workflow, or really, any workflow.

Your minimal post comment is too funny and dumb to even take seriously. An image needs as much post work as it needs. Sometimes its not a lot, sometimes its to the point where its more of a digital creation than a photo. Neither way is more correct than the other, and it all comes back to the idea and subject the image is trying to convey.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Even that's limiting. It's very common to start something and discover part way through that a different final output is better.

Keeping the final output in mind is not necessarily important. Keeping the story in mind and evaluating if each step is helping or hindering the telling of the story.

Vector One Photography wrote:
Up to six month ago I shot medium format film so, with the exception with some dodging and burning, I had to get what I wanted in camera.  And what I wanted was to capture the scene/subject as I wanted it portrayed in the final print.  I wanted to capture my vision frozen in a point in time on film.  Now with digital I do the same thing, I only use post to correct boo-boos or short comings of digital. There are things with density that I can only correct in digital, dodge/burn down the pixel, remove unwanted things that would have taken a master retoucher to do.  But the impact, purpose, and style has to already be there.

P.S. If you style is from Photoshop then you may be more of a digital artist than photographer.

Why is the type of artist you are important?

Why not just be an artist, whether you're a photographer or digital artist or hybrid or painter?