Am I the only one that refuses?

[Boomn4x4]

Am I not the only one here who refuses to post process images? It seems like everything that everyone posts is post process... most of which certainly do improve the quality of the images and make them more appealing to comercial customers... but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.

Certainly no disrespect to the post processors out ther, and I certainly see the value of it.... but I just can't bring myself to do it. As a hobbiest that dosen't have a care in the world if anyone would ever want to buy a photo or not... I just feel like I'm cheating myself and my photography if I post process an image.

Someone else must share my sentiment?

 

[pmsnel]

Well I not so much refuse, than not be able to. I don't have any PP programs other than the Canon software. But I don't use that much either.
I actually refuse to do Raw images. I really don't like the hassle of always having to do something to my images.
I have job at a local newspaper. The pictures I take for them have to be quick and easy. Their computers don't have ANY image software either so you get what you shoot.

I always try to improve my white balance and exposure on the spot. My dad has become lazy and just shoots and edits. I DON'T WANT TO BECOME LIKE HIM!

 

[tirediron]

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Almost never is an image right out of the camera as good as it can be. Granted, there is a point where post-processing does overtake the original photography, but I think in almost all cases some is needed, even if it's only a level and crop or minor curves adjustment. I don't know if your photographic history goes back to film and wet darkrooms, but if it does, you will remember dodging and burning, cropping, and tweaking exposure. You don't have to get carried away, but in almost all cases a little bit helps a lot.

 

[pmsnel]

I actually have a terrible tilt when I'm taking pictures, so yes I often have to straighten my horizon. But really hate doing it and thus I am paying close attention to my horizon when I shoot.

I have to agree that pictures seldom are perfect, but I find it a challenge to try and do so first time around.(so improving my skills with the camera and not the computer!)

 

[Boomn4x4]

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Almost never is an image right out of the camera as good as it can be.

I certainly don't disagree... but that dosen't change my view that I want to be happy with my photography, not my processing. If it is going to make it to print, then I'll do some tweaking... but that is it.

I guess this whole post comes from my frustration in seeing some of the images that are posted for crituque.... When I critiqute, I do so because I am trying to look at an image and see what that person did wrong with the camera. Doing so has greatly improved my own ability to see what I do wrong in MY camera. Then I see these absoltuly georgous photographs and it leaves an empty feeling inside knowing that I've never, nor do I think I'll ever be able to capture the colors, highlights, shadows and overall 'feel' of the image. Only to come to the realization, that the person who posted it got all of that post processing. Now, that photo really has no value to me as a photographer.... it certainly raises some question as to how I could also acheive similar looks PP, but as a beginner photographer, it does nothing to teach me about proper exposure, proper flash usage, and proper compesation values.

 

[AlexL]

I would at least do some cropping and noise reduction (if any) before posting.

 

[pmsnel]

I would at least do some cropping and noise reduction (if any) before posting.

There is the difference. I always try to search for a good composition while taking the picture to prevent any cropping. I shoot the object with several compositions so I can find the best.

 

[Village Idiot]

Am I not the only one here who refuses to post process images? It seems like everything that everyone posts is post process... most of which certainly do improve the quality of the images and make them more appealing to comercial customers... but I don't see post processing as "photography"... that is graphic design.

Certainly no disrespect to the post processors out ther, and I certainly see the value of it.... but I just can't bring myself to do it. As a hobbiest that dosen't have a care in the world if anyone would ever want to buy a photo or not... I just feel like I'm cheating myself and my photography if I post process an image.

Someone else must share my sentiment?

Well, I guess it's ok since this is the first time I've seen this topic this month. Usually we're on thread number 5 this late in the month.

You don't know the first thing about film do you? Those actions in PhotoShop such as dodging and burning are techniques taken from the dark room.

It's like shooting a negative, taking it to walmart, and having them run it through the machine without touching it. Not doing any processing to your images that is. And if you're shooting JPG files, processing is being done in the camera, so you are having PP work done to your photo. And if you're shooting RAW and not touching your photos afterwards, you're just being stupid. Even some of the camera manufactures websites state that RAW images should be sharpened by so much, iirc.

I mean, a RAW file is a digital negative. If I had a darkroom and shot film, I'd still be doing processing and I'd still have creative lighting that helped me get the best image possible.

And the other point here is that certain clients request a certain style to their images. I'm not going to be a dumbass and flatly refuse a paying client because I don't want to do any processing afterwards.

Not to mention, there are certain shooting and processing techniques that can help you pull more dynamic range out of a scene, like shooting to the right.

Without doing any processing at all, photos like this would be nearly impossible. Granted, I need to go back and touch up, but this was done in less than 1/2 an hour.


My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?

 

[Big Mike]

Photos have almost always required some form of post processing.

Film must be developed and there are any number of options for doing so. So what was done (or not done) was the post processing and certainly affects the image. A few decades ago, many photographers spent their time in the darkroom 'post processing' their images to get the most out of them.

I think that color negative film has altered many people's view on processing. All they did was drop the film off at the lab and pick up the prints later. What they don't realize, is that their photos were often tweaked in the process. Fixing minor exposure problems, adding saturation & contrast etc.

Now in the digital era, those tweaks are built into many cameras. Heck, any digital camera that outputs JPEG files, does some sort of post processing on the photos. Many P&S digi-cams do the same things the labs did, adding saturation & contrast etc.
On most cameras, you can control many of these settings, but it's usually just a few options, and only a few notches on a scale, that you have to choose from.

So when people talk about 'getting it right, in-camera'...they are relying on the camera to do their processing, and that's fine, if they are OK with that. But many of us know that we can do a better job ourselves, or at least, we know what we want, beyond what a few settings on the camera can do.

There are many things that should be taken care of, with or before the exposure. Things like lighting, composition, posing, exposure etc. Those are the things that I think should be done 'in-camera' so to speak...and those are mostly the type of things that can't be 'fixed in post'.

 

[Arch]

Much as Village says, Post Processing is as much a part of photography as its always been, whether using a darkroom or a digital darkroom. I doubt you will find many that agree with your first statement to be honest.

It can certainly not be described as graphic design... as a graphic designer i find that part very odd indeed. Thats not to say that after so much heavy processesing the image could be regarded as graphic design, but for your average photo editor, it is just part of photography.

 

[Glycerol Sound]

There are certain things that A) I cant do in camera and B) Nobody can do in camera. For A, I go back and correct it, then learn to do it in camera, for B, obviously I have to do this in Post. Keep in mind that a lot of things we can do in Photoshop could be done in darkrooms as well. Cross processing, adjusting contrast, cropping, etc.

 

[benlonghair]

Personally, I think this is just silly.

You may have heard of a gentleman named Ansel Adams that would also find the OP amusing.

 

[DerekSalem]

OP...I'm not trying to be rude in this...but you're 16. You don't understand how photography as a whole really works.

Not to say you shouldn't try to make your photography straight from the camera as great as possible...but PP is still part of the process. You don't necessarily have to do it if you don't want to, but it can definitely make your photographs better for a variety of reasons.

 

[KmH]

I want to be happy with my photography, not my processing.

Photography IS processing.

The camera does not record what your eye see's. It processes the scene you framed and shot.

 

[subscuck]

As an example, a few years before I bought my first DSLR, I was on vacation and wanted a roll of 35mm developed before I got home. I took it to a local 1 hour developer and was asked if I wanted "just the basic" developing. I failed to ask what "basic" meant, so I said, "sure, that'll be fine". The prints I got back had pure white highlights, black as black can be shadows, zero contrast, etc. If I had known basic meant no PPing, I would have kicked in the extra couple bucks to have it done right. People never saw their print film being developed, so they assumed there was no PPing.

I scoff at people who tell me they "get it right in the camera". With a dynamic range less than print film, and print film having less dynamic range than transparency film, I'm not sure how this is possible. When I've "got it right in the camera", it means minimal tweaks on color, WB, contrast, maybe a little straightening and cropping and some sharpening. I shoot RAW because I prefer to have total control over the process. In short, I'm not doing anything in PS that color labs don't do with film. The better your gear, the smaller the tweaks, but at the very least, a little sharpening is always called for, especially with RAW, since there is no sharpening applied in cam.

As far as newspapers go, newsprint sucks so much color and detail out of pics, there really is no point in PPing. Magazines are a different story.