JZA B1

I prefer to keep mine looking "natural". As if there wasn't any post-processing or editing done. So even when I do heavy post-processing, I still do it in a way that looks like any alterations are minimal.

But sometimes I see really good pictures that seem almost way too over-processed, yet still look amazing. I could never achieve that. Whenever I try going heavy on the sliders and masks, I end up with some cartoon-looking abomination.

So for me, I go with the natural look because I just don't know how to make good-looking heavily processed images. Not because I'm opposed to editing/processing or want to preserve the "natural look" or anything like that.

Do you think there are a lot of people like that? Those who only do "natural look" because they can't do the heavily-processed one and make it look good?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I edit until I like it.
I don't overdo it.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

Most of the time I simply "enhance" a photo, adjusting shadows and contrast give it the memory I saw when I shot it. There are some exceptions, of course. I really like viewing well done real estate photography, because even though you know the image has been staged, lighted, and shot in the most favorable way, the final image still does not shout out, "EDITED" in the most obvious way.

DanF Loc: Wichita, KS

I hate to see over processed photos. Years back, I subscribed to outdoor photography magazine until they had their landscape photography contest. The winners were the most garish, fake looking photos I’ve seen. Couldn’t believe it. Cancelled my subscription. Some people just can’t lay off the vibrancy and saturation sliders. These kinds of photos become the norm and people are sensitized to only appreciate a photo if it knocks your eyeballs out. It’s enough to make you stay with minimalist black and white!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A camera sees the world differently than the human eye, so who cares what the camera saw?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

I like both!

In Step by Linda Shorey, on Flickr

Morning mist and fog by Linda Shorey, on Flickr

.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Beauty is everywhere when you have PhotoShop.

DanF Loc: Wichita, KS

Well yeah, but doesn’t over use of PhotoShop just approach AI? And then where are we?

DanF Loc: Wichita, KS

Well yeah, but doesn’t over use of PhotoShop just approach AI? And then where are we?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Only if one considers the person doing the editing as artificial.
AI is not the result itself, it's the process by which the result is achieved.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

We are where we've always been: some like spicy, some like mild, many enjoy medium-rare.

Take pictures, then edit or don't. Enjoy your hobby!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Same question differet title. Post-processing- more or less? Realistic or exaggerated? SOOTH or Not?

I usually do not chime in on this issue but here's my take:

Modern photograhy was not born on a computer. For many years we used film and chemistry. There are hundreds of film types, and formats, and each with its own charistics as to speed, gran structure, color pallette, contrasts, saturation, latitude, and prescribed and altered chemical processes. For those who made prints, there were hundreds of papers- sizes, surface finishes, contrasts, various color saturations, tones, and more.

Photograhers could select from endless combinations, permutations, and processg variations to create the image and interpretation of subjects. There were realistic images, exaggerated abstractions, documentary recordings, pure fantasy, and everything in between. Photograhy is a creative endeavor and not necessarily a uniform discipline.

With film, we could create images with every gradation in the grayscale, high contrast, solarizations and posterizations, rich color or pastels, virtually grainless or grainy, sharp of sift, warm or cold whatever. Now we can do much of ths by flipping a switch or moving a few sliders. Why not?

Should every photoghaer shoot everything the same way AND should every photographer always do everything the same way all the time for every shot and every subject and never try new approaches or different or interpretations? I hope not!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

About half of what separates a successful photographer from their peers is PhotoShop. The other half is Lightroom.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I hope not also!