westjl2 Loc: Calgary, Alberta

When I first got back into photography a year or so ago I had this naïve idea of being a purist. I would see wonderful photographs in magazines and think wow that photographer is amazing. Then I would read the fine print on the number one winner that month and see that he or she had used a stack of 20 photographs and post process them to death in Lightroom and Photoshop. Now I feel conflicted around how much to post process my photographs. Many on this forum make comments like “do not overcook” or “less is more”. To me this reflects personal taste not to mention a bit of photographic snobbery and should not be taken as a cardinal rule for all. Unless we are employed as a photographer by the local newspaper, are we not all artists with our own style. I don’t think any of us should feel guilty when we process a photograph that may not necessarily reflect reality but makes this world a more cheerful place.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I agree with your last comment. Did you ever see a cosmetic advertisement where the subjects skin was not perfect? To me it is balance. In the film days in Kodachrome, you had to get the exposure dead nuts. No post processing.

BillFeffer Loc: Adolphus, KY

You should feel free to manipulate your photos to suit your tastes. If others like your work, great. If not, oh well. Art is an expression of the creative ability that makes us unique. "Good" is subjective. If you are asked to record reality such as for court, that's a different story.

ejones0310 Loc: Tulsa, OK

I certainly understand your conflict. I would love to be able to post everything straight out of camera, but the truth is that if you shoot in RAW, every photo will need some processing. If you shoot in JPG, then your camera is doing that processing automatically for you. However, by shooting in JPG you give up what could be to what the auto settings in the camera decide will be. Therefore I shoot in RAW.

A certain amount of processing is going to be required on nearly every photo. What people mean by "less is more" or "don't overlook", is that you reach a point where the photo looks as good as it is going to and still retains that natural SOOC look to it. When you reach that point, stop cooking.

I see a lot of posted photos that look like paintings, drawings, or just simply have so much dynamic range, that they exceed what the human eye could see. Some of these appeal to my artistic side, but many just look overdone.

So find that happy medium between where YOU think the photo is not quite right, and where it's overdone. At that point I think you will be satisfied. Does it really matter if it makes the rest of us happy?

westjl2 Loc: Calgary, Alberta

The program Luminar 2018 just came out and added a sunrays filter. It is amazing how many people went crazy with that in their photographs. It takes a certain amount of skill to get a nice sunstar in a photograph. I do get it when people say to not overdo post processing. I think that sometimes it can be a crutch for poor photography skills. So there is definitely a balance. The bottom line to me is if you are enhancing what you captured in the photograph then that’s great. But to start adding items like sunrays and other gaudy effects that were never in the original photograph is definitely going over the top for me. That’s just my own personal opinion though and I would never want to make others feel less than by being critical of their artistic talent when it comes to photography post processing.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A companion topic posted this morning also:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-501309-1.html

I like the comment of a mentor of mine on another forum: I am easily bored with reality. I see reality every day.

Like you, Wes, I also think of photography as art and will express myself in whatever way the mood strikes me. If this is your first photo forum, you will learn that there are those who enjoy shouting and belittling others and there are those who make no apologies for their own work nor feel the need to put down anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Welcome to UHH; hope we'll see some of your own photos soon! One hint if you haven't had a chance to look around: click on "all sections" at the bottom of the page to discover the site's specialty forums.

mr spock Loc: Fairfield CT

Your point is well made. I believe photography, as a pastime/ hobby should really have no rules with respect to what the photographer thinks a final image should look like. If it’s well composed and pleases him/her then it’s a good photograph.
Having said that I’ve always had a problem with post processing as it relates to competitions. Don’t think a “Best in Show” should be awarded to someone who may not be a good photographer but has great computer skills. Think there should be two categories:
1. Open- which allows for unlimited manipulation.
2. What I’ll call “Natural “ - which limits PP to simple things like cropping.
I’m sure many on this forum will violently disagree with me.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I don't do "violent," but your comments also are applicable to the other current active main forum discussion topic I linked earlier. For example, is using a polarizing filter on the camera natural whereas doing the same effect in pp cheating? Lines are blurring faster and faster

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Bingo! Welcome to the forum and Linda is spot on!

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

I have recently joined a small local art association that hangs artwork in local businesses, giving me opportunity to show prints for sale. So now I have to look at my photos two ways: Will this one please me? Will that one please others? Will this one look best on screen? Will that one make a nice print? It changes my ideas of what and where I will shoot and how I will post process. I don't think of either perspective as being "wrong" - I enjoy both the non-commercial ones that please me personally and the few commercial ones I might sell (or not, we shall see).

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Many on this forum make lots of comments and they are entitled to do so because they are expressing their opinion. What you do with your images, whether straight out of the cameras, edited, post processed, composites or stacked is totally up to you. As for integrity, as long as one doesn't steal another's images and claim them as their own or pass edited or composite images as representations of something they are not, or invade another's privacy, or do something illegal, go and make pictures and have fun doing it.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

As in everything, there are proven methods and rules in photography and processing that should Always be considered. That is the value of education.
But, in the end, it is personal. Please yourself with what you create.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Excellent point to bring up. Certainly pro portrait and wedding photographers must please the clients who are paying them. Entering to competitions can cause entirely different viewpoints and choices from what we have hanging on our own walls as our favorites.

Many of the landscapes I see on 500px and the fred miranda website seem totally without soul or personal connection - all technique and gloss and perfection. Are these being shown because they are currently the most popular looks, the best sellers to the "general" public? Eye of the beholder, eh

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I think it depends on how you view your camera and your computer. One approach is to use your camera to collect raw material which you then turn into works of beauty in your computer. I, on the other hand, search for beauty in nature which I attempt to capture with my camera and then process in my computer so it looks as much as possible like the beauty I saw in nature. Both approaches are perfectly valid. I don't change a dull sky to brilliant colour in my computer, I prefer to wait until the sky really is spectacular and take the picture then. But I don't consider my approach any more valid than the post processing approach. If the result is good, it's good. How it came about doesn't matter to me as long as the image is not presented as something it is not. Photographs that are staged and represented as being candid and pictures of captive animals being entered in wildlife photo competitions are beyond the pale to me. Photography and photographers should be honest.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

If I can add a footnote to my previous post. Artists do not, generally, create to please themselves. They create to express themselves. When your photography becomes art and you want to express yourself (you have something you want to say), then you have to address your audience with your message and display your work. Whether or not your message gets across will depend on how your work appeals to your audience.