A PSA regarding Post-Processing

Photographers take stunning photographs (yes, I know, thank you very much).

A lot of people, especially new DSLR owners and frequent smartphone camera users, get all curious and interested in how we get our beautiful shots.

Of course, we gladly share, after all the process isn't that much of a secret anyway. "We make sure our camera settings are right (occasionally we explain deeper into technicalities and composition and stuff) and then we edit the shots in the comput-"

"You EDIT the photos? That's what makes the photos so nice???"

"Well..." That's an awkward moment over here because admitting to post-processing photos vaguely implies that we are more of good photo editors than photo takers, and that instantly shatters the charm we exude when lugging 5-kilogram gear and firing our shutters. But humility takes over and, at least for me, I explain the wonders of post-processing - how it helps us bring out hidden details and colors in the photograph, and even how it helps to save a screwed up shot sometimes.

And at the end of it, "wow, that's really amazing" is usually the reply I'll get. Sure it is.

But days or weeks later I'll get an email or a WhatsApp message - with a photo attached - saying "Hey, I screwed up this shot; please help me fix it?" And when you take a look at the photo: blown-out highlights, out-of-focus subjects, unbearable noise. Basically a lot a lot of things gone wrong. (And not like it matters now but a geek sidenote: the photo is in JPEG, half the time because it was shot on a smartphone.)

No doubt post-processing is great; it does wonders. But after the whole episode above people forget that the first step to a good photo is getting the shot right - and that's also the most important step. Post-processing can make a good picture look better, a not-so-good picture look decent, but it cannot save a bad picture.

I will post next time on how post-processing works, why it's important, and how it's not a mighty photograph repairman, so to speak.

The fundamental theory is that post-processing deals with what is already captured by the camera. Therefore if the camera fails to capture certain things, post-processing cannot recreate these things (well, actually you can, but that's crossing the boundary to some heavy photoshop work).

If you still don't understand, here's an analogy: if you don't get some nice beef, you can't make good steak however you cook it. Simple?

So to photographers out there, make sure your friends know what you can do for them in post-processing with Photoshop / Lightroom / Aperture. And to the others who didn't know of this / once misunderstood this, try now instead to take good photographs right in the camera, be it on your Nikon or your iPhone, instead of telling yourself that you can fix things in the computer later - because you can't.

Plus, why go through the trouble, when it is possible to get good pleasing shots without any enhancement?

Photo of the Week 2014: #1 Sunset at CBD

I have decided to launch the Photo of the Week (POTW) series this year, where I will present a photograph and describe how I obtained the shot, and the significance of it. The post may come anytime in the week, but most likely on weekends, so do stay tuned!

Today, I present you a shot of Singapore's famous but clichéd landscape, the Central Business District (CBD), in the light of sunset.

11 mm DX, 1/5000, f/2.8, ISO 100.

The sunset is evidently very strong and overpowering the blue sky with its orange light. Coincidentally, it shines behind the skyscrapers at the CBD, which stand tall and prominently in the scene. The intended message in this photo is that the CBD seems like Singapore's powerful driving force and adding live and functionality to the city, just like how the sunset behind it is influencing the uniform blueness in the rest of the skies to have some more vibrant colors and making the sky more dynamic and attractive.

The original shot was obtained with the sunset nicely exposed, and hence the buildings were underexposed. Exposing accurately on the sunset will ensure that you capture the correct colors and tones in the sky. It was initially meant to be a silhouette shot, but in this context the silhouette evidently did not look nice.

A great deal of the effect was brought about in post production. On top of the usual adjustments, I added a white balance gradient to make the left side of the photo cooler than the right, where the sunset is happening. I also used a brush to brighten up the buildings (hence they won't be in shadows) and add some extra clarity to them, so they will look (artificially) shiny and metallic. Yes, the artificiality is intended for vibrancy in the architecture. And note, this is not a HDR, I have to emphasize.

I have received some critiques online, one regarding the perspective of the photo, and another regarding the color temperature gradient. I understand that the buildings are leaning backwards which can be very ugly at times. However, I have tried correcting the distortion only to realize that the shadows in the water will then be slanted instead, hence making the photo look weirder. Furthermore, on second thoughts, the perspective gives us the feeling of inferiority towards the humongous skyscrapers, giving us a better sense of perspective and context instead. The color temperature gradient, as I previously mentioned, is intentional. The left of the picture seems boring, this I fully agree. But it's the intended effect, that the left shows a rather monotonous environment (though in real life the left is yet another beautiful scene). I have placed the buildings towards the side specially to create the effect that I described above. Thus for this particular shot I did what I did and not anything that critiques suggested. I'm thankful though that the critiques pointed out these points, which would definitely help me make better photographs in future :)

This photograph is not without flaws, definitely. One very very annoying flaw that I can't fix is the reflection of the buildings, which clearly show the buildings in shadows, but the buildings appear to be not. For my situation the only way to fix it probably would be a HDR. In fact a HDR in this scenario may be a good idea. But I choose to keep my shot as a single shot, and perhaps accept this flaw. After all, I feel it doesn't look that bad and glaring as a flaw. Do tell me what other flaws you spot, and they may be worthy of some discussion.

I find it absolutely fascinating how scenes transform from what we see into what is captured by the camera (film, digital RAW, or digital compressed), then into the final product after being put through layers of layers and rounds and rounds of edits. I started off photography fully objecting post processing, because I feel that post processing is to cover up for your shortcomings and mistakes in the actual handling of the camera i.e. taking of the photograph itself. This may be true, but nevertheless you do have to cover up your glaring mistakes. And post processing will give the photo a meaning that the camera and photography skills will not produce, and you need to manipulate your photos for it to become the piece of art that you desire it to be, and for it to convey the message you want it to convey. That's often a key purpose of photographs, isn't it?

Therefore, post processing is yet another world of art, one that I now subscribe to.