Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I can produce works using PP that are impossible to create in camera, be it the addition of textures, selective saturations of specific colors, combining of exposures, dodging and burning, etc. etc. etc. For me, post processing is where I can accomplish many of the creative things I do with my photography. I have no interest in limiting my creativity to "representational images as interpreted by the local Walmart print machine".

Nic42 Loc: Cardiff, Wales

Well put

:thumbup:

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

The same reason you watch events on TV instead of attending them in person. It's often a case of process later or miss the shot.

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

Thanks for the correction. I don't use it so I wouldn't know! Just know it's free! :)

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

Why is it, that back in the days of film, anyone who took their film to be processed at their local chemist / one stop photo developing place or what ever, would be called a happy snapper. Whilst a purist would be someone who took full control over the processing? Now things seem to have gone full circle and the term purist is used to describe someone who's content to allow the processor in the camera, (the electronic version of Walmart but without the brain), to make all their decisions for them. Anyone who thinks their built in processor can produce perfect results, no matter how much care they take with camera settings, must be easily pleased.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

One answer, one word: Ignoramus

busted_shutter

Now Rongno....that's just wrong oh!!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Is it? Every decent photographer knows that 'getting it right in camera' is just the first part of a long process that results in a 'photograph'.

If you do not know that, my only possible answer is: 'Ignoramus'.

Being ignorant is not being stupid. It is just not having been exposed to the correct information. If one has been exposed to the so-called information then post this, well, I would select another word. I selected not to.

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

Rongnongno, You have to remember that there are photographers and then there are snap shooters!

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

Very well said Russ, a statement based on experience and your pictures back up the statement.

Phil

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

Getting it right in the camera, as far as I'm concerned means that I have an image that is worth saving for PP.

Phil

msmith44

The sincere (and simple) answer is it depends how much control you want over the workflow.

I see the photographic process as having three major steps (using film or digital is irrelevant) – image capture (recording on a photosensitive medium) preparation for display (post-production), and display (physical presentation). In most cases, the image as capture is manipulated to some degree. “Manipulated” means the variance of the image as displayed compared to what the eye captures.

Digital photography has the capacity to manipulate the capture in camera or not. Those who want maximum control capture in raw, the image is functionally equivalent to a film negative.
In camera manipulation reduces the variables under control by the photographer to lens selection, aperture, shutter speed, ISO and, in cases of shooting in studio or with a flash, lighting. This assumes the photographer has made an informed choice of camera, i.e., they know the processing characteristics even when shooting raw.

Some photographers want maximum control of all steps. Most are willing to assign responsibility for preparation for display to others, e.g., sending out images for large prints to a vender. However, sending images straight from the camera to Walgreens allows Walgreens to prepare the image for display as well as printing the image.

You seem to be in the camp that focuses all their creative energy on image-capture, i.e., the search for the “perfect.” Perfect in this instance is the degree to which the captured image matches your vision. Once achieved, you are willing to cede control of your painstakingly realized vision to a machine operating within the algorithmic parameters of the machine’s programmers.

That said, almost all digital images, even photojournalism, are processed in some manner if only to optimize them for display in a particular medium, e.g., newspaper, magazine, billboard, etc.

The closest process that reduces image manipulation to a minimum is a contact print but even then the initial exposure and chemical processing of the print has variables.
I understand the few extremely negative reactions to posing the question. It is difficult to have to reexamine, and in some instances, defend how we choose to approach photography. Yet, as difficult as it often is, I think it healthy to regularly examine that which we take for granted, our assumptions. It is good to return to “beginner’s mind.”

So… thanks for the question.

KJ Smith Loc: Kansas City

Thank you for your responses. I'm relatively new at this, as the experts can certainly tell. If these programs are free, I can download them on my computer at work & play with a few shots from there, then either send it elsewhere to print on photo paper or buy a pack. I'll experiment some to see what I can come up with. Again, thanks!

MtnMan Loc: ID

Yes, you are missing the fact that you can't see a photo without processing. Your choice is to use the limited controls available within your camera or take greater control on your own.

Unless you are using only RAW images, which will all look terrible, your camera does a bunch of processing on your jpeg images such as white balance, contrast, hue, sharpening, and saturation. Some cameras give you some controls over how these applied. For example in Nikon cameras you select a "Picture Control", and then you can modify those controls to some extent.

There are plenty of free processing programs.

You can send your shots to Costco or others over the Internet. There is no need for a printer. Zero expense.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Two simple examples of the benefits of post production by computer. All digital photographs need sharpening - that is just the way the digital imaging magic works. Sharpening in camera is much cruder than what you can do with a computer. If you over sharpen in camera you are stuck with it. If you over sharpen in computer you still have the original to try again. Getting it right in camera is really only possible with JPEG images, RAW images always need tweaking in computer. Digital JPEGs do not have the dynamic range of a RAW image, so your pictures will always lack something they could have had. You don't need the full Photoshop program, there are several free programs that will convert RAW images, sharpen and adjust curves and levels. If you are satisfied with what the drugstores produces then that is OK too, but you are missing out on what could be.