mckraft

I have been taking photos for 50 years. 35 mm was my medium and I became pretty adept at it. As such I rarely used any photo manipulation, what I shot was the final results. I would only trim the final product. I guess I had a purest mentality. Now that we are in the digital world photo manipulation appears to be the rule. My dilemma is to Photoshop or not. I feel the real challenge for a photographer is having an eye for the proper subject, choosing the best lighting effects, and framing. Digital manipulation can correct the last two challenges. I suppose camera skills & post processing manipulation can go hand in hand, though each certainly require separate skills. I still have a feeling that I’m cheating if I manipulate; though one can argue that Ansel Adams manipulated his photos. Also the new digital cameras are pretty smart & manipulate internally. Anyone’s thoughts?

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

I'm one who believes that a little PP (post processing) improves many, if not all photos. Very rarely do I get a photo that comes SOOC that I would want to print. Perhaps that speaks to my skills as a photographer but if that's true, I'm happy to be able to make my image "look" like it was taken by a professional, even if it were not.

old hippy Loc: Kentucky hills

I agree with Bob. PP enhances most if not all my photography. Do as you need, but my suggestion is give it a months trial. Usually free. Ed

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

PP and Photography as far as concerned are one of the same. To what degree is another question. If you take as good of a photo every time as you claim then little PP would be required. But that is not always the case and for most. It's a rare photo that is out of the box and goes to the printer. Lets not get into the manipulation done on RAW Photos.

I.E. School photos. Request - Can you make all the students the same height in the photos. Request: I have no idea how that person got in the photo, Can you remove them. Just to name a few.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Whenever I hear a similar comment, my immediate response is to ask,"Who exactly is being cheated, and in what way"? While it is true that the process of preparing to make a final print from a film negative or a digital file differ, the intended result is still the same; create a print that is aesthetically pleasing and expresses the photographer's vision. It matters little if that is accomplished through manipulating the filters and exposure times on an enlarger or working with the color balance, exposure and contrast sliders in an editing program. Neither is inherently better or worse. It is the end result that matters. Evaluation of a final print needs to focus on the quality of the image aesthetically, emotionally, and technically, not on the processing techniques that were used in the background.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I read a lot of writings by professional photographers, particularly landscape and fine art photographers, and have never seen any of them advocate a "no post processing" approach. PP seems to be part of the "signature" for digital photographers just as certain darkroom techniques were the "signatures" for many film photographers. Many take their shots to assure they have a file that will be compatible with the processing they intend to do to make it reflect their vision, so they are actually thinking about processing as they make decisions about camera settings in the field.

It seems to be mostly us amateurs who suffer from all this angst about the moral rectitude of editing our work. I went through this sort of tribulation when I first re-entered photography and found myself in the digital world. I worried about editing kind of like I worried about those tags on my bedding when I was a kid -those that said "do not remove, under penalty of law!". Then I realized that editing is the final step any creative has to invest time in to complete a quality project in any field. Besides, the camera is mine, the photos are mine, the computer and printer are mine, and I can do whatever I find pleasing. The software isn't mine anymore (:() but Adobe lets me use it if I pay my dues.

Billbobboy42 Loc: Center of Delmarva

This sort of reminds me of a friend of mine who is a professional photographer. In the early days of digital cameras, his opinion was they would not equal the quality of film. Then, when we started to get some good pixels, he made the jump while stating that he believed picture manipulating (PP) was not true photography. Well, he's come around 180 degrees, goes on shoots with 2 or 3 professional level Nikons, and post processes to the hilt. He has truly mastered HDR, for instance. Bottom line: opinions can change :)

mckraft

To all,

Very good points.. I actually own Photoshop but rarely use it.. I purchased it to rework my 35 mm collection when I digitalize them. I suppose its back to school.. next year when I retire I spend some time working with it. I'm sure I'll be pleasantly surprised. I guess part of my prejudge come from sunset photos I see here in Hawaii, most have been really enhanced.. when I see them it's so apparent... we have great sunsets here by not like those. Another great examples are the Hawaii 50 helicopter shots, when I see them I think WOW I want to go there... opps I'm already here & it don't look like that :)

snowbear

All digital photos are post-processed. If you shoot jpeg, the camera is doing the PP. Raw shots have to be post processed otherwise all you would see are zeros and ones.

I'd also say that all negatives are also post processed in the darkroom with enlarger exposure adjustments at the very least.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Some people seem to think that Photoshop is cheating because you can take bad photos and fix them with Photoshop. Photoshop can't fix out of focus photos, or photos poorly exposed enough that critical highlight or shadow detail wasn't recorded. It can't fix poorly composed or timed photos. Photoshop can enhance most good photos, even if you do everything possible to get them right in the camera, but it can rarely fix bad photos.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Everything is post processed to one degree or another. I haven't played much with HDR but I'm about to take the plunge just for fun. I have put off significant post processing for over a year while I pursued understanding exposure with my cameras. I want to produce my own prints (I have lots of vector graphic printing experience) and I found myself wanting with pushing pixels. In my way of thinking photography is a process not unlike conjugating a verb. You have to make all the steps to understand the whole.

pixbyjnjphotos Loc: Apache Junction,AZ

Everyone has their own opinion about post processing. As for me, I will continue to post process the photos that I make available for others to see. Some will receive very little manipulation while others will receive major overhauls. Have a GREAT DAY!

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Photoshop (or any other PP) isn't "cheating" whatever that might mean.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Photographers have always manipulated images regardless of media type. There are few if any images straight from the camera that cannot be improved.

Thank goodness for digital.

Nic42 Loc: Cardiff, Wales

And before anyone says anything; non of the above is a substitute for not getting it right in camera!