I Have To Ask (Page 7): PERFECT explanation right there Andy!

Naldo

AndyH wrote:

. . . Did you ever shoot film? If so, did you get your film developed and printed? That’s all post processing is. . .

PERFECT explanation right there Andy!

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I shoot RAW on every camera I have that has that capabiliy. I shoot with several cameras for various reasons. All the PP I do is in Photoshop CC/ Lightroom or if JPEG I do most in MacOS Photos for the simple stuff and Photoshop CC/Lightroom for the more extreme work.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Smudgey wrote:

Absolutely yes, if you are not using PP, then you are missing half or more of the creative process.

All digitals will benefit from some sharpening. My JPGs are sharpened using a high-pass filter, as are RAWs when I use them - which is when I screw up!

b roll wanabee

The real advantage of dslr photography is the ability to post process.
Prime example. Low light shots. Don't be afraid to underexposed 2 stops to get your shutter speed up. In adobe camera raw you can quickly adjust the picture to make a dark room look bright.

Raw is better but jpeg is quicker and more convienent.
I switch depending on how heavily I want to adjust the image. Most of the time I am going for the one and done. 1 out of 20 sometimes 1 out of 100.

Just do the basic adjustments with adobe camera raw. Then start in and create some overcooked photoshop monstrosities. Get a 2nd screen for your computer and watch as many tutorials as you can while your working on ps

Best of luck

DocDav Loc: IN

Well Said. Do what brings you joy and peace with your photography

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

Linda From Maine wrote:

For me, experimenting and exploring is part of joy of the hobby.

Wouldn't be all that much fun without it! When you can capture an image and then enhance it and create a vision that reflects how you feel and what you see, isn't that what all the great (and not-so-great!) artists have sought to do throughout history? And I doubt anyone would criticize Van Gogh for taking too much "creative license" with "Starry Night".

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Yes to Processing. Photoshop to accomplish it.
--Bob

ncammack wrote:

Hello all,

Being new on the forum I really don't want to stir up a hornet's nest but I have to ask; Post Processing, yes or no? If yes, what program(s) do you use. If no, I'm curious as to why not. To be honest, I do some post processing using GIMP, Dark Table, and Luminance HDR. Not always, but when I feel that a little punch up will turn a good shot into a great one.

Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

Just an opinion to anyone that will listen I guess 😀

Delderby wrote:

Who are you telling? those who know less than you or those who know more?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

tommystrat wrote:

Wouldn't be all that much fun without it! When you can capture an image and then enhance it and create a vision that reflects how you feel and what you see, isn't that what all the great (and not-so-great!) artists have sought to do throughout history? And I doubt anyone would criticize Van Gogh for taking too much "creative license" with "Starry Night".

Vincent does it for me. Ansell does nothing, especially when you consider that it took Ansell ten years to create Moonrise. It took Vincent one day (or night) to create Starry Night. Perhaps I'm too cynical?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

safeman wrote:

Andy:
Developing and printing film is analogous to transferring files from your digital camera and viewing them on your computer monitor. Neither has anything to do with PP.

As long as you don’t vary film choice (grain and speed), time, temperature, or chemistry in developing the image, and always print the same way, on the same contrast grade paper, you’re right.

In other words, if you took your film to the drugstore (remember when they did b/w?) then no post processing was involved.

I did all those things for myself back in film days. I still do, but without a darkroom.

Post processing need not involve altering the image to remove your ex or make Aunt Millie look thinner, nor tweaking up the saturation levels to those of a cheesy motivational poster.

Andy

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Delderby wrote:

If you really think that, then you are not capable of rational thought. I - I repeat, I - control the settings in my camera - If you cannot or have not done so, at least you can relax in the knowledge that ignorance is bliss.

Your have clearly demonstrated your own ignorance (the limitation of your knowledge) about photography. Your camera records a RAW file according to the settings you have made on the camera and the limitations inherent in the camera and lens. BUT, the conversion of the of that RAW file into a JPEG you see on your camera or computer (before you post-process it)--that RAW file was converted to that JPEG according to the skill and taste of someone or some group that developed that camera. That is why you can take a photo of the same subject at the same time with different cameras with similar lenses and settings and get different coloration and sharpness in the images and is the reason Canon images look different than Nikon or Sony images. You don't control that. And if you open that RAW file or JPEG in an application to post-process it, that application also introduces adjustments in contrast, sharpness, etc. before you even get to start post-processing.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

ncammack wrote:

Hello all,

Being new on the forum I really don't want to stir up a hornet's nest but I have to ask; Post Processing, yes or no? If yes, what program(s) do you use. If no, I'm curious as to why not. To be honest, I do some post processing using GIMP, Dark Table, and Luminance HDR. Not always, but when I feel that a little punch up will turn a good shot into a great one.

Of course.

srt101fan

jackpinoh wrote:

Your have clearly demonstrated your own ignorance ... (show quote)

Why do some of you perpetuate the myth that you have no control over the settings used by the camera to generate the JPEG images? Of course you do! (See my earlier comment on p.5).

Just because it takes some effort to make adjustment doesn't mean that you have no control over the process.

PeterBergh

pila wrote:

National Geo does not like.

Unless you're working for or planning to work for National Geographic, what National Geographic likes or does not like is irrelevant.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

srt101fan wrote:

Why do some of you perpetuate the myth that you have no control over the settings used by the camera to generate the JPEG images? Of course you do! (See my earlier comment on p.5).

Just because it takes some effort to make adjustment doesn't mean that you have no control over the process.

Not to speak for anyone else, but don’t the mode settings and image presets all invoke some form of adjustment of color, hue, contrast, brightness, etc.?

You can’t control any of those individual settings from the camera, that’s why they’re preset to the best compromises for individual scenarios, aren’t they?

So you have generalized control, but not of individual image settings. That may be what is being referred to.

Andy