The art of - reduction?

essence

To me there is not a single one that I like best. All means to produce photographs are equally important to me. But certainly not all are applied to every photo, an individual mix of photographing techniques and post processing steps is applied to each photo in its appropriate way. The broader the knowledge and skill the better an individual and appropriate mix is found and applied to a certain photograph.

It is important to master the tools both in terms of handling and in terms of knowledge. The better the tools are mastered the more a photographer can concentrate on subjects and will take the right actions instinctively to achieve his goal.

Reduction as you state it in your post is an interesting element and belongs in the toolbox together with all the other tools and techniques.

indeed Ulrich, I joint totaly your point of view, but mastering everything or a lot of tools seem hasardeous, and that's why (I think) our friend here is focussing on one tool (and his variety)

Dany, you really nailed it!

Emotion

--
Seen in robertoballerini home page (?)

Simplicity, remove everything that doesn't need to be there.

= framing

Rob : clap clap clap

:-) And a happy weekend to you Mr Bigoode.

i'd go for "the extra". that what makes it different from the other photos. tools can be used to make it come out better.

I think it depends on your own particular point of view - for me it would be story. I don't mind blurry, clutter, poor composition, as long at it communicates a story. Which is why i favour photojournalism or the photo essay as my particular favourite photographic genre. It is also why I steer clear of it as I'm no good at it.

Sometimes it is reduction, but quit often you need a little "point/mistake/eyecatcher" on your photos to make them work.. something that disturbs the picture so the viewer will look twice..

I like Hendrike's point. The "point/mistake/eyecatcher" element is an essential ingredient in any good photo. Cartier-Bresson being a prime example.

A photographer friend of mide said do me: cropping? The profession of a photographer is to have the right frame, so you do not need to crop! But I think, what ever you postprocess on your image: it helps to learn to shoot this the next time directly! Then, there are postprocessing steps you can not avoid, e.g. white balancing. So if I have to choose one postprocessing step it will be for me white balancing and changing a little bit the gradation curve...

I pondered a while about the "no crop" directive, and I regard it as nonsense (no offense intended!). The sensor format of the camera is by no means suitable for most of my motives, it is a fixed format while each motive is different.

Fixing white balance and adjusting curves are pure basics, I do it on each and every picture to further separate the good from the bad and to have a neutral basis for further processing. But why on earth should I limit postprocessing the basic steps you mention? The camera sensor is just a physical device, while the way humans see is: human. Postprocessing for me is a means to overcome the limitations of the machine and to show what I see as opposed to what a stupid camera "sees".

You should nothing and especially don´t limit your fun with postprocessing. But you asked what others prefer if they have to choose a option among thousands. So this was my choice. Again about cropping: If I am really content with myself, I do not have to crop a single line of pixels of a image. However, I am in fact always not content and crop here and align there. I am completely overwhelmed what I can do with my pictures in digital times, you know? I was used to take my analog pictures for decades and now: This is a complete new world with your lab@home. But I am still in the idea that the best images are a one-shot, the shot, where you knew: Postprocessing is now something on top. If not: Still a great capture!

Sorry that I misunderstood your answer ! Yes, the possibilities of digital postprocessing are overwhelming and I think it's a good habit to try ones best when making a picture with the camera in the first place. And, according to my experience, no postprocessing will ever turn a bad picture into a good one. On the other hand I find that post processing can overcome the limits of the camera as well as the special situation of an amateur photographer who can only capture what he finds (versus the pro using sophisticated lightning equipment).