The post processing dilemma .

"More and more on front page images it seems to be coming down to how well the post processing is rather than the subject or the concept or lighting."

Not that I've seen. It depends what one calls post processing.
My last FPI was converted to toned B&W, had a curve adjustment applied, a wonky vertical fixed and the image was cropped Then I decided to flip right to left. 
The one before was  converted to toned B&W, had a curve adjustment applied, the darkest shadow areas dodged, and the uncropped image posted. 
The one before that was colour and did have some skin work - whether it was Huw called high end I don't know and levels adjusted. 

TBH, there's a habit among photographers of saying "I do not like the success of pictures which use X which I do not use myself". Pictures can be technically good or bad. They can be interesting or boring. There are techniques which once you've seen them half a dozen times are just boring (spot colour anyone?), and techniques where the person using them doesn't know how strongly they should be applied and where (in the case of spot colour that's "Nowhere" :-)  )   

"I’ve seen really good shots conceptually that have not made the cut that ... could have come straight out of camera"

Somewhere there is a line between "The photographer didn't finish the job." and "The post processing went too far". Are some pictures getting picked despite what some people think is an ill judged processing step or two. Of course. There's a cliche ego-mark generator and that's as bad as spot colour or HDR, and any picture with one IMHO should be disqualified. Fortunately that's a minority few and I'm not an elf and don't to vote them down :-) Do other people have things which set their teeth on edge in the same way? You can bet on it. 

Unfocussed Mike said

I don't use the FPI widget.

FPIs have a prevailing aesthetic*, just like coffee shops do. I know I will be told they don't by the people who vote for them, ...

Well apart from wondering about someone who avoids them being qualified to say... OF COURSE THEY DO. They were created by the site owner to be the a shop window for the site, and the people who are appointed to choose them are basically appointed on their propensity to select images which match what FPIs have always been. One can say they've been good, or been bad but the selection of selectors is designed to keep the standard in the same place. 

What I can say having studied FPIs a bit is the serial winners aren't generally the people who process everything to death.   

As for dilemma in the title, well yes, either you think FPIs are promotion of an aesthetic you don't like and want nothing to with them, or you covet them and work a little in the direction of that aesthetic. I don't think you need to sell your soul, but if you're doing a beauty shot and the model has a few spots, producing a picture without them is just makeup done digitally. 

Edited by CalmNudes

^ What he said!

@unfocussedmike that was my proactive reply rather than my 'I'm tired of this old chestnut' reply in all fairness. My brainn did immediately go to 'just don't look if you don't like it' but I thought I'd try another approach first.

There's plenty of styles I don't care for on pp, including some that regularly show up on the front page. Would I make a post about those images that other people had worked hard on and poop on their parade about getting an FPI? Nah, I'd just crack on and keep doing what I enjoy :)

Editing is hard work! I admire it!

Personally (as a photographer) I don't consider my images as finished until they have been through post process. This could be a tiny change in tones on Lightroom, or a full skin retouch in Photoshop - it depends totally on the shoot!

The JOY of this artform is it's up to us to decide how we create our images.

I certainly wouldn't consider retouching and AI anywhere near close, because retouching takes a lot of work, time, knowledge.

Edited by Holly Alexander

I have a few PFIs.

I very much doubt there’s one of them that has had more than five minutes Photoshop.

I do put a fair amount of effort into setting up the camera to get as close as possible to the end result SOOC (straight out of camera). BW, yellow filter, adjust contrast range, etc.

I'd say that most of my FPIs have had a fair bit of time spent on them in post processing, mostly D&B. If I was shooting for FPIs (which I have done at models' requests in the past) I'd definitely hammer colour harmonies and D&B, but not to the extent that it looks too obvious (IMO).

I'd also say that most of my FPIs have arisen from TF shoots. If I'm shooting for myself only, I rarely do any post processing at all.

FiL said

I'd say that most of my FPIs have had a fair bit of time spent on them in post processing, mostly D&B. If I was shooting for FPIs (which I have done at models' requests in the past) I'd definitely hammer colour harmonies and D&B, but not to the extent that it looks too obvious (IMO).

I'd also say that most of my FPIs have arisen from TF shoots. If I'm shooting for myself only, I rarely do any post processing at all.

So, to summarise, one can get FPIs with or without lots of post-processing.

Whatever works best for you and for the photo.

Maybe pointing the camera at something interesting is more important ;)

Not really a dilemma is it. You can shoot for yourself or you can shoot to be popular/get likes/FPI’s.

It’s a choice for most people. It’s nice when someone else likes the images but it’s more about popularity (according to the stat thread from a few months ago)

FPI = quality image

Quality image = great post processing

The two are not mutually exclusive

Huw in my estimation FPIs are slewed heavily in favour of post processing with little evidence that pointing a camera at an interesting subject has any appreciable impact on whether an FPI is awarded.

I'm not knocking it, just stating what I see. I think FPIs serve a useful purpose for the site and trying to achieve them is a worthwhile exercise for those who seek to advance their model photography.

The fpis are chosen by people who have been selected by pp people.

Some time ago pp put out a request asking for people to select fpis.  Provided you pass the pp criteria of what is considered to be an fpi you may be asked select fpis.  My idea of what should be an fpi is not what pp think is an fpi.  It is down to a number of factors which get an fpi. 

Shoot what you like not to get a fpi.

Many great artists only get credit when they snuff it.

Stibnite said

Not really a dilemma is it. You can shoot for yourself or you can shoot to be popular/get likes/FPI’s.

It’s a choice for most people. It’s nice when someone else likes the images but it’s more about popularity (according to the stat thread from a few months ago)

I shhot for myself. Sometimes they are popular, sometimes I get an FPI, this is nice but not why I am here. I would regard the models I shoot as interesting subjects.

None of the FPIs I have will have had a lot of Photoshoppery.

If other people want to do a lot of Photoshop that is up to them. As is what the site choose to promote itself.

happysnaps said

Many great artists only get credit when they snuff it.

  

That might be taking things a little too far?  :-)

I'm still struggling with "editing your work is as bad as using AI to generate images".

Some people take some great pictures using just their camera. Some OOC images are wonderful. But to suggest that editing isn't an integral part of the photography process these days is just entirely bewildering.

A lot of photographers strive for a consistency between their images. Not necessarily to try to create uniformity, as that would make each image boring. But, in a world where we're judged on the strength of our portfolios, what rationale do you suppose photographers could defer to to mentally justify not putting as much time/effort into editing one shoot than another? Surely if Shoot Y gets half the work done to it than Shoot X, it could easily create a visual disparity between the quality of images and thus consequently infer that the capability of the photographer is inconsistent?

Personally, I think there is presently a huge range of style of images being represented in the FPI selection. Some I like, some I don't. Some are edited to a much higher degree than others. Some aren't edited enough or well enough for my taste, but then as photography is subjective I'm not compelled to like all of them.

I think it's the inherent variety in images that gets posted to PP (and also selected for FPI) that makes this website so compelling. If every shot that got uploaded was an absolute banger then newer photographers just wouldn't ever develop an interest as the benchmark would be too high. Same for FPIs - I like that some FPIs aren't as strong as others as it invites challenge, participation and interest. But again, 'strong' is subjective and other people have different metrics for how to enjoy an image than I do. Within the elves themselves there are a whole range of tastes and preferences that affect what images are chosen.

It is my understanding that anyone can apply to be an elf, so what's the point of complaining about a problem when there's an invitation to be part of what you think is the solution?

Disagree with the thoughts written by OP.

Edited by Wondrous