10MPlayer Loc: California

The answer for me is yes. I shoot RAW. When you shoot RAW the images are usually dull and not interesting at all. I use Lightroom to adjust mine shots. My workflow is 1. Crop the image to make it the best composition I can. 2. Level the horizon. 3. Use the Auto tone control setting for exposure, contrast and a host of other settings. 4. Then I do slight adjustments if necessary to what's already been done by the Auto control.

For most images it takes about a minute to make the adjustments. When you shoot RAW, like I said, the original shot comes out looking kind of bland and dull. Colors are muted. Sometimes highlights are blown out or shadows are too dark. Fixing them with the Auto setting takes care of 90% of it. The rest is fine tuning to make it look good to my idea of how it looked in reality or how I want it to look for some artistic purpose.

Here's a typical example. In this case I cropped out the garbage cans and other visual clutter to accentuate the subject and added a slight darkening around the edges to highlight it.

Haarlem, Netherlands - Mermaid holding a Wind Bottle. It's not a work of art but the finished image is a whole lot more interesting to look at than what came SOOC.

RAW image Straight out of Camera

(Download)

Mermaid with Wine Bottle - about 2 minutes editing time

(Download)

eskimoky

I'm in agreement with you.the photo editing can go like sampling of music.arranging sound stored in your mixer to make music. Adding items and taking away things to make people think that you captured a photo of a lifetime.good photos tell a story about that moment in time,they invoke wonder,or curiosity they draw the viewer in to be a part of that subject photographed in that moment that the camera captured. Imho.eskimoky

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

Yes!
Isn't that obvious?

RPSteiner

Beautiful work, Linda!

aellman Loc: Boston MA

I do not use Photoshop or other post-production tools. I try my best to make the photo as I envisioned it come right out of the camera. That's just my purist tendencies. I agree with another poster that it's a personal decision. There is no right or wrong.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You do realize that doing that is not purist, correct? Before creating your jpegs your camera processes the raw data and automatically adjusts for picture style, sharpness, contrast, color tone etc. which are all adjustable ahead of time by the user. When you change any of these settings, or leave them at their default settings, you are effectively post processing in camera but with little control over the results. If you were really a "purist" you would shoot in raw and convert the results directly to jpeg in post processing software without making any adjustments to it. Of course the results will often look flat, dull and unsharp, but you shouldn't mind that if you really are a purist. Second images SOOC rarely look close to what your eyes actually saw. That may be acceptable to you, but they are usually far from accurate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with shooting SOOC if that is your preference. But, please drop the word "purist" from how you describe your photography, because it isn't.

BebuLamar

When I was a kid and I first use the camera I though I could take pictures that look the same as the scenes I saw. I later learned that is impossible.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What's changed is our expectations. Our brains compensate. In the early part of the 20th century, or perhaps the late 19th, I believe it was Thomas Edison, who played a musical recording with large horn speakers to an audience in a large theater. The audience thought it was a live performance and wanted to know where the orchestra was. That tinny, scratchy recording with little bass fundamentals or high frequencies played by an ancient large Victrola horn speaker was enough to fool an audience which was was unfamiliar with recorded music being played in a situation like that. Their brains compensated. Its the same with those that think all their SOOC images more accurately represent reality. Some times they may, but more often then not, they aren't even close.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Mr Mwsilvers, I disagree.

He is a purist. He is taking the image as recorded and processed by the camera.

As for “Images SOOC rarely look close to what your eyes actually saw.”
I note you use the word “rarely”. A purist will wait for that result, even be it rare.

So I guess it comes down to the definition of “purist”.

The Cambridge English Dictionary gives the following definition:
purist meaning: 1. someone who believes in and follows very traditional rules or ideas in a subject: 2. a person who believes that it is important to speak, write, or do things in a correct or traditional way.

But this is Art we are talking about. You both have different ideas about it. Perhaps both are valid.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Point taken. My frustration with those who use that term is that it is too often used to suggest they are on some sort of moral high ground by shooting SOOC. And by the way, there are also plenty of people here that would argue that photography is not an art form as you suggest, but most of them, based on their comments, seem to have little understanding of art anyway.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And it’s obvious from looking at their pics that they’re not artists.

BebuLamar

But for me it's never. A photograph never looks like the real scenes regardless if you PP or SOOC.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I completely agree with all of that.

Thank you.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Everyone doesn't but everyone should. Photography is far more than just snapping a picture with your computerized camera. You have a better chance of winning the big lottery than taking a perfect picture, so about every photo needs post processing. Sometimes just minor touches need done, other times you need to remove that light pole sticking out of Aunt Bert's head. Other times, you might want to put your daughters lips or eyes on her cat.

EVERY good picture I take ends up on my desktop background for it's time in the limelight. The very least this means it must be resized to fit. The better you are at post processing, the more you will see it is AT LEAST half the game. Personally, I have more fun editing pictures than taking them, but that's just me. Today you must have at least minimum skills at post, it's not digital photography for nothing.

If you really are so myopic to only want pictures to look like you saw them, you still need to post process to get them there 99% of the time, and while your at it, might as well get rid of that damned light pole sticking out of Bert's head,,, or not.

BTW, the easiest thing to do in post is to over process the file. Many pictures you see are over processed. Pictures that are processed well, you can't tell they were ever touched, unless the editor wanted that look. So as you learn how to edit, you will learn how to make the pic look like whatever it is you want, including what you actually saw with your eyes.

IMO, the worst thing you can do is limit yourself and your pictures to what popped out of your camera.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Let's face it we all our creatures of our society. Now post processing of photography and
video even for movies is done 90% of the time I would guess. A photo doesnt look right to
the modern eye if not tweaked a bit or a lot. And am not talking about photo illustration which
some here do very well. We are all bought in to images that have saturation tweaked up adjustments
for dynamic range and some sharpening. I don't think I have seen a out-of-the-camera shot
here that I can remember. Years ago the folks laughed at my tiffen filters and polarizers that
I used to doctor my shots. I had have the last laugh look at what we are creating today.