BigGWells Loc: Olympia, WA

As a very ameture picture taker, yes, picture taker, not yet ready to call myself a photographer, I find it a bit disconcerning to see some of the pictures that are posted on different sites. By this I mean, they look fake, to much editing has taken place. Now I understand the HDR type, I enjoy seeing some of them, but I feel even those are becoming way over saturated.

The reason for this topic...I viewed a photo taken on the last day of December, dead middle of winter, snow on the ground...and to my surprise, seeing all the lovely green grass.

I do some PP, but very little, I prefer a more natural looking outdoor photo. I understand some of the editing for a portrait, but even those can be over done.

So to my point.....how much PP do you do?

Thanks

Karl P Loc: Leigh NW UK

Hi

My PP is very minited due to two things
1) Time available
2) knowledge of use of the programme I have

I do try and get as much right in the camera as possible - but like yourself I am a picture taker and not a photographer.

If the turn out like I saw the image in my head that is what matters and if other say - great shot that is a bonus

HDR not sure what this means really and PP is not out of bounds for me but the ones that look fake I just switch off as it is a matter of taste

Best Wishes

Karl

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Simply as much or as little as I want, with the goal of creating an image that myself and others can enjoy. 8-)

R.G. Loc: Scotland

To me, photography is about capturing images (snapshots of a real-life situation). Excessive editing is taking you into the realms of image creation rather than image capture. In theory you could create almost any image that you wanted, either from scratch or by editing an image that already exists until it is unrecognisable and to all intents and purposes a manufactured image.

My PP is limited to cropping, small amounts of lightening or darkening and small amounts of colour enrichment. That way, I can look at a photograph and feel that I have captured something real. I suppose there's apart of me that sees excessive editing as cheating.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

Very very little. I'm from the old school of film and the need to get it right from the onset.

I use some standard presets when I import RAW files into my PP software. Then I white balance groups shot in the same light (only if needed). I may do some local lightening and darkening to compensate for dynamic range within one image. But this is about it.

Most images don't get any of this and I like the natural feel.

My rule: if another photographer can tell it underwent any PP, then I went too far.
Getting "it right" in camera is very gratifying in and of itself, so I focus on that.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Without getting into Photoshop yet, I've got one of those programs that will do an "automatic" touch up. I have been amazed at times how much better the colors look after the program does this. Suddenly a dull shot's got some pizzazz to it. I'm like you. I'm no great photog, but p/p software comes in handy if not overdone.

JudyTee23 Loc: Eastern U. S.

Photography is a very egalitarian pursuit. It is open to all at all levels of expertise and all forms of expression. You or I may like or dislike what someone else has produced, and we are entitled to our opinions, but we have absolutely no right of censorship. Everyone should be totally free to express themselves as they wish. I teach art and photography at a small college, so I see lots of work that I dislike. I can offer my opinion, but I will not attempt to censor someone's work.

I agree that some people overuse the various forms of post-processing software. Just because you can does not mean that you should. I have little regard for those "slop-tographers" who believe that "we can fix it in PP." But they have a right to do as they wish. We have to develop a degree of "artistic tolerance."

Now, as to your question - I do as much or as little post-processing as I feel is necessary to produce the final image which matches the initial image I had in my mind. You may disagree, but I believe that all great images begin in the mind.
I definitely try to avoid anything that looks fake or overdone, but I do not feel it is "cheating" to produce a final image which is totally different in appearance from the original scene. That is what artistic freedom is all about.

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

About the only PP that I do is to crop or resize the photo. On rare instances I may adjust the brightness/contrast.

For special commercial projects such as billboards or posters, I may do extensive work on the photos to create the desired effect. I have spent considerable time 'colorizing' old historical photos or just restoring old historical photos.

I agree that if PP is very noticeable by other photographers, it is probably over done. It's like my view of a good public address sound system- it should not sound like a sound system, it should sound very natural.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

Post processing is up to the person that took the image. What they like you may not. I to do very little post processing. Getting it right out of the camera is the hard part. But with todays camera's it is a lot easier.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

First I'll say that if you are in the photog business, post processing is a MUST have skill---not question in my mind. To coin a phrase: Sex sells. The "sexier" you can make your photos, the better. Of course, it depends on what or who you are shooting for, but generally not only does the photo have to be "eye-catching", but it has to be as close to perfect as possible in terms of color, sharpness, composition, etc.

Personally, I do not do a lot of post processing. I'd like to be able to do more, but I just don't have the time. It's not what puts food on my table, so I'm forced to limit my time on photography stuff. Perhaps someday when I'm retired, I can focus on the post processing stuff. For now, I'm just a regular guy with a digital camera. :-) I use pretty simple tools, and I like the fact that whatever I do, it only has to appeal to ME.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

As little as possible. Sometimes a little straighting or exposure or tweaking highlights, shadows, etc. all in LR. Once in awhile I will export to Elements to remove a power line or something that couldn't be avoided by changing where I was shooting from.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Where I come from grass is green in winter.

PP is essential to do a photo justice.
The purists who affirm that they do no post processing apart from a little bit of this and a little bit of that, can often be divided into a few camps.
One camp is the ones who do a lot more work than they say they do but still maintain that - I didn't do anything to it at all.

Another camp is those with boring bland pics that they think are true to the scene.
Sometimes what they end up with bears hardly any resemblance to the scene at all.
Some people can stand in front of the most spectacular and remarkable vistas available and still take boring crap. - straight from the camera!!

Don't get me wrong. It's great to take that wonderful photo as true to the scene as you can be and do it straight from the camera. It's what we all aim to do.
But some scenes cannot be taken like that. It is not possible for the camera to take that shot. The dynamic range of the shot may be far greater than the camera can handle, so unless you manipulate/edit/whatever in some way then that beautiful blue sky is gonna end up white or that foreground is gonna end up dark.

Very little post work doesn't equal a more natural looking outdoors photo.
Sometimes you have to work the crap out of an image to get it to look like the natural scene did.


Every photo you have ever seen or taken has been manipulated.

Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY

Excellent post Lighthouse. :thumbup:

jazzplayer

Yes!
:thumbup:

Since most of my "for hire" work has been in the area of portraying things per a spec of "as realistic as possible", most of my post work has been confined to mostly subtle colorspace adjustments - to hopefully match the overall colorspace of an existing collection of images. And lots(!) of clipping, which is a whole 'nother kind of post altogether.
On the other hand, when shooting just for the fun of it, I do at times find myself "shooting for post", as when I encounter a shot that may lend itself to some abstract treatment, or maybe a shot-for-avatar kitty...

gtwhogger Loc: Lawton

When I do any shooting indoors or out doors I take 1 test photo with a Color Checker Passport Card, and I calibrate my monitor every week using i1 Pro Extreme, as I bring in the shots to upload I compare the test images from different lighting conditions and compare it to the Color Checker card, usually 90 out of 100 photos are accurate in color but then all I have to do is boost shadows or lighten them up, I spend maybe 20 seconds on any photo with PP, and usually it is only slight contrast and exposure value.

I am not advocating that you run out and spend a couple grand in calibration tools or the like but for selling photos it is worth the investment to make it true as can be!

If the image pleases you and it is what you remember it to be then go with it and who cares what the over saturation squad does with there stuff, you have to please yourself first but if you are paid by someone else then you do what they ask for.