TheDman Loc: USA

But if you don't know how you'll never get it right, which is why the pp is harder. Amateurs can luck out and get a terrific shot - throwing mudpies at a barn, as they say. Heck, I did it a couple times back when I started. But you'll never just luckily post process something well. You have to know what you're doing.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Shall we call it quits? :-)

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

PVR8 Loc: Raleigh, NC

I really like your shots. Very nice!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Dman, truth is many of the top notch pros are pros at photography and even though they may be VERY good at PP, they are NOT pros at PP.
Most big time pros don't waste their time doing PP.
They can charge up to $1500 a day shooting, and farm out the PP to a real PP pro that actually know what they are doing.
So yes, maybe for you, you think that PP is hard, but ANYBODY can buy professional PP skills for very little. A photographer needs to know no PP at all, it's just not necessary.
You just need to find a PP person that understands what you want done in your shooting style.
So yes, PP is the easiest part, and no credit has to be given.
The finished shot is all yours just, just like a stunt double! :lol:
SS

Kuzano

Well Dman.... I was an excited and capable Photoshop user from the early versions, through Photoshop 7. In fact I taught PSE versions 2 through 6 to Community Ed classes. for 3 years. I also used CS2, and CS3 and was quite adept. I did layers and migrating people from one image to another, actually fairly advanced work.

About 5 years ago it began to occur to me that if I spent more time knowing and pulling the more advanced evolutionary features out of the evolving camera's, I could spend more time shooting and less time in front of the computers.

Now let me reveal a real need of mine. I have consulted, repaired and instructed software (Windows and Apps) for 25 years, 22 of that in educational venues.

Therefore using computers in my avocational needs was not attractive to me at all. I essentially only organize my images, without the benefit of any programs outside files and folder management in Windows (which is teachable and I do teach it)

So as of about 4 plus years ago, I ceased shooting RAW, processing RAW to other format, and reduced my post processing to minimal efforts. (Have not used any Adobe products so speak of for four years)

I do not begrudge the use of Post Processing as it built into current camera's. So I am a fairly committed SOOC or "Get It Right In The Camera" advocate.

I attribute part of that to shooting film since I was about 20, and I am 71 now. I did not and do not now, use any photo chemicals, or do darkroom work.

I take pride in achieving salable work over many years, and happy to do it mostly with the camera, film products, and digital camera's that are now currently available.

I do not believe that the work being produced today cannot be truly called Photography if it requires a computer and a graphic arts program to produce. Not unless a person can actually produce work for hire, without using anything other than the simplest editing programs, much as photographers did with with chemical processing on film.

Kuzano

Thank you. I appreciate your consideration and comments.

Kuzano

I assure you, I won't bail on you. I would be pleased if I could just, for a few hours, get you to turn off your computer, grab your camera and produce some images that you would feel criminal to post process.

Can you do at least that much.... take your camera out and produce a keeper image WITHOUT shooting RAW and editing the crap out of it.

Bet you can't!

TheDman Loc: USA

That's more the case in the fashion/wedding/food industries, not fine art/landscape. And nobody is a world class PP'er in all areas; at the top everyone is a specialist. And the thought that you can hire it done for "very little" is laughable. If that were the case everyone would hire it done and be world class landscape shooters. If you want average work, perhaps, but again, not at the top levels. I remember tales of a guy in NYC who's ability to sculpt the human body made him the top fashion PPer in the world, and he charged some ridiculous amount per hour. I'll try to look him up.

As for which is harder, I can only speak from my own genre (landscape) - the PP is way harder. In fact, many of those top guys at 500px are making lots of cash right now by creating PP video tutorials and live PP Skype sessions. Don't see any of them selling videos on how to shoot the photos. That says it all.

TheDman Loc: USA

Already have! Done and done. Here's a sampling of my stuff. At least 5 of those 18 images have not been PPd at all. Didn't need any. Others I spent hours on. A few others, a minute or two. Can you tell which ones haven't had any?

As someone else mentioned in this thread, my photos get as much or as little PP as they need. The idea that everyone who knows how to post process goes Photoshop crazy on every photo is yet another myth put forth by the SOOC crew.

TheeGambler Loc: The green pastures of Northeast Texas

Anyone can take a photo.

Not anyone can turn that photo into, "Wow."

The OOC is not the end result. Many times it is only the beginning.

JMHO.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Can you? Or are those from your initial post with the pictures in them what you would consider keepers?

I am sure that you are a very nice person, but if I had to be brutally honest, although I know you didn't ask me for my opinion, those 4 pictures are not worth a penny. Not one, I don't mean that they wouldn't win a contest, I mean I'd delete them from the card as soon as I saw them. But I do understand, that if you like them, that is all that matters. You even received a nice compliment from someone. Unfortunately those pictures are not good examples to try to convince someone to make any changes to their camera.

Kind of like the Atkins booth at health shows - full of obese reps, trying to convince the attendees to try the diet.

I know this post seems very mean spirited, but that wasn't my intention, but sometimes the truth hurts. I apologize if I am out of line.

********************************************************

Couple of my very few lucky shots (and I only mean, sharpness, color) from 2009 with a canon s3 (tiny sensor) out of 1100 pictures I took while driving cross country. SOOC

IMG_0729 by savingspaces33, on Flickr

IMG_1338 by savingspaces33, on Flickr

TheDman Loc: USA

Yep. What it comes down to is the belief held by many non-photogs and newcomers to photography that people who use Photoshop do so because they can't take a decent photo to begin with, when actually we use it to make our best shots even better. So naturally they think those who don't use Photoshop must take better photos to begin with, when in fact the opposite is the case.

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

I'm not sure why this is a 18 page worthy discussion. Some people prefer acoustic music some prefer electric, some like sail boats, some like power etc. There is room for everyone. realistic is subjective.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I think most humans want others to like what they like, so this is what happens, instead of accepting the next guy as he is.

Your example is right on, until the rock fan starts claiming that rock is better than classical.