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

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

Enough to make a customer happy. Sharpened for crisp detail impresses most people, slightly boosted contrast, slightly boosted color saturation impresses most people, rosey warm skin but not too much on portraits makes them feel healthier, moles reduced but not eliminated makes a subject feel better about themselves, wrinkles softened but not removed revives a youthful feel in an elderly subject, acne removed completely relieves embarrassment for a teenager, etc.

For personal use I like to dabble with strong HDR efforts but I'm not totally sold on it because in photography I'm not trying to be an artist like a painter. I prefer natural and slightly enhanced much more.

I've been very fortunate when it comes my career in the imaging process.

Years ago I used to work in the field of wet chemical based darkroom photography for the graphic arts field as it related to the ultimate finished product of printed material from an ink on paper printing press.

We used all kinds of different equipment, from film cameras, to enlargers, to large, room-sized process cameras. We also used all kinds of filters and screens to give us different effects. I used small 35mm film and I used film as large as 24x36.

Now I apply myself to the magic of digital arts, whether it involves the creation of a life-like realistic image, or an intriguing abstract image. I apply these images to regular photo paper, printer paper, plastic, stone, wood, metal, cloth, and of course, the worldwide web.

I had fun doing things the "old-fashioned" way, and now I'm having even more fun using the power of computers to bring joy and delight into my life and the lives of others.

Technology is a great tool to use in combination with the more creative human brain. I hope each of you find the motivating factors that give you delight in your preferred techniques.

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.

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