I guess there is a difference between adjusting white balance and some Snapchat filter people apply to pics of their breakfast that completely changes the image.

Some post-processing is always (or almost always) required. Yet, when I look at some pics out there, they are just not realistic because of all the filters people apply.

It's like an attempt to make a boring pic exciting by using filters.

Where do you draw the line when processing your pictures? What do you consider necessary?

You seem to be assuming a connection between a ramped up look and filters. Filters are just one way to completely destroy a natural look. It's more than possible to overcook an image using just the sliders in the Basic section.

Apart from that, natural v overcooked is a choice, and on a good day that means a creative choice. Some people want to create an image that'll burn itself into your retinas.

You ask "What do you consider necessary?" I try to push the processing as far as it will go while still holding on to a natural look. Of course "natural" can mean so many things. In good lighting and with an absence of haze a scene will look far more vivid than it does in subdued lighting and/or with haze, so I like to think that reality gives us a fair bit of leeway when it comes to how much ramping up is natural.

But IMO there is such a thing as too much saturation, contrast and sharpness. How much is too much is a matter of opinion or intention. Even AI thinks that a ramped up look is acceptable most of the time. And it probably picked that up from taking note of our preferences.

I guess there is a difference between adjusting white balance and some Snapchat filter people apply to pics of their breakfast that completely changes the image.

Some post-processing is always (or almost always) required. Yet, when I look at some pics out there, they are just not realistic because of all the filters people apply.

It's like an attempt to make a boring pic exciting by using filters.

Where do you draw the line when processing your pictures? What do you consider necessary?

What is truly "boring" is this continual argument about post-processing, realism vs. impressionism, filters, or no filters, etc..

Photography was not invented yesterday. "Processg" was always part of the equation. You exposed a film or a plane and you had to chemically PROCESS it to create an image. Serious, technically competent, and artistically inclined photograhers manipulate the images in development and/or printing to tweak the quality or apply a special effect. In a well-crafted image, from film or digital imaging. is produced in such a way that the manipulation or special effects do not call attention to themselves. A poorly crafted image will show the glitches!

As for color saturation? Years ago photographer shot Kodachrome and underexpss 1/2 a stop to increase saturation. Others shot Ecktachrome for a more realistic or neutral effect. Yet, some sho tSuper Anschrochrome and overexposed slightly for a pastel and grain effect. It's' a matter of TASTE and not everyone SEES things the same way.

Whatever you opted to do , you had to plan, select a film and process and follow through. Nowadays yo can just shoot and in post-process, you can make all sorts of alterations with a tweak of a slider and some folks SLIDE a bit much- but that is up to them! Some beginners tend to do that (it's fun) until they practice and gain more precise control.

Photography is a creative endeavor so why create LAWS or false ethics as to how folks should express THEIR visions and imaginations? All photogahy is not documentation and journalism. If you want your images to be as realistic as possibe- have at it. I do it every day in commercial work. If you want or need to change gears and do someth crazy or different, why not? Experiment, and if you don't like the results- it didn't cost you film, chemistry and paper. You don't even have to tear up the print and throw it in the garbage. You just click "delete" and it goes off to photo-purgatory, never again to be seen.

In post-processing, even the word "filter" is kind of a misnomer. In the olden days of film, you had to place a glass filter on your lens and undated HOW it is "filtering" out or minimizing certain colors and emphasizing others or how it affects the panchromatic renditions in monochromatic work. The presets or so-called filters in many software programs are just various moods and permutations so you just pick and choose- again, a personal choice.

Rant over , now as they say on TV talent contests- "let the battles begin"!