Post-Processing Dilemma

[EleanorW]

Whoa Ocular.. easy on the 90's comments eh? I was trained on Photoshop in the 90's... I don't think I'm that old.. yet anyways lol

 

[SrBiscuit]

lol...i kinda felt that too when i read his comment...

WOAH...all the way back in the 90s people were photoshopping!

ocular, you have made young people feel old

lol

 

[Jaszek]

as somebody on here said. "photoshop is a tool, not an excuse".

 

[JenLavazza]

I pretty much ALWAYS pp. I just like the look it gives me. Could I achieve that look right out of my camera?? Maybe. Do I know how? No! lol I do shoot in manual mode and read alot, but I've only been taking photos for 6 months.....I've got alot to learn still! Most photos that are not pp look flat to me. Then again could be the photographer! Photography is an art, so like other arts it's personal preference.

 

[musicaleCA]

as somebody on here said. "photoshop is a tool, not an excuse".

Think that might've been me. :lmao:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I need to know whether or not I'm a complete idiot for thinking this way, or if my way of thinking is legit to a point...

I seem to have this distaste for making major changes to a photo after the photo's been taken, aside from a few minor adjustments (cropping, resizing, and brightness, pretty much).

I believe I feel this way because I think it just takes away from the original quality of the image, whether it be good or bad. If it's bad, I'd much rather look at WHY it was bad and do what I can to make it better using the camera rather than, say, photoshop.

Now, my question to you all is... should this be something I really need to get over? Or is this something that may be a "Some other people think the same way, it's just preference"?

I come from the film world and in that world we learned to get the photo we wanted in camera. As you probably know, there were two types of film: negative and positive. Most color commercial jobs were shot in positive so that once the film was processed, that was the image. Now, an editor could still make changes to it at the printing time but, as the photographer, you had done your job by delivering a perfect image.

With negative, the interpretation of the colors etc was left, to a certain degree, to the person making the print. If you make your own prints, no problem, which is why most B&W photography was shot with negative film. Most of us did our own B&W darkroom work.

But the darkroom was where you worked on making the best print possible. Just like with PP in a way.

So, why not PP? At the same time, if you learn to get the image you want in camera, the least amount of PP you'll have to do. This, of course, is for straight photos.

If you are trying to do weird stuff, you'll do a lot more PP. And that existed in the film world too. You were doing it in the darkroom instead of on a computer but, same difference.

 

[ocular]

Whoa Ocular.. easy on the 90's comments eh? I was trained on Photoshop in the 90's... I don't think I'm that old.. yet anyways lol

lol...i kinda felt that too when i read his comment...

WOAH...all the way back in the 90s people were photoshopping!

ocular, you have made young people feel old

lol

Awww sorry