skingfong Loc: Sacramento

There are times when we PP an image we enhance them to make them more pleasing to the eye. Such things can be sharpness, contrast, color saturation, HDR etc.

My tendency is to leave people images neutral without too much doctoring. I want accuracy in the skin tones. I don't want it so sharp where you can see all of the lines and pores on one's face. I tend to go for a softer look for people.

When it comes to landscape nature and wildlife I tend to pump up the sharpness, contrast, and saturation somewhat. If needed, I also bring out some of the shadow detail. I've seen some images that are overdone. I generally like a little enhancement if it's done tastefully. Now this is where it really becomes subjective.

HDR processing can be vary a lot also. Some can look very surreal but artistic at the same time.

I understand everyone will have a different take on this. So what's your take?

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Because I see things in 3D and the camera sees the same things in 2D I process as much as I can get away with without looking surreal. The key, in my way of thinking is to get a similar batch of images to balance according to how I've processed them. I shoot only in raw so I can have the latitude for adjustments that I think are necessary. On the whole, I don't have an opinion regarding how other photographers process their images because they are seeing their products through their eyes. I would not make a good judge under those circumstances.

Mike D. Loc: Crowley County, CO.

I basically agree with your view of our world and the only folks that really annoy me are the ones that try to pass off an obviously doctored photo as straight out of the camera.

As you mentioned, it's all rather subjective and I'm still in the teething stages as far as pp goes but a little does go a long way unless artistic is what the goal is/was.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

Do you want to be a photographic technician or a photographic artist. A photographic technician uses the camera to capture images to document a scene. A photographic artist goes one step further: He or she uses post-processing tools to create art from the images captured by the camera. If you make art, who do you make it for?

Didereaux Loc: Swamps of E TX

Simple really...are you looking for avant garde art, or a realistic beauty? HDR can be used for both, but 90% of HDR users overdo it and simply wind up with pubescent comic art look. My opinion anyway.

grusum

I process my photos to suit my personal taste. If someone enjoys one of my photos; I willingly give it to them.

If someone doesn't like my photos as processed; I merely say, "OK, have a nice day." and walk away.

I'm big and ugly enough I have been able to get away with that mode of operation 67 years.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I come from the position that ultimately all that matters is the final image. If it meets the maker's creative and artistic needs, or if it stimulates a viewer emotionally, intellectually, or aesthetically, then the level of editing necessary to make the image becomes irrelevant. I don't believe this differs with subject matter (with the exceptions of forensic, or photo-journalistic photography which are obviously the domain of a different topic).

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I just try to make my pictures look a little better. Sometimes I play around with HDR to make it overly dramatic.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

My take is pretty much the same as yours. My goal has always been to make it look like I remember it. I never, but never show anything SOOC unless it's as an example. I think SOOC jpegs tend to look pretty awful, especially since when I shoot jpeg I "expose for the highlight," so the shadow is pretty dark until opened up. I've just started learning raw, and I'm really impressed (!) but all of my current stuff on Flickr is made from jpegs, but every one PP'd. I have never even tried HDR. I agree with many that too often it tends to be overdone. Many years ago when I was learning to retouch black and white portrait negatives with graphite and dyes my mentor warned me, "If you can see what's been done, it's been done wrong." I do get a little snooty about HDR when I can tell at a glance that it's HDR. On the other hand I have no compunction about pumping up the contrast or making an adjustment layer to decrease haze and increase saturation. Lately I just learned how to replace a blah sky with a good one. No qualms there provided I cannot see it at 200%. I have also been known to "move" a seagull that was in the wrong place, and even add a second one from another picture to make the composition. And sometimes I don't tell! :lol: But I also never lie and say it's SOOC. That is dishonest! :hunf:

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Whenever possible, consider local adjustments (using brush or selection tools) rather than global adjustments. This approach will give you more precise control, with fewer compromises to the final image. Sharpen only what needs to be sharpened, to the exact level it needs to be sharpened, and boost saturation only where it needs to be boosted.

Yes, applying localized image adjustments is more time consuming than global adjustments. But it's well worth the effort for those images that matter to you.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I see nothing wrong in moving things that can move or change anyway. However - I can remember seeing pics on the Hog where photogs? have moved trees and sheds and the proverbial telegraph poles - that is when photographs become something else - as do the photographers. They become artists taking full advantage of "artistic licence". I may be alone in believing that photographs should be an accurate record. Anything else becomes a digital painting, rather than a photograph. :)

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to conclude that because a photographer decides to clone out a power pole from what might otherwise be a pristine landscape that they somehow cross over a line and need to be considered to be "something else" other than a photographer, or that the resulting image becomes something other than a photograph. Such arbitrary designations serve little purpose in what is first and foremost a creative endeavor. Unfortunately, this minority view is all too often imposed with the purpose of trying to rank and sort photographers into categories of better or worse, talented or untalented, skilled or unskilled, when what really needs to be considered are the merits of the person's final images.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

What we see is made up of hundreds of 'Little looks' at different focal lengths and exposures times. We actually cannot hold a single 'Look' for long. The camera takes one usually. Add to that...Our brain tries to recognize what we look at. adding or removing details to make the final image. There is also the emotive aspect added to what we feel about what we'See'.

What should we do as photographers...combine images, post process them how we think they should look and then add emotion in the form of a more pleasing composition(crop) or a little more PP 'Magic'.

Ask many witnesses to an accident and they have conflicting views on what they 'Saw'. Same with those looking at photographs. If more like than dislike and you are in the former, then you got, Whatever you, did right.

No I don't like it when it looks wrong.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

You will, of course, appreciate that my purpose was not to judge either photographers or the merits of their creative endeavour - I am not qualified so to do. However, there is a difference between the adulterated and the unadulterated, that is not arbitrary, even if both have equal merit within their own categories. :-)

grusum

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Attaboy !!!