Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

[Beagletorque]

Past or present?



Is this the real deal though?

[Zuiko]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

The processed image is a huge improvement.

[skids]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

Agree with Zuiko - number is best.

[alfbranch]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

I agree with John
The first is a good photo the second is holiday snap IMO.

[Internaut]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

Processed image! The white balance looks out on the first, I'm guessing cooling that down, and a vibrancy boost (plus a Lightroom Olympus profile?) has made a huge difference. I'm normally ambivalent towards those unreal blue skies (beloved of E-1 owners in particular, I've noted), but here it works perfectly.

[Loup Garou]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

I prefer the second picture. The first is way too warm for my liking. As for the blue sky, I have seen it that deep blue in certain parts of the Caribbean (never been to Cuba) and so it is not 'unreal' at all.

[JonSchick]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

Yikes I'm an E-1 owner and I'm a couple of days back from Havana, but I don't love the sky in that second shot...looks heavily polarised and far too deep for my tastes. As a result I think it dominates the whole image so I'd prefer it a bit lighter. Sorry...I can see I'm in a minority of one so far!

[OM USer]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

#1 looks very warm but the shadows do not indicate the sun is close to settting. There is also something wrong with the sky, not just an unnatural colour but a stong unlikely gradation.

#2 looks like the honest rough at the edges Cuba that we have seen in other shots. I prefer this one.

[Ross the fiddler]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

The first looks like an 'antiqued' photo while the 2nd, looking clean & clear looks like it came from a Nikon camera (a bit cool in WB). If you're asking for an opinion then I would say I would like the 2nd one better if it was slightly warmer (in colour).

[Beagletorque]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

The first looks like an 'antiqued' photo while the 2nd, looking clean & clear looks like it came from a Nikon camera (a bit cool in WB). If you're asking for an opinion then I would say I would like the 2nd one better if it was slightly warmer (in colour).

It was a deeper question about how we process our photos to give the viewer an impression that may not be true to the original scene. Obviously the "camera never lies" is a falsehood as we decide how to frame our shots, but processing, short of direct manipulation of the image contents, can influence the viewer?

[Loup Garou]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

The blue sky is not the only thing to decide. That may be subject to arguement as being overprocessed but IMO rest of the picture is better in the second. The coloured patch on the peeling wall, the blue border around the doorway, the tone of the street are all more natural in the second picture - more like the eye would see it unless looking partly towards the sun. The first picture is so warm, it looks like it has a thin brown colour cast to me.

To me, the patch of vegetation on the balcony is significant. Barely visible in the first picture but clearly seen as green foliage in the second.

[Beagletorque]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

The blue sky is not the only thing to decide. That may be subject to arguement as being overprocessed but IMO rest of the picture is better in the second. The coloured patch on the peeling wall, the blue border around the doorway, the tone of the street are all more natural in the second picture - more like the eye would see it unless looking partly towards the sun. The first picture is so warm, it looks like it has a thin brown colour cast to me.

To me, the patch of vegetation on the balcony is significant. Barely visible in the first picture but clearly seen as green foliage in the second.

It's not a question of right or wrong, move past that and think about how what we produce may influence the viewer. You don't have to like one or the other or either come to that! Like it or not we do automatically edit reality to produce what we think we experienced, well I do!

[Loup Garou]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

It's not a question of right or wrong, move past that and think about how what we produce may influence the viewer. You don't have to like one or the other or either come to that! Like it or not we do automatically edit reality to produce what we think we experienced, well I do!

OK agreed. I think such comparisons depend on the mindset of the viewer and not just their photographic skills. Those who think clinically (or perhaps scientifically) like to see everything as natural as possible even if that is not the prettiest option. Those with an artistic turn of mind on the other hand, would subconsciously prefer the one that is more pleasing to the eye as long as it is not blatantly unnatural. Most of us probably come somewhere in between.

[Ricoh]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

Processing does certainly matter, I can spend more time processing than preparing for and eventually taking the shot. But doing street that stands to reason. I'm not plugging Leica, but RAW files need very little work, the image being more or less ready for export following the lightest touch in LR, but longer if I export to SEP2; I love playing with tones and filters - great fun!

[Loup Garou]

Re: Cuba 318 - Does processing matter?

I love playing with tones and filters - great fun!

Yes and it to some extent proves what I said above. Your imaginative Black & White pictures are among the most admired here (including me) but if one looks at them too clinically, one could comment (rightly) that they are not "natural" because we see in colour!