Post-Processing

[Pure]

I looked around, and couldn't find any recent topics on this.

Only in the past few years have I become a digital shooter. First my D40 and now a D90.

But my question is:

Should a photographer apply post processing to an image?
This EXCLUDES CROPPING and RESIZING.

I personally believe that photography is a moment in time and should be treated as such. It should be left as it is captured and not changed. However, many people disagree with me and they apply saturation changes, smooth, and change the photography from what it truly was. This applies to consumer, hobby, and professional photography.


Post-processing, yes or no?

 

[PatrickHMS]

yes, and no (sorry, often depends)

 

[abraxas]

ignore list-on.

 

[PatrickHMS]

on me? What did I do?

I sure can't put you on my ignore list, you have some of the coolest pics ON TPF....

 

[rufus5150]

I do no post processing to my images at all. In fact, I'm such a purist, my web gallery is just an extensive display of 1's and 0's. RAW is OVER-PROCESSED!

 

[abraxas]

on me? What did I do?

I sure can't put you on my ignore list, you have some of the coolest pics ON TPF....

I wouldn't do that. Threads like this though are just such a waste of time.

 

[PatrickHMS]

I know, that's why I didn't waste much time with an answer...lol

 

[prodigy2k7]

Well the problem is, the camera doesn't often capture the place in time as it really is, so you adjust it in photoshop to how it should be...for ex: a lot of DSLRs underexpose, so it isnt to accidently over expose... under is better than over

 

[benhasajeep]

I am a tweaker. So, I guess I have to say I do. But its just simple quick adjustments. If a picture needs medium to major work or repair, I just go to the next.

But, I also did similar with film as well. I would shoot probably 75% slide film. I didn't buy the same film over and over. I bought film for its specific characteristics. For example I felt Fuji Velvia 50 had a high blue saturation. So I used it for water shots. I liked Kodak E100VS for reds and greens. Also I used exposure compensation when using the film. I knew which film needed just that little extra to bring out some pop. So, you could say I was pre-processing the film. With digital you post process.

 

[ThePup]

Well the problem is, the camera doesn't often capture the place in time as it really is, so you adjust it in photoshop to how it should be...for ex: a lot of DSLRs underexpose, so it isnt to accidently over expose... under is better than over

Yeah, What he said!

In part because I'm a very average sort of photographer (OK, Mostly because I'm a very average photographer), the camera doesn't capture what I'm seeing. I See no harm in using photoshop or similar to process the photo so it matches what I saw. Heck, post processing isn't something that's new with digital, film users used to (and still do) do it all the time as well AFAIK to get the best from their photos.

 

[Arch]

Threads like this though are just such a waste of time.

Im affraid this is the best viewpoint to have on this topic.


It makes no difference what anyone says and for what reasons... threads like this end up being flame wars and no one really knows what they are arguing about.

Its simple to work out... some photographers like to keep it as much in camera as possible, then get them printed. Other photographers like to take the image into the digital (or traditional) darkroom and process the image, then get them printed.

Neither way is right, wrong, stupid, clever, necessary, unnecessary, good, bad, or otherwise.

Fin.

 

[ksmattfish]

I keep my unprocessed raw files in my "purist" bin along with my unprocessed film. Those opaque strips and sheets of plastic are so much cooler than processed photographs.

There is no such thing as an unprocessed photograph; only uneducated photographers.

 

[Steph]

Don't worry about what other people do. Apply as little or as much post-processing to get the results that YOU like.

 

[Chiller]

Do what you want. It is your picture, your vision, your rules.

 

[bhop]

If you were printing in a traditional darkroom, would you dodge and burn? Would you crop your images? Would you adjust print times to increase/decrease contrast? Of course you would. (if not, you must be pretty awesome)

Why would you treat a digital image any differently? Sometimes a digital camera doesn't capture what you see, the settings might be off. You might've forgotten to set your white balance or ISO to what you wanted... you might have to adjust tones to make it what was close to reality. There goes your 'left as captured' theory.