Kendra Paige wrote:
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.

You're talking about the look of the photos, not the photographer's style.

Style is about what the images convey, not how they look.

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

Kendra Paige wrote:
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?

Neither.

Kendra Paige wrote:
I'm interested in your personal take on what comprises your style.

The way I see my subjects; what excites me visually; the 2 images I bother to retouch out of 200 I shot.

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.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
As a hobbyist, I got into photography to express who I am. I didn't get into it to please clients or others. Therefore, as per my profile, I focus on keeping my images genuine and natural. None of my images have been post processed : )

genuine and natural does not mean unprocessed.

there is photoshopping that looks genuine and natural, and there is bad photoshoppping that looks fake and unnatural.

so unless you put a disclaimer on every image stating it has not been post processed  people can assume you have photoshopped every image.

whether you post process or not shouldn't determine your style.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
so unless you put a disclaimer on every image stating it has not been post processed  people can assume you have photoshopped every image.

whether you post process or not shouldn't determine your style.

Inaccurate. My statement in my profile about my images not being post processed is enough and you know it.

What should, or shouldn't, be done with an image is up to each person, not you.

(edit)

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
Inaccurate. My statement in the my profile about my images not being post processed is enough and you know it.

What should, or shouldn't, be done with an image is up to each person, not you.

enough for what? to explain your style? your images should speak for themselves.

L A U B E N H E I M E R wrote:
enough for what? to explain your style? your images should speak for themselves.

No, I'm not here to please, or agree with, you. I decided why I've defined my goals in photography the way I did.

Have a good day : )

Kendra Paige wrote:
I was curious, when it comes to your own 'style' as a photographer

The thread title was: In Camera VS Post.

Perhaps the word "style" is not the proper word to relate to the title.

I suggest "preference" or "practice" would be more the appropriate word to use to discuss the subject of Camera VS Post.

In Camera refers to doing nothing to the output image of the camera. As is. WYSIWYG.

Post is manipulating the camera image output further by using software on the computer.

In Camera users present the image as is, to the audience.

But even internet photos are not "In Camera" anymore when they use Instagram filters... they have been manipulated.

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.

.

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

+1

I shoot in such a way that I imagine I could use the worst converter possible and no retouching software whatsoever. Anything I do during retouching is quite minimal, and a 'tweak' not a part of what I do to create images. In my opinion, that is how to form a style of photography that'll lead to possibly lasting the test of time.

I only retouch model/people-pix. My stuff from converts, events, dance and so-forth is out-of-camers + converted (sometimes watermarked simultaneously) and delivered/posted. Example, shot a few months ago with my D3 & 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII lens:



Model-photo in online portfolio, lightly retouched:

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:

The thread title was: In Camera VS Post.

Perhaps the word "style" is not the proper word to relate to the title.

I suggest "preference" or "practice" would be more the appropriate word to use to discuss the subject of Camera VS Post.

In Camera refers to doing nothing to the output image of the camera. As is. WYSIWYG.

Post is manipulating the camera image output further by using software on the computer.

In Camera users present the image as is, to the audience.

But even internet photos are not "In Camera" anymore when they use Instagram filters... they have been manipulated.

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.

.

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?

Kendraarea p. art ,. Paige wrote:
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?

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.

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.

I believe the bulk of that should be a given when it comes to a fashion shoot - the team, the concept, the vision, etc. But what gets you past that? Is it your knowledge of how to use your tools, or what you do with the picture once you've taken it?

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?

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?

Those are two very different skills between a great divide.

That is why there are photo journalists and retouchers. Both are from the extreme end of the spectrum. One captures the war zone conflict and the other manipulates it to the best presentation they want it to be.

A person that does a good job at the both end is well equipped and skilled.

The chef wants the best mushrooms and carrots for his masterpiece, and gets the supply from the best organic farmer in the vegetable fashion world.

Crappy pictures would be like the chef starting with canned soup for his menu.

Get the right shot first and embellish it to perfection.

Being the best farmer and best chef is good.

.

Kendra Paige wrote:

I believe the bulk of that should be a given when it comes to a fashion shoot - the team, the concept, the vision, etc. But what gets you past that? Is it your knowledge of how to use your tools, or what you do with the picture once you've taken it?

As I said in my first post in the thread, it's really a balance of both. I do my best to get the images as close in camera to the final product as possible, so I'm not wasting my time on unnecessary work in post. But, I still require good post work to polish the images and complete my final vision. Beauty images will always require a good bit of retouching and all of my images are toned in some way. There are also some concepts that cannot be done in camera, because they require composite work or other techniques that are done in Photoshop. The ratio between the two, then, can naturally vary depending on what I'm doing. If I had to pick one for argument sake, I would choose my photography skills first, because the biggest part of my work usually occurs before I ever enter into post production. But, in actuality, I don't see myself ever relying on one without the other, because the look I wish to create requires both.

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.

In that case, nobody ever truly "sees" an "as-shot" image posted online. Ever. A digital negative - as many people refer to them - is not a format compatible with online posting. A few sites allow for storage and viewing of .NEF/.CR2/etc images online, however when posting them the site must convert the image to an agreeable format. Read "manipulate", as per your definitive explanation. Some people shoot and save to JPG in-camera, which means that they've set their camera to do the PP work for them. Read "manipulate".

As an example, here's a photo from my online portfolio. I only down-size and convert to jpegs for Emm Emm, this is uploaded as a 16-bit TIFF image. Does it look better than the jpeg version here on MM? Very slightly - and only in sharpness & tonality (again, very slightly only). Right-click it and select "Save As", and guess what you'll find? When my site posted it, it has to convert it to a jpeg for web-posting!!!

Btw, in film phjotography a negative is an incomplete photo. In digital photography, a camera-RAW image is the same - a digital negative that's an incomplete photograph.

MM: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/28112002



Website (click on "info" to right to see EXIF & filetype): http://www.dbiphotography.com/portraitu … 7#h2704707



IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

Disclaimer: I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.

Kendra Paige wrote:
...technical skills in photography, or in your ability to process and retouch the images afterward?

Kendra my mentor constantly shared with me if the hand of the retoucher is visible in the final image you have failed...

The longer I'm in this pursuit the more I have come to cherish the wisdom of her inference...

And to this day I hold to this concept dearly...

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

+1

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.

Mine comes from the ability to NGAF and worry about things like not dropping the camera or dripping sweat on the model.

I shoot at 12,800 at least half the time because there's not enough light or because I'm shooting indoors, available light with a polarizer over a UC#3 to cut back on the flare. Or so I can shoot at f16 and turn the AF off which is noticeably faster than even the current best AF.

Once you hit 6400, the ISO is putting a stamp on the look of the photo.

For me post is mainly about managing dynamic range. If the light is similar to something I've shot before, I'll probably have a LR preset with the contrast curve I like. New light or high contrast night lighting ends up being a balancing act between noise and shadow detail.

If I could avoid post completely, I would.

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:
Kendra my mentor constantly shared with me if the hand of the retoucher is visible in the final image you have failed...

The longer I'm in this pursuit the more I have come to cherish the wisdom of her inference...

And to this day I hold to this concept dearly...

I've never seen it written nor heard it said better. Thank you kindly for sharing this saying with us

Please pardon any typographical errors, I've composed this post on my Windows-based Tablet

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBImagery Toronto (Website)
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
   
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

Another Italian Guy wrote:

Kendra Paige wrote:
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.

You're talking about the look of the photos, not the photographer's style.

Style is about what the images convey, not how they look.

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

Kendra Paige wrote:
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?

Neither.


The way I see my subjects; what excites me visually; the 2 images I bother to retouch out of 200 I shot.

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.



Just my $0.02 etc. etc.

+1 though I interpreted her use of "style" as "post style".


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.

Michael McGowan wrote:
For me, it's always been a combination. From the bad old days of film, we had loads of tricks when printing. I ran a copy camera for offset publishing for awhile. Even there, we had options to fine-tune the output.

These days, I sometimes do the unforgivable ... and under-expose because the bright-shiny image that's "normal" fails to get across the drama I want. Of course, I'm doing that knowing I'm going to tinker later. I've also got some Fuji S5 cameras. If you shoot at 400 percent dynamic range, the results look flat and strange if you don't do anything in post.

Depending on the situation, I just might be shooting for absolutely no post or for something that requires considerable post. I let the scene and the subject define the approach for me.

Underexpose slightly?  Yep, a true "in the camera" shooter!  This might sound crazy, but I shoot JPEG rather than RAW ... and I treat it like I'm shooting slides.  Even though I don't always get it, I do like getting a darker tone as opposed to washed out that gives fewer details.