KJ Smith Loc: Kansas City

Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer program to process & tweak their photos, but I would appreciate some sincere responses to this question: Why not learn to take the photos the way you want them to turn out rather than manipulating the photos completely before you print them from the comfort of your own home? Got redeye? Well, then, take another shot. Want a bluer sky? Use a filter & adjust the camera. I'm not slamming anyone so, please, don't get upset. I can't afford a photograph program (which means, I should probably buy another laptop), printer & photo paper, not to mention that I don't have a place for any printer or a bunch of photo paper, so it's more economical to take my card to the drug store for processing. Someone, please enlighten me because I'm not seeing the benefit of the expense of a computer program, color printer & photo paper. I'm obviously missing something (which is usually the case)!

SueMac Loc: Box Elder, SD

First off I do try (as I assume most do) try to take a better photo. But sometimes conditions don't cooperate. Hazy skies even with filters, wires, poles etc. Yes, I know..., move, but sometimes it isn't possible. I take all my photos in RAW, so they all need some type of processing and a lot of RAW shots aren't going to have the same coloring etc. as a JPG does since the JPG's are "pre-processed" in the camera. My camera can take both, RAW and JPG and sometimes there is quite a difference.

Another reason why I use Photo Shop for photo processing is I do photo restorations.....completely different than just tweaking a photo. It is quite an art that takes a long time, but enjoy the work.

So that's my take on your question.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Sincere response? Okay here’s my best shot. If you are changing WB, changing exposure settings, playing with the DOF, using filters, varying the amount or direction of the flash and so on wouldn’t you say you are manipulating the outcome of the shot? You’re just doing it “before” you release the shutter instead of after but its manipulation either way, so what real difference does it make? My advice for the hobbyist or the amateur it to enjoy the process and the process can and will change from individual to individual. It really shouldn’t matter as long as you’re having fun. If you make a living with your camera you have an entirely different mindset but for us amateurs it’s all about having fun.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

KJ,

You really don't need anything more than you already have. Obviously you have a computer, the software is free from either the camera manufacturer or online, and you can still get your final version printed wherever you want (no printer or paper required). To answer your first question last, some of us enjoy the post processing (PP) as much as taking the actual photographs. We can visualize a finished photo that simply can not be taken ...., it must be made. I think if you were to try some PP with one of the free programs you would see what I mean. The possibilities are infinitely more diverse than just taking a photo.

TheDman Loc: USA

It usually isn't possible to capture what you see with a click of the shutter. For an elegant explanation, read this guy's artist statement.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Just think of pp as another aspect of the joyous hobby of photography. Your position is similar to how I don't "get" the pleasure of studio photography, and someone else doesn't "get" that I like to attempt a far-distant shot of a bird, using an inexpensive bridge camera :)

For best result, one does have to "get it right" in the camera, but there are often pp tweaks to help make the image better.

Also, consider is the artsy-fartsy side of pp - with the painting programs and such. That is a totally different experience from realistic photography, but just as valid to the person who enjoys playing around with the programs. It sure helped get me through some gray, dismal winter days!

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Always remember that Ansel Adams' best friend was the dark room, in which he performed miracles because he 'didn't get it right' in the camera.

What you're missing is that photography is different things to different folks. Some want to be professionals and sell their work, some are perfectionists in all things, some are lackadaisical in all things, and so whatever their approach, their pictures reflect that.

There is nothing wrong with either approach.

Both are worthy and if people like the finished product, that is what matters.

Michael66 Loc: Queens, New York

Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use dodging and burning in the darkroom to process & tweak their photos, but I would appreciate some sincere responses to this question: Why not learn to take the photos the way you want them to turn out rather than manipulating the photos completely...

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

There are no digital photos that come out of the camera that cannot be improved with minimal PP. If you cannot afford a PP program then go download Gimp or Picasso which are both free. If you prefer to print your images at the local Wal-Mart or drugstore and if you are happy with the quality then go for it. So what you are missing is that you can get a free PP program and find out if you can actually improve your images before you take them to the printer.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

It's Picasa, not Picasso, and the download is at:

http://picasa.google.com

THOSMITH Loc: DeKalb IL

"Manipulate photos completely before you print them"? How about cropping?
I would not leave that to Walgreens. Do you? Some photos benefit from a tweak. It is nice to be able to do so. If I had to depend upon Walgreens for the tweak or crop I would take up quilting. For me processing and printing is an essential part of the complete package known as photography.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

I think the others here have already explained it well. I am from the days of film, 4x5 cameras and the works. When photographing Natural history subjects, you don't have the control over the environment. Animals move, subjects aren't in the best light, etc. It was very laborious in the past to have to correct for this when we were in the film era. I am glad we are not longer strapped to the constraints of film.

Think of it as cooking with a stove or oven, as opposed to an open fire. More control. I am sure you don't cook with an open fire.

As for the color printer and paper, I am like you. I have a lab do the printing. I don't think it is cost effective for me to do it myself. And if it doesn't come out correct, I have them do it right on their dime.
And all of the images you see published nowadays, have been manipulated in some way to make them more pleasing to the viewer. If you were painting an outdoor scene and a leaf fell onto the canvas, would you leave it there? Probably not. There are always things we can do to make the image the way we want, Pre or Post processing, Glass filters or Computer filters. The final image is what counts.

roycebair Loc: Utah, USA

CORRECTING LENS VIGNETTING: I don't believe in doing a lot of post processing manipulation, but I think we should correct problems or change the image to reflect the way we saw it. In my "NightScape" photography, I have to shoot astro-landscapes with a fast lens, and almost alway wide-open (the widest f/stop). Most lenses exhibit quite a bit of vignetting when you do this. Here is how I correct that:

Post Processing Tutorial: There is no lens vignetting correction on left image. Adobe Camera Raw's "Lens Corrections" has been applied to the right image. See more comparisons and learn how at my Correcting NightScape Lens Vignetting blog post.

BTW, I hope you'll visit my NightScape Survey and take our poll.

Photo: Milky Way Paint Brush" - Kodachrome Basin State Park, Utah USA ~ © Royce Bair

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Because you or I, or anyone else, could not create the portraits/images below, without having, and knowing how to use, a post processing program. Period.
I don't care what you do to your camera..what settings...what filters, Your will never, ever get close.

If you want to be a photo journalist type, I have no problem with that..
There will always be people that do not like post processed images. They will always be in the minority. If you want to shoot competitively where your photos are judged by respected judges in the industry that are not strict photojournalist types you better get with the program.

The idea in post processing is to make something look good where you can't tell if or how it was processed.

Beginning with a good quality image is always a good idea. There are things that the camera does better than what you can do in post work. The real trick is knowing what and how to do post work.

If you want some good examples of this, look up the work of Tim Tadder or Joel Grimes.

Dives


Welcome to the Asylum


I walk the line

lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

What you see in the viewfinder before the shutter is depressed is not necessarily what you see prior to depressing the shutter. The eye and the camera do not see the same thing. What you see on the computer is again different than what the camera recorded. Further, when printing, different printers, papers and inks show things differently.


The question becomes, is straight out of camera what is intended and what is desired. Is sooc really the best shot. Depends on goals.

I would suspect that most raw shooters try to get it as correct out of camera as possible. Raw and post treatment are not for lazy people, they are for people who are trying to master the original scene or to use whatever tools they have at hand to accomplish the best image they can.

My thoughts are to get the image captured the best way possible to get a final result that is really the best that can be done. Cutting the process in camera short changes my goals. And it is a process that unites the mind, the eye and the camera as well as software and computer. The final image is more than the sum of its parts. It is a life of its own.