Wondering how many photographers use minimal if any P.P.
I do not p.p. at all, and have no intention on starting.
Get it as perfect as I can. I do crop.
But, it does not apply those pre selected edits until after the image is taken, thus it's still post processing. If you don't set any parameters, then the camera's software decides what edits to make...
Stage Light wrote:
Seems to me that when you set your camera to take a picture (in jpg) and you are telling the camera it is cloudy (or whatever) this would be preprocessing; the camera sets itself up for whatever you ask for. If you don't ask for anything, the camera is smart enough to set itself to take an average good picture.
If you crop, then you are post processing...
gonate wrote:
I do not p.p. at all, and have no intention on starting.
Get it as perfect as I can. I do crop.
If I have to spend hours p.p. then I am not a photographer.
Lots of PP...crop, apply levels, unsharp masks, rarely use Layers with my P SE 12. Will print at home if I need picture that day. If I need 4X6 prints to give away, I order on Internet from WalMart at 18 cents, but if in no hurry, I have them mailed to me at 9 cents each. At age 83, what else do I have to do
What worries me is the young crowd with camera phones...they are quick to show me a good snap, but rarely print them out. At middle age, they will have few prints to show their grandchildren how they lived in the old days (Now).
If you don't, then does that make you a snap shooter? Photography is a craft & has many "tools"...A carpenter can make a simple chest with basic tools, but can make a work of art with the full gauntlet of specialized tools at hand. They are there to broaden your horizon, use them if you need them. Oh, while I PP, I rarely spend "hours" doing it...
gonate wrote:
If I have to spend hours p.p. then I am not a photographer.
70+ and shoot RAW only for over 10 yrs. Prior to digital, took Com College classes in B&W and color. Shooting film definitely taught me to plan ahead. Was a little intimidated at first, but studied basic pp with PSE. When LR came out, I decided it may be a better solution for me, since I don't spend hours to try to salvage stuff, but needed a neat filing system.
Blue Spark wrote:
First off an apology if this has been asked and hashed over many times already.
I'm curious, not trying to make a statement or judgement. I fall into the minimalist camp most of the time unless I have something I really want to try to "save".
Where do you stand? And in your circle of photographer friends, what percentage of them would you estimate do minimal if any P.P. Vs those who consider it a normal part of the process? Not talking about pro shooting here, just personal.
Thanks for having a look.
First off an apology if this has been asked and ha... (
show quote)
I'm a single shot shooter and try to take my time getting the exposure right before I start fooling around with PP. I work the camera, not the other way around. I owned the original Asahi Pentax Spotmatic with a screw mount lens. And then Nikon hit the market with a bayonet mount. What a relief that was...
I switched over to digital right after 9/11 and was hoping, and hoping that the resolution would finally match 35mm film. I never turned back and I think the IQ is pretty much there now.
Now I shoot with Canons because they were always a bit more cutting edge and also less expensive than Nikons. But I believe the lens quality is just a tad better with Nikon. Whatever!
I shoot .jpg's and RAW together so that I always have an option. PP is always done.
I enjoy cropping to get the "rule of thirds" to satisfaction. Composition is everything.
I use Lightroom and Photoshop for all my images. A little here, and a little there. The enhancements are subtle.
Get the exposure right from behind the lens the first time. It adds to the pride from catching that right shot.
I've been shooting stuff since 1969 and I'm still trying to get it right. Practice makes perfect!!!
Machu Piichu
Madman
Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA
This dilemma has no right or wrong as I see it. Bottom line, I now shoot primarily for my own pleasure so that makes me the judge of what is a proper photograph. Somebody else can do it differently and that's OK.
I fall into the minimalist category. Sharpening and cropping always, highlight and shadow corrections when needed. Trashing when appropriate. I firmly believe that any good camera can get the exposure correct at least 99% of the time if it's used correctly. I learned photography by shooting slides in a 100% manual camera (Miranda Sensorex/Nikon FM) and I use my DSLR automation to assist rather than control the capture.
I don't attempt to be creative, preferring to record what I am seeing. I do not like to see man-made things like paved roads or fences in my nature shots so I may remove those.
I do wonder how many of the photographers that use PP extensively would have taken the same pains to perfect their work if the medium was film negatives.
BTW, I passed the 60 year mark a number of years ago
I would venture to guess that most shooters here think the in camera meter will get the exposure right every time. I know differently. That's why PP can be critical... I still have & use an incident light meter whenever I can as it measure the light falling on the subject, not what's reflected back as that can be deceiving... If I can't use the incident meter, then PP holds the key most times to "getting it right"
skydiverbob wrote:
I'm a single shot shooter and try to take my time getting the exposure right before I start fooling around with PP. I work the camera, not the other way around. I owned the original Asahi Pentax Spotmatic with a screw mount lens. And then Nikon hit the market with a bayonet mount. What a relief that was...
I switched over to digital right after 9/11 and was hoping, and hoping that the resolution would finally match 35mm film. I never turned back and I think the IQ is pretty much there now.
Now I shoot with Canons because they were always a bit more cutting edge and also less expensive than Nikons. But I believe the lens quality is just a tad better with Nikon. Whatever!
I shoot .jpg's and RAW together so that I always have an option. PP is always done.
I enjoy cropping to get the "rule of thirds" to satisfaction. Composition is everything.
I use Lightroom and Photoshop for all my images. A little here, and a little there. The enhancements are subtle.
Get the exposure right from behind the lens the first time. It adds to the pride from catching that right shot.
I've been shooting stuff since 1969 and I'm still trying to get it right. Practice makes perfect!!!
I'm a single shot shooter and try to take my time ... (
show quote)
Madman wrote:
This dilemma has no right or wrong as I see it. Bottom line, I now shoot primarily for my own pleasure so that makes me the judge of what is a proper photograph. Somebody else can do it differently and that's OK.
I fall into the minimalist category. Sharpening and cropping always, highlight and shadow corrections when needed. Trashing when appropriate. I firmly believe that any good camera can get the exposure correct at least 99% of the time if it's used correctly. I learned photography by shooting slides in a 100% manual camera (Miranda Sensorex/Nikon FM) and I use my DSLR automation to assist rather than control the capture.
I don't attempt to be creative, preferring to record what I am seeing. I do not like to see man-made things like paved roads or fences in my nature shots so I may remove those.
I do wonder how many of the photographers that use PP extensively would have taken the same pains to perfect their work if the medium was film negatives.
BTW, I passed the 60 year mark a number of years ago
This dilemma has no right or wrong as I see it. Bo... (
show quote)
Another old fart, like me!
:mrgreen:
Madman wrote:
I firmly believe that any good camera can get the exposure correct at least 99% of the time if it's used correctly.
I don't attempt to be creative, preferring to record what I am seeing.
So you think your camera that sees 10 stops of light can nail what your 24-stop eyes see 99% of the time?
i am 72 and PP everything. i attempt to shoot it right the first time, but find even then PP most often makes it better in my eyes. I use LR5, and then either onOne, NIK or CS6. onOne's eraser is much bettter than LR5. Adobe needs to look at on One's algorithm on this point. I prefer NIK for BW and HDR.
Blue Spark wrote:
Where do you stand? And in your circle of photographer friends, what percentage of them would you estimate do minimal if any P.P. Vs those who consider it a normal part of the process? Not talking about pro shooting here, just personal.
I fall in the over 60 camp. I also now shoot mainly in RAW to allow for those times I do not think the camera has the correct answers.
PP depends on the picture. Most times I will have taken the picture well enough that I am happy with it virtually as is.
Other pictures may need a bit of processing to correct for dull weather or unwanted bits in the picture.
Some pictures may need to be HDR due to the subject.
A few pictures I will decide to radically change from a photographic record to a photographic work of art.
HowardPepper wrote:
My goal in photography is to capture a scene as close as possible in camera, without resorting to PP tricks.
My wise old grandmother taught me to add laughter to each and every day. There's my laughter for today!
Do you not realize that every camera has its own "PP tricks" IN THE CAMERA! They are done by the camera makers' software engineers when they create the little computer and program it. Why let someone else create your pictures, in camera or not?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.