I shoot JPEG and I refuse to post process my images - Can I still be successful?

[flightless_beaker]

Yes, you have a lot to learn.

lol. Especially since the username is Student. .

Anyway Student, you're view on capturing everything you need the first time is valid. But that's what we as photographers do to begin with. We get that moment. angle, lighting conditions, blah blah blah. Then there is post processing to fully finish up the photographers vision because cameras do not capture anything perfectly. I have the 7D. Spent a lot on it but if it fully captured what I wanted, then I would be a picture taker and not a photographer. The additional art and skills come in PP like in photoshop where you can tweak the photo into your final vision.

And in my opinion, no. I don't believe you can be successful in the real world without the skillset of editing. Editing is what makes your photos pop and jump out to the viewer. I can only remember one occasion where I was actually satisfied with the original shot that I took without editing. Otherwise I tweak photos to fullfill what I'm looking for in what I captured.

 

[Overread]

Remember all film photography was edited/processed as well from the negative to the final print. White balance, exposure, dodging and burning are more were all done to film negatives and prints to get to the final output.

Of course this can be done at home manualy in the darkroom or you could send prints off to a commercail lab where some technician made all the choices on how to process the shot for the ideal output


Photography -its a two part process of capture and process - you cut one stage out or try to underperform in it and the end product will suffer as a result.

 

[Stephen.C]

Jpegs are edited inside the camera...compare a raw file to a jpeg file. Raw file IS unedited, straight outta compton...err camera. SOOC. So IMO id rather have the chance to edit my file than software that does it auto.
I see what you're saying, it feels like cheating...I kind of felt that at first, UNTIL I saw how more powerful your images can become.
Art is what YOU make of it. Editing photos gives YOU The ability to create the "Perfect" image that you wanted when you shot it.

 

[ann]

It took me a long time to come to gripes with pp. I use only manual modes, try to "get it right" in camera, and all that other jazz. However, I have also been doing darkroom work for over 60 years and came to realize that i can and may want to have the same control over my digital images as my film images. That means pp.

There are limits, i.e. I would never 'skinnie" some one down, but anything I can do in the darkroom is fair game for a digital file, after all where do you think most of these techniques come from? Not graphic designers. Yes, editing has gone much further, but one has to deside what guide lines they wish to use when defining their work.

WHen i take a photo and go beyond what I feel is the "norm" for a photograph i describe it as digital art. THat is my guide line, others may differ , which is fine. We all need to set our own boundaries. However, your handle indicates you have much to learn and a long journey ahead, don't be so quick to speak so louding that it gets in the way of the progression of your journey.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Student, if you are trying to say that you are altruistic and into a pure shot that was taken as good as it could be taken technically then I think you are on the right track. However, there is always more work available to enhance a photo to take it to a higher level of achievement.

Now if you think your compositions are so exceptional that your folio is one that is of a stunning nature, then I'd love to see your unedited work since I might be able to learn from you as I have from so many others here who may be edit fiends despite a poor composition folio.

Thanks!

 

[Canon AE-1]

I think i understand where Student is coming from, i feel similar about it. Sounds like he is applying 35mmSLR shooting configurations to Digital media. Adjust your AV, TV, focus, ISO and compose to get the photo you want. But with digital there will always be processing be it raw or jpg. The image formed on the CMOS element goes through processing from the circuits and firmware to the memory any way you look at it. PP from the camera or from a computer makes no difference, it's all PP.
Perhaps the best that could be hoped for is setting the camera up yourself, WB, RBG, color, etc and take some test shots of something static and see if you can get the photo to match the colors, hues, WB that you see in real life. When your happy with that then be creative with your shots, if they are perfect or screwed up, then that will be on you. I just got my "high end" digital and it has 1000 functions and settings i have to learn. Once i get the setting to my liking then getting "the" shot is up to me.
Just my 1 cent.

Oh, btw, i dont think i will be using pp after the camera, it makes me feel like i could have bought a 100.00 walmart 10mp camera
and edit the photo to make it look like it came from a 3000.00 camera from National Geographic. I would think, then what is this
high end camera for if i could do that instead. I have no want to be a Pro, just an amateur run of the mill photographer for fun.

 

[MichiganFarts]

Oh, btw, i dont think i will be using pp after the camera, it makes me feel like i could have bought a 100.00 walmart 10mp camera
and edit the photo to make it look like it came from a 3000.00 camera from National Geographic. I would think, then what is this
high end camera for if i could do that instead. I have no want to be a Pro, just an amateur run of the mill photographer for fun.

It makes me think you probably could have just bought a $100 from Walmart.

$100 for camera...$1000 for PS, if you're looking for spending to be a determining factor on your photography...you coulda saved yourself some money becoming a run of the mill photographer. :lmao:

 

[Canon AE-1]

Very funny Farts, lol. 1000.00 for PS? not in my lifetime. I have PS, AI, AP, and some others. I did not know those programs cost anything. lol.
I'm only worried about cost right now cause I'm on unemployment.
But when i go back to work, I'll grab me one of those pro 21mp cameras for a few large.

 

[MichiganFarts]

Very funny Farts, lol. 1000.00 for PS? not in my lifetime. I have PS, AI, AP, and some others. I did not know those programs cost anything. lol.
I'm only worried about cost right now cause I'm on unemployment.
But when i go back to work, I'll grab me one of those pro 21mp cameras for a few large.

I'm quite uncertain their actual cost too, but I know it's up there. I've gotten PS for free through my work the last 7 years, so I never had to figure out the cost. Which reminds me I have to upgrade to CS5 at some time!

 

[ann]

Even with all the years I have been a serious photographer I can't remember more than maybe one photo that didn't have to be touched when printing in the darkroom.
No matter how correct the exposure, and compostion, a negative, or file isn't perfect. If your doing studio work and control every inch of light , little needs to be done, but most of us aren't doing that kind of work.

There is nothing wrong with getting as much right in camera as possible, I encourage my students to work in that manner and i work in that manner but that does not mean that even the "computer chip" knows everything and applies it's formula exactly the way the photographer saw the image.

It drives me crazy to hear people say, oh, well, i can fix it later. That is much different than being a craftsman.

And by the way, just how do you purpose in handling black and white? For outstanding grayscale imaging, postprocessing is an important element.

 

[Canon AE-1]

Very funny Farts, lol. 1000.00 for PS? not in my lifetime. I have PS, AI, AP, and some others. I did not know those programs cost anything. lol.
I'm only worried about cost right now cause I'm on unemployment.
But when i go back to work, I'll grab me one of those pro 21mp cameras for a few large.

I'm quite uncertain their actual cost too, but I know it's up there. I've gotten PS for free through my work the last 7 years, so I never had to figure out the cost. Which reminds me I have to upgrade to CS5 at some time!

Well Farts, all i can say is, there is a Lot of "free" software out there. A good computer tech never pays for software......so i've heard. lol.

 

[skieur]

News flash... JPEG's are processed.

It doesn't feel as dirty, it is more natural, more artistic!

Actually it is NOT more natural or more artistic at all. Your blatantly INCORRECT assumption is that digital reproduces the scene the way you see it with your eye. You are dead WRONG.

Keep it simple. Look at any scene with shadows in it. Your eyes see more detail and colour in the shadow areas than any unprocessed digital photo.
Your eyes see distances between objects that the focal length of your camera lens distorts. It may make them seem closer or farther away. Wide angle camera lenses distort perspective even when the photo is unprocessed. The bottom line is that your camera isolates a very small portion of what you see with your eyes and puts an importance on the elements in your photo rather than all the elements in your scene.

That seems EXTREMELY UNNATURAL to me, and that is without any editing or postprocessing.

skieur

 

[Dominantly]

oh shut up

but but but

Oh, not you.. I should have clarified that was for the OP.

 

[kezsaj]

So if you and your wife decided on having a baby, you wouldn't work on it, and the baby might look like me

 

[MattxMosh]