nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Sure, there is such thing as original. But thinking that you can RECALL it precisely and MATCH it later on is the misconception.

And, the original scene out there in front of the camera is a totally different medium than a film or digital recording, or an inkjet print, or any other form. There are infinite variables that determine color perception.

The science of color reproduction, as I learned it at Rochester Institute of Technology, tells us that you CANNOT expect to be able to achieve exact matches of color in different media.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Those with little knowledge or experience will usually recommend doing nothing, with quotes like "why would you change the color or mess with what the camera sees. This is usually done to substantiate a disinterest in applying any effort or acquiring a skill.

The truth is... RAW is 100% of the information, unprocessed that is supposed to be edited. Photoshop is a way to get the best possible results, or to apply artist level touches to an otherwise flat RAW image.

Jpegs on the other hand are produced as an algorithm for speed and convenience by the camera manufacturers. Every thing from cell phones to point and shoot cameras do this for a consumer market.

No camera is capable of producing what the eye sees, especially in Jpeg. The choice is simply a choice, and each are what they are.

bleirer

I agree the object in the world is real, but what we process in our brains is not the thing itself but an interpretation of reflected light bouncing from the sun off that object and activating an electrochemical response in our rods and cones. Paraphrased loosely from Lao Tzu.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

This is not necessarily true, and I keep harping on it because I am afraid that it scares people away from trying things when they are told that working with raw files is time consuming and difficult. You can not see a raw file. If you are working with Canon raw files and the Canon image editing program, nothing ever looks flat or lifeless, no major work is necessarily required, and no advanced skills are needed. There must be some combination of raw files and programs that causes that - dead, flat images that require a lot of skill and time to "develop" - since it comes up so frequently.

Mike

no12mo

I'm not a fan of post processing every photo I take. Usually, I just correct for under exposure. Perhaps crop sometimes if the resolution is good enough.

Sometimes I deliberately underexpose by .7 stops just to avoid highlight washouts and then will bring things back up to where they need to be exposure-wise.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I think the term 'Photoshop" has become a "cliche."
Their is a nice lady here who does "photographic illustration" that are really good.
Their are creators that totally change the shot move things out and or add layers as a montage.
Their are some shooters that use a lot of enhancement to the photo in sharpness, color saturation
and darks and lights. Sometimes great, sometimes to my eye over done.
I never send a PR photo out without some adjustments. It is so easy to lighten and saturate
the color of a good photo. And the lowest setting of more sharp. This doesnt take me a long time.
I believe that people who look at images now expect certain looks as right to today's print eye.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

There's no way to prove it scientifically, there's no way to prove the colors I see are even the colors someone else sees, but if I see a beautiful blue sky and my lcd shows a more pale washed out sky right after I took the picture, I know it's not the same. I have seen this in taking pictures with a microscope and telescope where the pics are right there on my laptop or desktop computer screen along with the actual image in the eyepiece. The brilliance and color I see in the eyepiece of a microscope or telescope is not there on the screen. Shine a bright light on your hand and look at it, all the veins and hairs and pores. Then take a picture of it and display it on your computer monitor and put your hand next to it. They don't match in detail or in skin tones.
Now if I post process a pic it's true I don't usually have the original to compare to, but I might increase the brightness or contrast or saturation in order to get it closer to the image that impressed me when I took the picture.

unduki

For anyone who doesn't know - like me - I looked it up. SOOC stands for Straight Out Of Camera.

Learning lots of new terminology.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

If you do ANY postprocessing of images, you're 'photoshoping'!

I shoot a lot of Auroras and definitely postprocess them for color, brightness, clarity, noise reduction, etc.. A couple of examples attached. The first shot three days ago. The full album of May 11th pictures, a time-lapse and star trails can be found here.

bwa

Sony A7R II w/ Minolta AF 16mm

(Download)

A mind blowing full sky Aurora - Sony A7R II w/ Opteka 6.5mm Fisheye

(Download)

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

The camera records light. Your mind records a vision. Rarely are they the same. I use a PP program (there are many) to realize on my screen and later on paper, the vision I had. My art would be incomplete without that capability.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Perhaps there is too much etymology, philosophy, and over-thinking in discussions about post-processing.

If you want to refer back to the film era, all images were "processed" in order to turn the latent image on the film into transparency, a negative or a print. One could just go by the book and process the image without any manipulation or opt for many degrees of alteration. The film could be pulled or pushed processed to accommodate changing of the recommended exposure index or in keeping with the Zone System. A straight contact print or an unmanipulated enlargement could be generated from a negative or a transparency or, at the photographers option, many degrees of alteration and manipulation could be applied from simple burning and dodging to help bring out all the information on the negative or transparency to every manner of complex special effects, inter-positives/negatives, texture screens, and chemical applications.

Digital post-processing is much the same- it can simply generate a screen image or print from the original file, left as is, slightly tweaked, or completely converted to a different digital artform.

Then comes the etymology. Terms like "PhotoShopping, airbrushing and retouching", have become mistakenly tantamount to fakery but in fact, many of these applications can be applied to impart more realism and detail in an image an make it more visually authentic. Theses application can also be used to create abstractions, artistic interpretations and creative imagery that have nothing to do with reality or authenticity. This is up to the photographer as an artist. It would not be ethical to alter images in photojournalism or documentary work but some folks are placing false ethics on art. Many photographers are making a "macho" thing about having every image Straight Out OF the Camera". That can be fun and exciting but creativity in post-processing can be fun and exciting too!

Personally, I like to produce good clean files that do not require massive correction in post-processing. Sometimes, however, a heavily processed image is better than no image at all and oftentimes all photographers, no matter how experienced they are make a bubo and have to "make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" kinda thing. We use to that do in the old dark room with intensifiers, reducers, bleaches, chemical alterations, and all kinds of manual acrobatics on the enlarger- now it's more convenient to do it on the computer- no mess, no toxic fumes, and stained clothing and hands.

Just consider post-processing part and parcel of the craft- how much you do or have or want to do is up to you. It's really nothing new. Many posts on this site express admiration for the work of Ansel Adams and his antithetical rival William Mortensen. Both of these masters, although their styles were very different, to say the least, they were both the "kings" of post-processing in the film era. One of the most iconic investigative photojournalists of all time was
W. Eugene Smith. He spent days in the darkroom sucking every last detail out of negatives that were made under nearly impossible lighting conditions. This did not alter the authenticity and storytelling content of his work.

If you enjoyed your time in the darkroom, I'm sure you will enjoy the likes of PhotoShop, Lightroom and Topaz and all the plugins that are available. Visit the Post-Processing section, here on the Hog. Lind moderates the department and does a fine job. There are old hands and novices at post-processing learning from each other and having fun.

When you are out shooting, consider how much post-processing you want to do or don't want to do and take it from there.

Many photograhers will negatively criticize a perfectly fine image because they don't like the style or method or THEY don't do it THAT way. They don't stop for a moment to realize that the image in question is, in fact, well crafted, has impactful design elements or is just "really cool"! Imagine, going to an art gallery or museum and finding all the works are exactly in the same style, mode, method, medium or genre- BORING!

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Bob, Not meaning to generate argument: I get pretty natural looking skin tones (and veins, pores, hairs) out of my equipment set, could you have a monitor issue (color correction required) ? Same with my spouse, kitties, birdies and lapdog, and critters I have in the yard. I do agree that probably no two people see the exact same thing in any scene (details, colors, lighting, shading, etc.) due to biological and technology differences. Do spend a lot of time on matching up my monitors and TV's for color and shading accuracy, something I do try pretty hard to get right (outside all the camera considerations). Just a thought.
mike

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

appealnow Loc: Dallas, Texas

Having relatively recently retired, I travel frequently. As such, I can't control the environment, don't have time to set up a shot or camera settings. I haven't taken the time to learn either PhotoShop or Lightroom. I frankly use the Microsoft Windows 10 program to enhance the photos, very little cropping, increase contrast or sharpness. I almost never use the color bar to increase saturation, although the "enhance filter" might do some of it. I recently on safari mistakenly turned on date and time stamp and desperately need to learn how to remove the darn thing.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

As I said, post processing will give you want you want to see and what you think, subjectively, is "right". Nothing wrong with that at all.
But, after the original "fact" (the actual thing that was photographed), achieving a "true" reproduction of it is an imaginary and unverifiable goal.