JZA B1

I guess there is a difference between adjusting white balance and some Snapchat filter people apply to pics of their breakfast that completely changes the image.

Some post-processing is always (or almost always) required. Yet, when I look at some pics out there, they are just not realistic because of all the filters people apply.

It's like an attempt to make a boring pic exciting by using filters.

Where do you draw the line when processing your pictures? What do you consider necessary?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The grass is always greener when you process with PhotoShop.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I don't set limits. I process my images to look like I want them to look; or as close as I can get to what I was shooting for.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

That's because for a large group of people, "filters" are neat, cool, fun, ... .
A novelty.

I rarely use "filters", very rarely.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You seem to be assuming a connection between a ramped up look and filters. Filters are just one way to completely destroy a natural look. It's more than possible to overcook an image using just the sliders in the Basic section.

Apart from that, natural v overcooked is a choice, and on a good day that means a creative choice. Some people want to create an image that'll burn itself into your retinas.

You ask "What do you consider necessary?" I try to push the processing as far as it will go while still holding on to a natural look. Of course "natural" can mean so many things. In good lighting and with an absence of haze a scene will look far more vivid than it does in subdued lighting and/or with haze, so I like to think that reality gives us a fair bit of leeway when it comes to how much ramping up is natural.

But IMO there is such a thing as too much saturation, contrast and sharpness. How much is too much is a matter of opinion or intention. Even AI thinks that a ramped up look is acceptable most of the time. And it probably picked that up from taking note of our preferences.

photoman43

I try and limit my post processing to what I could have captured in camera if I had made all of the needed settings before I pushed the shutter button. I do not use Photoshop. I do make use of Noise Reduction, sharpness, cropping and limited local adjustments mostly for shadows and highlights.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The camera is just a sketchbook, to be finished later in PhotoShop.

User ID

Thaz about right. Same was true with film (including slides).

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Oooooo.........
.....I 'feel' great about it. Like I 'feel' great about a having a nice big piece of strawberry shortcake.
It's a great finish to an enjoyable activity.

User ID

I draw no line about processing. Perhaps there is a line but it wont concern me until or unless I bump into it. As to filters Ive never bothered with them. Nothing against them, I just never bothered checking them out.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a three pounds of hope.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

In this digital age, I only use polarizers. If I wanted more filters, they would be neutral density filters. Otherwise, it is post processing. Yes, it is still useful to use filters on a digital camera, but it is not necessary like in the film days. And post processing saves one money and travel weight of any and all the additional filters other than polarizers.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Dont need no stinkin digital filters.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I wonder sometimes how many here think today's generation is lazy, shiftless, and wants everything handed to them without having to put in any effort and then they download 25.000 Lr presets so they don't have to learn how to do anything themselves...just to "save time," of course.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Even the "free" LR presets aren't worth the money you pay for them.