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.

No offense intended, but I think that's the wrong question.

Style is manifested many ways.  But it starts with vision.  Just b/c someone likes to shoot during the golden hour or only in a studio setting or then uses PS for certain looks doesn't mean it's an "either/or" of "in camera or post."

Think of your question this way:  would anyone ask Picasso if his style was due to the type of brushes he used?  Or Mapplethorpe if his style was due to a Canon v. Nikon decision.  Actually, while both of those artists had tools that the used to shape particular looks or styles, the reality is that for both of them it started with vision.  And then they make choices/set up/composed...and then used tools (post if you will) to create that vision.

Lois Greenfield produces amazing "flying" shots of dancers.  She'd be the first to tell you that her camera and specifically her lighting and studio setup help shape those results.  But her "style" is no more due to her lighting than it is to what sandwich she had for lunch.  The tools aren't the style.  They may help facilitate it or help brand it but they're only a means.

Ed

afplcc-Glamour wrote:

No offense intended, but I think that's the wrong question.

Style is manifested many ways.  But it starts with vision.  Just b/c someone likes to shoot during the golden hour or only in a studio setting or then uses PS for certain looks doesn't mean it's an "either/or" of "in camera or post."

Think of your question this way:  would anyone ask Picasso if his style was due to the type of brushes he used?  Or Mapplethorpe if his style was due to a Canon v. Nikon decision.  Actually, while both of those artists had tools that the used to shape particular looks or styles, the reality is that for both of them it started with vision.  And then they make choices/set up/composed...and then used tools (post if you will) to create that vision.

Lois Greenfield produces amazing "flying" shots of dancers.  She'd be the first to tell you that her camera and specifically her lighting and studio setup help shape those results.  But her "style" is no more due to her lighting than it is to what sandwich she had for lunch.  The tools aren't the style.  They may help facilitate it or help brand it but they're only a means.

Ed

indeed... STYLE does not equal TOOL, it's more of a FEEL...

and photoshop is more considered a sauce..than the main

Herman van Gestel wrote:
basic question would be...are you a photographer or retoucher (retoucher is a job too btw, look at Natalia Tafferel )...if you choose photography, get it amazing already in-cam (with finishing off in Photoshop)...if you're more of a retoucher get it amazing in photoshop...aka is the final product a photograph or a image/composite?

Having it amazing in-cam means you have more latitude and more information available...the more photoshop involved , more information is destroyed)

Why do you have to limit yourself to being one or the other?  How is retouching not part of the photographic process?

GM Photography wrote:

Why do you have to limit yourself to being one or the other?  How is retouching not part of the photographic process?

Before we hit that discussion we first need to define. Within post-processing we distinguish between retouching, distortion, manipulate, collage, colorisation, and montages....all art-forms within them selfs.....but the sample of Annie Leibovitz proves my point...i can't cosier it anymore photography, but illustration...or collage...

For myself, i like to simplify the process, by wondering if i'm looking at a photograph or photoshop-work

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

That question can only be answered on an individual basis. All artistic endeavors have limitations. Some are external based on the tools available (Star Wars could not have been made in 1920), and some are internal, placed by the artist. No one criticizes the writer who concentrates on poetry, or even more limiting, writing only in a form such as Haiku. In fact, self-imposed limitations can be the essential PART of the art, in trying to convey the message within those boundaries. One might well ask a writer "why is it important to be a novelist rather than a poet", or a musician "why do you write rock songs rather than an opera"? We wouldn't say, "My goodness, you are only using a couple of guitars, a bass and drums when you have all those other instruments at your disposal".

Certainly there are those in the "in camera only" camp who are there simply because they do not have the skill (or desire to learn) to use the additional tools for post-processing. We need to be careful not to look down on those who deliberately place limits on their art so to be a "photographer" rather than a "visual artist", as that is the essence of snobbery.

GM Photography wrote:
Why do you have to limit yourself to being one or the other?  How is retouching not part of the photographic process?

For me making the distinction between photography and digital art is not an either / or. I use the distinction so that I know which medium I am talking about. Retouching does not change an image into digital art, comping and certain post-production techniques do.

Why is it important to me ?
I need to be able to be clear to clients about the type of image they can walk out of the door with at the end of a session and the type of image they will have to wait some time for and pay a premium price for. Also, artistically there is a difference to me between an image which is digital art and a similar style of image that has been taken in one shot because the photographer arranged all of the elements as they previsualised things in advance.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
On a purist's perspective, an image is no longer In Camera when even the slightest manipulation has been done to the image, such as putting one's name or copyright / trademark on the image.

This is a good example of how arbitrary the 'purity' line is.  Some people say this.  Other people say that cropping is okay, but no exposure changes.  Others reverse those two.  Still others say that JPG files can NEVER be correct in-camera, because any camera has some default colour changes applied to ALL JPG files.

There is no clearly delineated line between 'edited' and 'not edited'.  The only 'wholly unedited' files are RAW files, converted to JPGs or TIFFs for printing through a bulk converter, as opposed to CameraRAW.  Anything else opens up the doors for discussion.  So if you don't work that way, then somebody is going to claim that you didn't get in right 'in camera.'

Zack Zoll wrote:
This is the wrong question to ask.

It's the wrong question, because most of the techniques(emphasis on 'technical') that  allow for better quality finished prints require capturing an image 'in camera' that is technically incorrect.

If you use the Zone system, or you expose to the right on a digital camera, what you're doing is purposely selecting the "wrong" exposure, because you know that your developing/post-processing will be able to take that exposure and turn it into something better than if you went with what the meter or histogram said was correct.

If you did one of those things and then developed normally, or did not do any post-production work at all, then you would have a poorly exposed photo.  However, that poorly exposed photo is the first step to something that looks better than an image that was 'done perfectly in-camera.'


This is a good example of how arbitrary the 'purity' line is.  Some people say this.  Other people say that cropping is okay, but no exposure changes.  Others reverse those two.  Still others say that JPG files can NEVER be correct in-camera, because any camera has some default colour changes applied to ALL JPG files.

There is no clearly delineated line between 'edited' and 'not edited'.  The only 'wholly unedited' files are RAW files, converted to JPGs or TIFFs for printing through a bulk converter, as opposed to CameraRAW.  Anything else opens up the doors for discussion.  So if you don't work that way, then somebody is going to claim that you didn't get in right 'in camera.'

i would find it a pity to go the puristic direction, the topic is after all about style... purely puristic the nothing would be in cam , except for colloid images...

i see it more that the larger part of the quality or style of a photograph should be in the photographic realm instead of photoshop

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Style is about what the images convey, not how they look.


Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

I disagree with this statement.


In shooting, style may be comprised of combinations of intentional choices: lighting, environment, model, wardrobe, and may other elements, including how you pre-program a camera's interpretation of color. A change in those variables yields a changer in style, even if the narrative intent remains the same.

There is additionally a plethora of choices for post-processing styles to compliment the shooting style, and render the final style of the image.


In other words, an Annie Leibovitz final image doesn't convey the same "style" without the color grading. It's a necessary component of that style.

Another Italian Guy wrote:
Of course, what I do with the images technically is an extension of my visual aesthetic but the aesthetic comes first, not the other way around.

This is the goal toward which to aspire. Photography is a two-stage process and you want both stages right. Ideally, you don't fix things in post that you could have "gotten right" when first taking the shot. I can remove a water-bottle with content aware deletion or crop to improve a shot via PS/etc., but I always feel better and am comfortable with the final result when I'm aware of the background of a shot and remove the water bottle and appropriately frame the shot before I take it. The right make up can remove or minimize the need to spend time retouching.

But if you just take what comes out of the camera without post-processing, I think you give up a lot of the creativity and originality that exists in the photographic field through post-production editing and retouching. Basically, then you're accepting Nikon or Canon or et al.'s decision on how a shot should look out of the camera or maybe Adobe's vision via hitting auto on camera raw.

Ansel Adams had his darkroom. We've got LR and PS or whatever editing software  you use. Both can be abused.

MarkHart wrote:
This is the goal toward which to aspire. Photography is a two-stage process and you want both stages right. Ideally, you don't fix things in post that you could have "gotten right" when first taking the shot. I can remove a water-bottle with content aware deletion or crop to improve a shot via PS/etc., but I always feel better and am comfortable with the final result when I'm aware of the background of a shot and remove the water bottle and appropriately frame the shot before I take it. The right make up can remove or minimize the need to spend time retouching.

But if you just take what comes out of the camera without post-processing, I think you give up a lot of the creativity and originality that exists in the photographic field through post-production editing and retouching. Basically, then you're accepting Nikon or Canon or et al.'s decision on how a shot should look out of the camera or maybe Adobe's vision via hitting auto on camera raw.

Ansel Adams had his darkroom. We've got LR and PS or whatever editing software  you use. Both can be abused.

I agree with everything you said but I have to comment on the sentence I put in bold type.

Yes you can settle for the manufacturers algorithm and use some of their auto setting, but just as one selected film type for certain shots, the same can be done with the sensor captures. Also by manually setting your camera to what you know will be the shot you want, this also illuminates a lot of post "manipulation".
At this point adjusting curves a bit is a lot like basic work one would do under the enlarger aside from the dodge and burn work that you can do in both.

I think the point is would you rather correct your composition before or after?!
I choose before that way it'll be minimal work for me afterwards when I'm already exhausted from the shoot. I am a "create in the moment" kind of person when I'm face to face with my subjects. Post work to me is considered "clean-up" time and get ready to go to print time.