We seem to be in a recycle phase, as this question has been asked and answered many times. If I were only shooting for yearbooks I'd shoot jpeg and I'd get it right every time. But I shoot a lot more than yearbooks and I like my work to be all it can be. So, I do a lot more. I create mood, tone, atmosphere in processing; I clean up yucky stuff in the water; I clean up the animals; I even put the tips of feathers back on birds; I change skies as needed; I make trees longer in some cases; I do HDR and Panos, the list is endless. I make art, not school pictures.

One's goals are paramount here. I've never claimed to be an artist.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-458973-1.html

Instead, for over fifty years I have been functioning as a documentarion, recording my world as it is today, before tomorrow comes and everything changes. As such, I choose to follow procedures such as those used by news reporters and those recording the Olympics; achieving what you view as 'best' may violate those standards, so it would not be 'best' for me. I don't have prints hanging on walls, including my own, but I do have had an image accepted by a historical society for their files. Under these standards, I do make use of the full potential of the camera to achieve my goals.

I try not to limit myself or my images in that fashion. But everyone's mileage is different. I too make use of the full potential of my camera gear. But we obviously have very different outcomes.

I heard a great presentation by Gerry Van der Walt in which he described four stages of photography - Proof, Documentary, Narrative and Creative. Proof is taking the shot just to show you were there. Documentary is taking a picture that is technically accurate - camera settings and composition, narrative is when your image tells a story with it's element, and creative is when you take risks and do things out of the ordinary - like shooting a cheetah running past with a shutter speed of 1/30 sec. He describes the last stage as one that elicits the same feeling in the viewer that the photographer felt when he/she took the image. The last stage is for me the most challenging, having been a documentarian in my professional work and for most of my 51 yrs as a photographer. But now I've decided to step up to the challenge and go way outside the box to create some memorable imagery. Not sure how successful I'll be, but I am sure going to enjoy the journey.

http://www.gerryvanderwalt.com/

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Haveing a BFA and MFA in photography and been teaching photography for over 30 years I am the same way. I shoot it right and it requires little or no post processing. There are too many "photographers" out there that are spray shooters. That is: they let the camera shoot 20 seconds of shots in bracket mode and then do tons of post processing. They are just equipment operators and not true photographers. Back in 1999, I was picking up some extra money doing shipping for a small mail order company. They were in the process of shooting their Christmas catalog. They had hired a recent college graduate that was a computer wiz to do the catalog. He was spending 2 minutes shooting the product (small items on a table top) and then anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour on each shot in post processing. I mentioned this loss of efficiency to the owner. I told him that I could fix it so that I could do 10 times the production that his high priced geek could do. The challenge was on. Next day I brought in my studio equipment and did ten product shots in less than an hour that required no post processing. You should have seen the look on the Geeks face after I was done. I got promoted from minimum wage to a respectable wage and finished the Christmas Catalog shoot. Moral of the story: use the right tool for the job and know your equipment. Do it right in the beginning and save time and effort.

I submit that because the OP finds the practice of pp "fixing" irritating and inexplicable, he/she is "seeing" more instances than actually exist. You know how something can get under your skin and appear to be more of a problem than it really is?

However, the vast majority of UHH users are hobbyists and many are casual snapshot shooters. Some don't have enough experience - or guidance from more experienced photographers - to even be aware that some of their exposures or other mistakes are a "problem," let alone how to prevent them.

Wouldn't it be great if once a month UHH members who feel the need to frequently complain and criticize, would instead post a positive topic? A personal story of inspiration, photos that blow us away with their creativity and/or technical perfection, an offer to mentor a newbie? Too much to ask?

It all depends on what you do, what you want to do and if your are willing to do it right OR if you HAVE to to it right!... Or not?!

If you are a “snap-shooter” , there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Lord knows, with any decent digital camera and today's automation, you can produce reasonably or even surprisingly good images, view them on your monitor or paste them in you album and enjoy them.

If you are a serious enthusiast and are a stickler for quality and artistically created imagery, I assume you are interested in the technicalities of creating superior images and operating your camera in a crafts-person-like manner. You will want to shoot properly and precisely, making non-problematic files and then processes them to maximize their potential. There is no different in this approach to digital photography as there was to making good negatives or transparencies during the film era and things, nowadays, are a heck of a lot more convenient.

If you are a professional photographer, what with client demands, deadlines to meet and the requirement for top quality results on time, sloppy or erratic shooting and complex post processing with layers of remedial procedures is NOT AN OPTION. Having to “re-shoot” each assignment in the computer is tedious, disproportionately painstaking and time consuming and uneconomical. It can result in poor quality and it is definitely bad business.

It is best, when circumstances permit, do as much image management in the camera as possible- exposure, perspective, composition, focus, issues of contrast and range, application of lighting and light quality and attention to detail. Post processing should be employed to tweak or enhance any of the aforementioned elements and apply any special effects or aesthetic retouching.

In many situations, in advanced and professional photography, there is enough time to work carefully and precisely. There are also many “gun and run” circumstances and difficult conditions that photographs have to contend with. Experienced shooters learn to work precisely under stressful conditions and limited time frames, but even under controlled conditions, nobody is invincible so it is good to know that there are extreme fixes that can bail us out.- I just don't like to make a habit of it!

There are so many ongoing arguments and philosophies about the validity of posts processing, image manipulation, portrait retouching, so called “pure photography” or realism vs. artistic impression. I feel that these arguments are a waste of time- time that would be better spent making the kind of photographs that you want to produce for you personal edification or the needs of you clients. Photography is an art and a science. There are “laws” but they are not legalities, they are just the laws of optics, chemistry and physics- we are kinda stuck with them. There are “rules” but they are rules of thumb and formulas that can be adhered to for reliable or consistent results or broken for creative, inventive or innovative results. At the end of the day, we are all image makers. The proof of your technique will be in your imagery.

My assessment of any post processing procedure is simple. If whatever you did calls attention to itself or results in inferior quality, it is unsuccessful. If the image you create shines and tells the story you want to tell or expresses your artistic interpretation and impacts the viewers in the way in which you intended- you are doing OK! If you are a pro- you've gotta produce the goods so that you can get paid!

👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Haveing a BFA and MFA in photography and been teaching photography for over 30 years I am the same way. I shoot it right and it requires little or no post processing. There are too many "photographers" out there that are spray shooters. That is: they let the camera shoot 20 seconds of shots in bracket mode and then do tons of post processing. They are just equipment operators and not true photographers. Back in 1999, I was picking up some extra money doing shipping for a small mail order company. They were in the process of shooting their Christmas catalog. They had hired a recent college graduate that was a computer wiz to do the catalog. He was spending 2 minutes shooting the product (small items on a table top) and then anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour on each shot in post processing. I mentioned this loss of efficiency to the owner. I told him that I could fix it so that I could do 10 times the production that his high priced geek could do. The challenge was on. Next day I brought in my studio equipment and did ten product shots in less than an hour that required no post processing. You should have seen the look on the Geeks face after I was done. I got promoted from minimum wage to a respectable wage and finished the Christmas Catalog shoot. Moral of the story: use the right tool for the job and know your equipment. Do it right in the beginning and save time and effort.

there are times that I will deliberately underexpose my landscapes, exposing for the sky. I will use that RAW image and process it multiple times in Adobe Camera RAW, and combine the images for an HDR effect. My goal is to get the effect I want right in camera and then work from there. Do I fix it in post? Yes, but that was the plan all the long, otherwise I would have a blown out sky. Other times I will take photos of dull skies knowing that I will replace the sky in pp. Is that cheating? Yes, but it gives me the image I want.

Why are there so many out there just fixing it in post? I wonder if the shot good negatives when there was film. We now have a digital world and all I hear is fix it in post. Should we not never ever get a great shot in the first place? I say best shot in camera and only if needed fix it in post. My video camera days in college taught me get the shot right the first time and you never have to fix it in post. I was also taught post is where you can add all the effects and special stuff to images you made right the first time. Working as a pro wedding photographer the studio wanted it done right without post help. So why shoot the image with fixing it in post later a main theme here on UHH? Top photographers I studied under said get it right the first time because we cannot go back and shoot it again.
I do yearbook stuff like I did in film days for extra cash since I retired. I shoot jpeg's a lot because that is all the yearbooks need and if need be you can open and fix them in Adobe Camera RAW somewhat. So I make sure all my exposures are good the first time with little or no post needed.