[shuttertalk]

Just wondering what you think of the statement above, how it applies to your workflow, and whether you would let others see your work unless you post process it?

[EnglishBob]

I have all the settings in the camera set to zero, so without post processing the pictures are very flat. They look pretty bland without some levels, curves, saturation and maybe very light sharpening.

So True.

My Wifes Olympus on the other hand produces beautifully saturated pictures and require very little "messing with"

[Toad]

No single answer to this one. Depends what you are trying to achieve with your photography. If your goal is to capture a scene as *life like* as possible, you probably don't need to post-process. If your goals go beyond that, then the sky is the limit.

I prost-process ALL of my shots before they are shown. Maybe I am just not that good a phtotographer, though...

[Irma]

To me in the way I like to have and show my pictures is a necessity.
I like to show my pictures when they are already post processed, specially because I have problems with the horizon....

[matthew]

All images are processed, either by a person with a computer or by a computer in the camera. Sometimes both.

I post-process 99% of my images before anyone else sees them, simply because they aren't finished. It would be similar to handing someone a canister of film.

I'm not adverse to showing images straight from the camera, shot as jpegs, to friends and family. I'd hardly bother trying to significantly improve images taken with my P&S -- it takes great snapshots and that's all I ask of it. If I happen to get that once-in-a-lifetime image with it, great: but it hasn't happened yet.

My workflow is designed around raw captures and Lightroom. LR is set up so that I can choose the appropriate settings to apply to all of the images when I import them. Since they were typically taken of similar subjects in similar light for a similar purpose, this works very effectively and quickly. Ironically, the presets that I use are designed to mimic the colours of my cameras' jpeg engine.

Once I have the photos imported with a suitable preset, the rest is very quick. I actually find it easier to export a new batch of images from Lightroom than it is to resize and resave images in Photoshop. Tonight I need about 20 shots of my dogs for class, and it's only a few mouseclicks to filter them in my library, rank them, crop-colour-exposure correct, and then export them as full-sized TIFF files, or 800x600 jpegs, or 650x400 jpegs... all done through presets.

I actually find jpeg files to be a real hassle.

[Banded Drake]

I feel the same way as Toad , i process all most all of my shots . They have more pop to them , but normally i try to do as little as possible so i can get my shooting " right " . Most of my favorite shots have little processing in them .
I think its a a true statement , if you shoot like me

.... Shawn

[Keith Alan]

I like Matthew's analogy about handing someone a roll of film.

More and more I don't need to rotate or crop or even sharpen, but a little bit of levels adjustments almost always brings the file closer to what I saw while shooting.

My camera doesn't have a contrast adjustment or saturation.
If it did, I might get away with "zero" processing more often, but I would still need to size and compress for the web, and if you're going to open Photoshop anyway you might as well use as many of it's tools as you need.

In the past, I would encounter "photographers" who were vehemently against photoshop, and it was determined later that they either didn't know how to use it, or that it wouldn't have helped them anyway--their stuff was that bad.

[Toad]

In the past, I would encounter "photographers" who were vehemently against photoshop...

Yes. I am always confused by that attitude. The same photographers feel that there is nothing wrong with working in a darkroom - and I don't frankly see the difference (other than if you are a Luddite who hates computers). Ansel Adam's shots certainly didn't spring out of the camera looking like that...

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Indeed it is, i always shoot raw so pp is crucial to "develop" my images. My cameras has everything set to 0. So my raw files comes out pretty bland and dull.
I never deliver/give unprocessed files to anyone


/Paul L.

[essaljay]

what matters to me is the final image. if it needs post processing then so be it. I did it before in my darkroom (burning, dodging etc) and can see no difference now that I use digital. Sometimes it can save a shot or at least make it more acceptable. I took the attached before and after PS image at my local parkland at the "big house". Unfortunately they were holding a wedding exhibition there and the place was crowded.

[NT73]

Is this classed as PP or image manipulation?

[Irma]

Good question NT...

I would say this is image manipulation, and everything that enhance color, contrast without adding or removing anything but just dust from the image is post processing... but I really don't know if that is right.

[NT73]

That maybe is my opinion too. I thought PP of a photograph was just to make it look as you saw it. If you go beyond and make it something that is not true then it could be construed as manipulation. Should you make a picture 'pop', or should it 'pop' before PP .

I suppose it depends what you want the photo for.

[essaljay]

I think the line is even thinner than that. If you take a photo on a "flat" cloudy day and make it pop then that is image manipulation. My point was that provided the picture was'nt taken to prove anything specific then it does'nt matter what you do to make it presentable.

[NT73]

Sometimes it appears to be one of those puzzles." Can you spot the 10 differences? "

I suppose in this day and age when morals have gone through the window, then 'anything goes' to achieve a result.

[Don Schaeffer]

90% of the time I agree. It's hard to imagine getting a good photo (even by my humble standards) without some post processing.

[wulinka]

In the best case it should not! that is what I am always aiming for, and getting it is just as rare.

Sometimes I am aware at the time I am shooting that I cannot get the picture I want on the spot and will have to process it because the light wasn't perfect or I could not get the perspective I wanted..... Other times it's just the subtle playing with the curves, hue+sat etc, which most people will not even notice when they see the picture.

[wulinka]

I'll have to get back to this, I am just thinking that maybe it's not quite accurate to call it post processing, as the process of taking the pictures starts with the choice of film / sensor you use, includes the use of filters (glass or digital), dark room procedures or digital processing and so on. using the word post processing always seems to imply (illigitimate) manipulation of an opus, but I think the work is done when and the process finished when the result is what you had in mind when you were on scene, or possibly even before that.
Ultimately, even framing (as in matting and putting a frame on your picture) is still part of this process, isn't it?

Consequently, the question maybe should not be is PP necessary, but rather something like Which process is adaquate for which sort of picture, or How to achieve this and that appearance of of pic....

uli

[kkart]

Well, for me it is a mandatory must as I only shoot in RAW with my dslr

[matthew]

I am just thinking that maybe it's not quite accurate to call it post processing, as the process of taking the pictures starts with the choice of film / sensor you use, includes the use of filters (glass or digital), dark room procedures or digital processing and so on.

I've been thinking along the same lines recently. I had to write out a price list for my Business class, where I decided to call it "Post-Capture Optimization." It's a little wordy, but I hope it avoids the stigma of dishonest manipulation. (Accuracy and the amount of modifications that can be done to an image is a bit of an issue.)

For my extended family, who are non-camera or P&S people, I just call it "developing". It's a carryover from film that makes sense, even if their cameras don't need it. It makes sense to them that my big SLR needs something different.

[Keith Alan]

I kinda like the "digital darkroom" tag.

[essaljay]

Can I just point out to NT73 that the image was required as background for a wedding portrait and I fail to see what "morals" have to do with it. Where does it say that photographers are guardians of the truth?

[smarti77]

Post processing / manipulation... I dont care what you call it. I dont know why anyone would refuse to try to further improve their images after they have been 'captured'.
Maybe I'm not experienced enough to achieve my goals with the camera only. Maybe I just like to have more artistic control with my images... Maybe I just want to stir the pot and see what happens!

[Polly]

Post processing / manipulation... I dont care what you call it. I dont know why anyone would refuse to try to further improve their images after they have been 'captured'.
Maybe I'm not experienced enough to achieve my goals with the camera only. Maybe I just like to have more artistic control with my images... Maybe I just want to stir the pot and see what happens!

Amen to all of that!

I absolutely love spending time in my 'digital darkroom' working with Photoshop. No smelly chemicals either - just me, my pictures and my tools ..... then eventually my end product (the print).

Wahey!

Polly

[NT73]

If the old pioneers of photography had/have taken the same liberties with their photo's, then who's past are we looking at? Ours or a photographers imagination.
Remember photos of such as (Jesse James, Doc Halliday, The Alamo, Queen Victoria, Old buildings such as Buckingham palace in the 1800's.) What if they had bits cloned out and trees added?
What have we been looking at?
That is what I mean by manipulation.
'Morals' was not aimed at your particular photo, as I said in an earlier post 'It depends what the photo is for.'
I just dont believe it is right to call it PP as opposed to manipulation.(or whatever other term you would like to use).

Oh! and God says you should all be truthful.