I've had a long correspondence with one particular reader over the years, and she often makes comments that trigger something I feel I need to write about. Today's topic: "Have we all fallen into pick and choose post processing artists?"
Lightroom has presets. Nik Silver Efex Pro and several of their other plug-ins have presets. Photomatix has presets. Topaz's plug-ins have presets. Everybody has presets. All these presets seem to be presented these days as small thumbnails so that you can visually select them. So, all the post processors out there are encouraged to turn into pick and choosers.
More often than not these presets are ugly as sin. Many don't work for any image I've taken, so I have to wonder what images that they do work for. But the notion is simple: just browse through all the visual choices and pick the "right one" (I hope your monitor is calibrated ;~). And now you're done with post processing.
What would Ansel do? Well, he'd think about the image he would be trying to produce and the necessary small changes he'd need to make to the data. Not overall data, as the presets encourage users to do, but small slices of data, like what's happening in Zone 9 over here in the right corner of the image.
A few minutes after I got the email from my long-time correspondent, I got one from a first-time writer: gee, do I always spend so much time post processing as the caption on the Cracked image, above, seems to indicate? That seemed like the wrong approach to them. (For the record, I believe I spent less than five minutes on that image, from start to finish.)
Well, I was actually thinking about how I would post process the image when I took it. Indeed, that changed how I set the camera a bit, as I knew I'd be shifting the data considerably later. In particular, I was worried about the dark areas in the crack and whether they'd have any detail in them. Exposed normally, they would not. Exposed with consideration of what I would do with the image later, they would. Whether I showed that detail or not was a decision I'd make on individual areas within the crack. No presets or pick and choose here. Six layers and some careful independent adjustments.
Now, if I were photographing a basketball game for the local newspaper and on a tight deadline (e.g. tonight's game for tomorrow's morning paper), none of the above would be relevant. I'd be setting the camera the best I could for the situation and submitting the results without post processing. Those pictures would be okay, but they certainly wouldn't represent the best I could do. The only picking and choosing I'd be doing is in the Picture Control settings (which, thankfully, don't force me to pick them via small picture samples).
And that brings me back to yesterday's discussion: good enough versus best tool. All those presets tend to distract people into choosing good enough. All those that try to avoid post processing at all are highly into good enough. Neither group will get everything out of their camera that's possible, in my opinion. Which makes you have to challenge what level of camera they really need (the good enough bar).
Find your bar or go for the best tool. It's your choice. I'm a best tool user, myself. Pick and choose doesn't work for me.