Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

every photo is pretty much need of a little post-processing...IMHO...there are several threads on this, even a few scientific studies/videos on this. I think it's on Adorama's site.

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

I would say it is already beyond that point for many.
ronny

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I disagree.
Post processing could have helped those shots enormously.
In your bromeliad the detail has disappeared into red tones.
I am sure when you were looking at this flower that your eyes could discern the edges of the "petals" and fine subtle detail all through that same oneness of red.
The same applies to your orchid in the pink/white tones.
And I am sure that your sky in that one wasn't a blurry white.
You have used a shallow depth of field so that has put an interpretation on it by you as the photographer. I think that grass and trees really did have sharp detail and not out of focus softness.
The shadows in both shots are deeper than what would have been present, and the background grass in your bromeliad shot looks a bit "muddy" in detail and colour.
The colours and tones are not true for every element in the photo.
I could go on, but you get my drift.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

At the moment, I am in your camp. I just got back into photography after a decades long hiatus. I am concentrating on relearning and refreshing the basics. That part is coming fairly easily. The biggest challenge for me is figuring out how to make optimal use of all the functions and options available on the DSLRs. That is taking all my time right now.
My personal feeling is that I want to take a shot of which I am proud of right out of the camera. I might think about some PP at some time in the future.
My approach is to go out play around with different settings and functions (nothing fancy like HDR - I do try a b&w one in a while) and try to concentrate on light, composition, technique, and of course getting the sharpest image possible. For me, that is the fun part; and I am in this strictly for the fun of it and a sense of accomplishment. Photography is a hobby I thoroughly enjoy.
Mike

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Ansel Adams, with the Zone System, did post photographic manipulation in the darkroom.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

That is a very good point. Since I just started in digital photography not too many months ago, my brain still is stuck back in the days of film when the print of the photo was a fair representation of what your eye and the lens saw. I had forgotten that manipulation of the image occurs in the camera. Just last night I was looking at some shots I took of swans, etc. on the water near me. The water looked much bluer in the images than I recalled it actually being at the time I took the shot. The in camera processing certainly would explain that, I think.
Mike

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Back in the 1990's, I worked at one of the top photo labs in my area, when film photography was still king. Most of the professional photographers had custom printing done, which included cropping, burning & dodging, smearing, color tone adjusting, etc., and occasionally the unusual film processing request - cross-processing, for example.

The way I see it, digital manipulation through post-processing is basically the equivalent to what the professional photo labs used to do, but now in the hands of the photographer rather than the trained lab technician. Having the required skill and artistic vision to do post-processing effectively and in good taste - well, that's not always the case obviously, particularly among those with minimal experience.

nakkh Loc: San Mateo, Ca

Even Ansel Adams did a little PP ...

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The are quite beautiful. I'd say that some PP would be necessary to bring out the details of the flowers, especially the red one. Red has a tendency to blow out a bit. I think sensors are just a bit hypersensitive to that part of the spectrum.

Though they look very nice, they could be improved with PP.
--Bob

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

I agree, I had just brought those home and snapped a couple of shots off. I could definitely spruce them up some.

blackest Loc: Ireland

With the photo of the orchid the glare from the cars in the top right is quite distracting, You could in this case crop the cars out without losing much, or you could darken that area or even remove the car park altogether.

There is nothing wrong with the orchid itself but you can't deny that the car park doesn't add to the scene.

That pretty much is the dilemma, even without any post processing we choose what we photograph a lot of the time maybe moving people or moving something out of shot or just moving our view point, even choosing the light by time of day or waiting for a cloud to move. Even with film you could select a film which warmed the scene. I guess its natural to want to make a scene nicer, although sometimes perhaps worse is an intent too.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

When shooting film this debate raged on even then. There were the "get it right in the camera" crowd, and the "the work begins after the shutter is clicked" crowd.

For the most part, and image MUST be manipulated to get the best out of it. Can you imagine what the images of the masters would have looked like if they just did standard film development and then contact printed all their images? They would look like snapshots - which is all you get when you take an image out of the camera and print without some enhancement.

Certain subjects and lighting conditions will yield images that require very little processing, but I have yet to see an image that could not be improved with processing and a little manipulation.

These are two images that I took yesterday. the first is unprocessed, the other was processed. The histogram on the first indicates perfect exposure, good brightness black and white tones etc. The second image is how I saw it and how I wanted others to see what I saw.

This is mostly the case - the camera can only record a scene, it is up to the photographer to do what the camera can't.

(Download)


(Download)

wrightwrjr Loc: Paducah, KY

Both are nice shots, but the second one is definitely better. Which one is most representative of the actual scene or did it fall somewhere in between?

Scoutman Loc: Orlando, FL

You could have had topic heading "Opinons on Enhancing Photos with Post Processing" - more useful for people who may want to find similar posts on this topic. Virtually every post here is "opinion" including this one of mine.

For me, frequently the shot I take is intended to be just a sketch of something I will render later in a post processing program or two.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

You own the image you made. You can do with it what you wish. If you display it, I have the right to like it or not like it. That's simply the risk you make. I don't think there is any point in arguing but each individual has a right to have an opinion.