Jimmy bob, you must be off your meds today. AGAIN.

What ever drug you are on that helps you understand simply sentences, please do take them as per direction.

Who ever said anything about controlling whether you should stay or go?

It is very simple - you constantly complain about other people on this site. Why not join another site where everyone is perfect like yourself?

Oh and btw, you are not in the attic where you can be yourself - in this forum, you need to pretend to be normal.

If you see yourself as a photo journalist you are likely to do only minimal PP. If you see yourself as an artist you are going to be far less restrained as you create your art. Apart from this distinction, if you wish your digital image to represent what you actually saw, post processing is going to be essential. Whether you are allowing you camera's program to automatically adjust a JPG or whether you are making the adjustments manually after shooting RAW.

Even the most advanced of today's digital cameras doesn't come close to the capability of the human eye coupled with that most incredible 'computer,' the human brain. If you want your image to look like what your eye captured and your brain recorded when you took the photograph, PP is going to be necessary...whether you allow your camera's JPG program to automate it or whether you do it manually. The excellent example photographs illustrate this point well. Image one was what the camera saw. Image two probably has close to the shadow detail that the photographer actually saw. Image three probably has more shadow detail than could have been seen of the rapidly moving person with the ball.

Someday we may have a camera that that is 'smart' enough to duplicate the the ability of the human eye and brain, but I doubt it will be anytime soon. In the meantime, what is your goal or mission is likely to lead to your choice of how you shoot and whether or not you use PP.

This forum showcases a wide range of goals, philosophies, talent, and methodologies. No one combination is right or wrong and the differences create the texture that keeps this forum interesting.

The best argument for post processing that I can think of is that more often than not the conditions under which we shoot are not perfect. They are moments in time that must be recorded as they happen (OK people, some of you wait for the perfect moment!). But many of us see that perfect moment at unplanned times. So, post processing helps us improve said image when the conditions were less than wonderful. Contemporary photo processing programs allow us to make a less than perfect image into an almost perfect one. I, for one, think that is marvelous.

I am totally puzzled by the many people here who are proud of never doing any post processing of their images. They hold up "straight out of camera" as a badge of honor, as though this somehow indicates their excellence as photographers.

I see it quite differently. For me, excellent photographers, or at least good photographic technicians, are those who can turn out an image that most clearly achieves the vision of the person who made it, and which uses the technology available to maximize its presentation.

SOOC is like a stock car. if you keep your stock car tuned and serviced, you can certainly win a race against a similar car that has been neglected and is not firing on all cylinders, but you will never stand a chance against a similar car in which engine, transmission, drive train, suspension, wheels and tires have been modified or replaced with the most technologically advanced custom components, carefully considered and installed.

Today at work we had a little informal basketball game, and I took some pix. It's a pretty high contrast situation, and I was careful to find the best possible exposure. I shot in raw, of course, because I knew that I wanted the maximum potential to play with afterward.


Can't imagine why you are puzzled. It is very simply a personal choice, like any other creative decision related to photography. Nice photos, BTW. >Alan

Image #1 is a jpg created automatically from the raw (by Adobe Camera Raw). It's pretty similar to what I would get with a neutral setting in the camera (Nikon D800E). That's about the best you could hope for SOOC.

Image #2 is my personal choice of how I wanted the image to look. I wanted more saturation in the sky and some detail in the darker parts of the image. You may think it overcooked, and maybe you personally would have kept a bit more of the contrast between dark and light. Well, of course it would have been easy to back off a little. That's the beauty of post: YOU get to choose how you want the image to look--you are not at the mercy of the camera's algorithms.

Image #3 is pushed even further than #2. I include it to show just how much latitude one has working with a raw. In fact I could have pushed it even further, but this situation is not particularly high contrast and so it is not needed--but a couple more stops of dynamic range are waiting in the wings to be called upon if necessary.

I'm not saying here that one should not try to achieve the best exposure possible when taking the image--the better the exposure, the more latitude one has later for correction and fine tuning, but within a stop (or even two) either way, a very presentable image can be made, even in a fairly high contrast situation like this one.

Any by the way, such corrections take at most a couple of minutes. Open the image in an editor, make adjustments to three or four parameters, and save. Typically takes me about 30 seconds.

Discussion?

For one, Jim Bob has always been nice to me, I have never had a run-in with him. Why does it gall so much when I say I don't have time for PP, should I ignore everything else and PP just to make you happy, I don't think so. I have not posted a picture in about a year and you are still complaining
about me not PPing. The operation on my legs didn't help very much so I still can't get out and shoot pictures, but you don't care, as long as I PP. You seem to be obsessed with what I do, it is called stalking. Just go bug somebody else.