G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I do not believe in fairies!

Digital photography cannot be developed with chemicals or Alchemy !
Postman Pat does not carry your files from the camera to the computer down the wire. Nor does he come back later and carry them to Flikker or Facebook or UHH.
Cropping digital files with scissors is not an option.
A magnifying glass will not re-size your images.

Before you start shouting about not using software or post processing: can we have a reality check.

What you really mean is : for whatever reason, You do not use your available software to its fullest capability.
You can justify that statement in any way you like.

In a recent post to a novice photographer wanting to know what camera to buy; I stated that she would need to learn how to use software to process her images at the same time as she was learning how to use her new camera. She was using a cell phone so probably had never needed to process anything.

Two other responders to the same post took it upon themselves to state that 'they did not use software' and that I (quoted) was wrong.

Can you please get off your self delusional bandwagon!!! You cannot justify that statement in any shape or form.

You may not use Photoshop or Lightroom etc at all. I'm OK with that!
You may be so altruistic that you prefer to keep your images SOOC pristine. Fine!
Your life may even be too short to spend 'hours' at your computer. OK...sorry.
However you personally choose to handle the bit between taking the image and getting a picture is entirely your choice BUT YOU USE SOFTWARE.

There will always be an argument about how you process your images and what should and should not be 'allowed'. There were those that broke the printing press and the loom believing that progress was wrong. If people want to feel better about themselves because they do not 'cut and paste' their pictures - why not.
That is a whole different topic.

But Please do not suggest to the novices here that one does not need to understand basic photography software. Do not suggest that altering an image is akin to being a sinner. Because that is being two faced and totally delusional in my opinion.

I still don't believe in fairies, hobgoblins or little people running around in boxes.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Your point is well taken.
I have said many times on UHH that i don't PP.
The truth is i am just an "under achiever"

ELNikkor

Even in my D5100 there is software with a choice called "Color Sketch", which has made some otherwise boring photos look really nice; an effect that would be very difficult to mimic in the darkroom with chemicals and enlarger/filters manipulation. In my computer, I sometimes use a mid-tone or contrast adjuster, and just these two have made many so-so images more worth looking at.

warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA

Photoshop elements 15 is on its way from B&H

Leitz Loc: Solms

I would expect that everybody understands that a digital image requires software to be produced and viewed - perhaps they were saying that perfectly fine digital images can be produced without artificial manipulation?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

There is a school of thought that images should be captured with exposure, etc perfect. Once taken, they become Photographs, and cannot be touched. I took a photography workshop led by an veteran Associated Press photographer who trained us how to site, frame and expose in camera to take a perfect image. In his occupation, where he would shoot thousands of exposures and then upload them to AP, everything had to be perfect before it went "on the wire."

For those of us who aren't perfect, who have a different artistic vision, there is post processing and software, which allows us to produce an interpretation of a photograph that achieves a different affect vs what was shot. Remember, Ansel Adams created the final look of his monumental photographs in the darkroom via post processing and his Zone System.

Different schools of thought, neither is correct, neither is perfec.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

No, it's a case of different strokes for different folks.

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

I completely agree. When you shoot a jpeg, whether with a cell phone or a Canon 1DX Mark II, that jpeg is not completely the result of your efforts. The software in camera is making decisions about sharpening, contrast, exposure, saturation, etc. Had you shot a RAW file, you would be making those decisions. By shooting a jpeg and choosing not to edit it further, you have basically decided that the algorithm that the software developer for your camera created can always be expected to result in a perfected photo. Nothing could be further from the truth. By deciding that you won't change the photos you have taken by using PP software, you're leaving a lot of opportunities on the table to produce a far better picture.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

I think that the most significant part of the issue is simply people do not understand technology. I currently use a Crop Sensor DSLR, the brand doesn't matter, but I do really like this camera. Of course it provides a 3:2 image. What if I want to show this photo on an electronic frame that has a 16:9 image. What if I want to print it as a 5X7 or 8X10 or 11X14 print? In all these cases I have to Post Process the image, even if is only to crop.

This is the exactly the same issue as when I shot film (and had my own darkroom). The negative was 3:2 and I wanted to print an 8X10, I had to crop.

Now, today's digital cameras are remarkable! Even if you shoot in the AUTO mode, and record as a jpeg, you can get a great image, possibly an award winning image. I do agree that you can do better by shooting RAW, but I want to keep this simple. The problem becomes on what size of image you need to have as an output. That's where some sort of post processing is required.

Understanding whatever post processing program you choose, also allows you to adjust exposure, highlights, shadows, white balance, and many other parameters. These adjustment allow you to make a marginally acceptable photo into a work of art. Yes, it does take work, knowledge, and skill, all of which you have to learn.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

If I had to rely on SOOC shots I simply couldn't do my job as a real estate photographer. Neither can anyone else. If you think you can do it I would challenge you to shoot and present 35 quality images to your client. I've never seen a credible job SOOC.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I can understand people that shoot JPG never needing software. The camera does it all for them.
Unfortunately my d5200 and my D810 only shoot RAW M mode, there is NO JPG that comes out of those cameras. ( grin)
so I had to learn PS or should I say I will be learning PS for years to come.

Just likeyou said, if your not processing your photos your losing a lot...

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Scually
Actually, everything you mention can be turned off in the good camera. So the sensor just records what it sees.
If you shoot in jped, yes the camera converts the raw to JPEG but with NO PP outside of how the camera was manufactured.
So that would be no PP.
I personally ALWAYS tweak my pics in raw. Show me any sooc shot and it can be improved. Whether you wish to do so, is a personal matter. If you shoot professionally, you WILL tweak your pics.
If you don't shoot professionally, no one is going to care, especially if you don't!!
SS

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I am a member of the "I Trust Automation" brigade.

Before I retired, I helped to write automating software. I have seen the skill that goes into developing that software, and I trust that skill more than my own.

My automobile has an automatic transmission, designed by experts to provide optimal shifting points; if I stomp on the accelerator, the processor understands that performance is more important than MPG, and it changes its decisions appropriately. My automobile is ABS-equipped and does a much better job of stopping on slippery roads than I ever could. My automobile also has traction-control, which recognizes slippery conditions long before I do, then warns me and adjusts instructions to the throttle to compensate for that.

When I got my first adjustable camera in 1969, I became a Kodachrome user. For the next 38 years I trusted automation to whatever its current limits were. I do own a hand-held lightmeter, but the only time I actually used it was when my then-primary camera was having issues and its replacement hadn't arrived yet. The automation provided by my camera, of course, changed during those years, and I cheered every step. I was glad when my second camera could adjust shutter speed based on my current aperture setting and the current lightmeter reading, rather requiring that I adjust the dial myself. I was glad when my fourth camera gave me the choice of setting aperture or shutter-speed, and it would adjust the other. I was glad when my fifth camera could focus for me and set off a burst of shots, perhaps adjusting shutter speed each time. Most of this time I was using Kodachrome, trusting that professionals would process the film so that it would show exactly what I was seeing when I pressed the shutter button.

When I switched to a DSLR in 2007, my camera had even more automation, even more things that it could do faster than I could, leaving to me the tasks which cannot be automated - deciding which perspective and which framing would capture the scene I was seeing in my mind. My wife knows that a 'five minute photo stop' may still take thirty minutes, but that is because the 'artist' component of my brain is no faster than it ever was. Then, when I press the shutter button, I am trusting the final results to technology, to professionals, just as I ever did.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

OK, I won't claim that I don't use sortware. I just had six rolls of film developed for my ex-wife. I took them to a shop that returns prints, negatives and a disk of JPG's. I kept the disks, went through them and called my ex to have 5 X 7 prints (I have a bunch of 5 X 7 frames) made of three or four pictures from the negative. The fellow who made the prints does so in his basement in a wet lab; he also develops and prints for the county SO which uses film to avoid hassles about "enhanced photos" in court. So, yes, I have used the computer to identify images for further wet processing. The last print I made was a telephone shot I took for a neighbor. He was satisfied with the photos on his phone, but I sent one to myself just to give him a print. I have taken several thousand digital photos in the last year or so and I have sent the files of many to my children and friends. But I don't crop, resize, enhance and I don't print. If that makes me guilty of using software, so be it. But I could do quite well without a computer. And, as soon as my Leica arrives, the photos from it will only be associated with a computer insomuch as I will have to order some supplies online.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

Even National Geographic allows "some" post processing.