Post Production ~ Debate it Here

[Mbnmac]

I shoot in the RAW, so I PP on everything.

:thumbup:

 

[Dao]

Basically it is a process. Someone like companies such as Canon, Nikon, Sony etc to do that for them, other like to process the photo themselves. If you see a digital photo, it is processed either by a software based on what you like or based on what camera manufacturer engineers prefer.

 

[Buckster]

Edit: If this has been debated before and is a redundant thread feel free to flog me.

Consider yourself flogged. A lot. No,... More.

 

[RjL]

and so the flogging continues.

RjL

 

[enzodm]

I agree with you mwc. I think that the pro photographers (or those who think they are pro) are just being snobby when they say the photographs should be untouched to be "correct".

I do not think this is a pro position.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I agree with you mwc. I think that the pro photographers (or those who think they are pro) are just being snobby when they say the photographs should be untouched to be "correct".

Well, I'm a pro and I agree with you. Who cares if it is untouched?

But there is a very good reason to learn to get as close to correct in camera. For a pro, time is money so that the less PP the better. Except of course if it is going to take more time to create something in camera than through PP so long as there is no loss of quality due to the PP.

Once again, there are no hard and fast rules. To each his/her own.

 

[skieur]

there are photos that doesnt need editing and there are photos needs PP to make it more dynamic.

basically that's it.

Usually photos that don't need editing are photos that are not worth editing.

skieur