AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Ok first let me say I have no intention of offending anyone! I'm very new and trying to learn as much as I can from such a wealth of info you all provide.
What I don't understand is if photography is art, which I know it is! Why do we need tools to enhance the pictures we take? Shouldn't they stand on their own? Shouldn't the person and the camera be the only tools that is needed?
I haven't uploaded one photo yet! But every photo I think I should upload I do a auto correct. (That is how much of a beginner I am). I can understand for professional people you want to provide the best possible pictures for your client. I dunno, maybe when does the editing end and the art begin?
Thank you all for your patience!
Andy

anotherview Loc: California

Editing software may bring out the potential of a photograph. Film photographers did the same thing in the dark room.

Start with Photoshop Elements. Later, move up to Photoshop Creative Cloud.

BTW: Not only so-called professionals want to present a worthy product to clients. Non-professionals may simply want to edit a given photograph for realizing its full visual qualities to satisfy the eye.

By the term "professional," I refer to a photographer who takes money for doing photography.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

A simple answer:

Taking a picture is just part of a process that includes preparation AND post processing.

What you do at the moment is snap-shooting, nothing more. Once you learn more you may realize how much you missed by 'trusting' your camera and 'skills'. All great photographers from the past to the present time post process their images in order to extract exactly what they want to show. The software does not matter, use whatever for that (as long as you have a precise control of what you are doing). Only PS and GIMP offer this kind of control at the moment.

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

Also the editing process itself is an artistic endeavor sometimes simple and sometimes very complicated. Your argument for what comes from the camera being the final product vs. "photoshopping" creates huge loud fights. I think most of us assume the final product is the final product. How it was done may be of interest but does not enter into judging the result.

TheDman Loc: USA

If painting is art, why do we need different brushes and paint colors?

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

As Ansel Adams said: the negative is the score, the photograph is the performance. He was a trained pianist, and he was also one of the photographers that changed the world. He should know.
There is a difference from what your camera sees and what you see. However you bring it out.

AndyCE Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

JimKing and all that replied already.
I really did not want to open a can of worms so early in my stay on the forum! As the previous poster mentioned, once I start to learn more I will better understand the beniefts of post processing. I do appreciate and understand that post processing is an art in its own! (Something I hadn't considered)
I also get that even non professionals want to get the best possible pictures. I understood that as I was posting this message. I just thought (mistakenly) that the camera and the person should do all the work.
Thanks again to all!
Andy

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Think about your premise.

You are using a handheld computer, that upon your command, determines the make and speed of your lens, focuses and controls the aperture and shutter speed after determining the correct balance between the them all to make a decent exposure,, then runs the information of light recorded on a light sensitive sensor which determines which shades of three channels the light on each pixel is, converts that to a 8 or 12 or 14 bit number, and then writes it to memory chip that can then be converted back to additive light on a computer screen, in such a way that it can then be written to a printer that can determine the correct mix of ink of four 6 or 8 colors, to print on paper and then be viewable accurately in reflective light.

And you are concerned with some additional tweaking on a computer as being "fake" or "cheating" somehow? LOL

All fooling aside, the goal is the finished product, in photography, the ends do justify the means… It has always been about manipulating the technology to create a good print, from the photographers eye of composition, to the film choice, to the developing agitation and chemical strength, to enlargement, dodging and burning and then printing…

However, a Stradivarius won't sound good in the hands of an amateur… same goes with camera equipment. The better photographer/artist will be apparent.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I just love photoshop for what it is, a tool that lets you create what ever comes to your mind, you don't even need a photo to begin with, you can just start creating what's on your mind, and there is nothing it can't do, the same goes for working on your photos, you can change them in to what ever you saw in your mind, or you can just tweak them. so they look as you would like them to look! Well, in a short sentence, photoshop is just plain fun!!

amehta Loc: Boston

Every digital photograph has been "post-processed". If what the camera produced is good, then you're all set. If some "auto correct" is used, that's fine too. If someone wants to create digital art, that's also fine.

My only objection is when a photograph is presented as, "This is a realistic representation of what I saw," but it was tweaked significantly to show things different than what existed.

sloscheider Loc: Minnesota

With some research you will find most great photographers from the past spent a fair bit of time in the darkroom adjusting exposure, color balance, burning in some areas of the image while dodging others.

Perhaps you could say composition is the first step in the artistic process which takes place with the camera and photographer. You use the software (or darkroom) to enhance the vision you had in that first step.

Fwiw, I use Lightroom for 99% of what I do and Photoshop for the few things LR doesn't do.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Believe it or not, a picture taken straight from the camera has been post processed if taken in the jpg format,. You're camera sharpens, reduces noise, saturates adjusts contrast and adjusts white balance to name a few. The camera manufacturer puts a lot of research into making a camera perform as well as they can. But to the artist, they don't want some engineers touches applied to their pictures. They want to control the process themselves.

Google Ansel Adams and pay particle attention to his post processing work. At the very least he crops, dodges and burns in his dark room. You'd call his work art wouldn't you?

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

In the days film, more time was spent in the darkroom processing the film, then the prints than was spent with camera in hand. Today's digital technology has evened the time up a bit, but it is still necessary if one wants to achieve the result that was envisioned when the shutter was pressed. i think a photograph becomes art as soon as that shutter is released.

amehta Loc: Boston

This gets a different response. I use post processing for two main purposes: to adjust the light (color temp, exposure, highlights, shadows) and to apply digital make-up. I put a simple example in a previous post: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-187191-3.html#3184568

amehta Loc: Boston

Please, open the cans early and often! It would be worse if you presented yourself as a pleasant, easy-going fellow, and then all of a sudden decided to be an instigator. This way we see your true colors from the start. :lol: