Is it bad to rely on PP?

P

passportphotoman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
205
Edit My Images
Yes
Im finding myself more reliant on my PP software to give my photographs the look I want. It isnt over the top PP, just a dailing a few knobs here and there maybe a bit of cropping.

Should I concentrate on making the best Photographs I can before getting too dependent on PP, or is it just the norm now?
 
Hi Sal

Good question. Generally I think people might argue both ways.
In my opinion I think its better to concentrate on actually being able to take good shots without relying on PP to much otherwise you risk losing the fundamentals of photography which is taking good photographs.

That said a tiny amount of PP doesn't do any harm e.g cropping, levels, curves, B&W etc.
When you are using it to try and polish a turd then you know something has gone wrong!
 
If you are happy with the results after your PP, I suggest keep doing it.
It is part of today's digital photography, and I have yet to meet anyone that does not use it to some extent.
Some people spend ages at the PP stage!
 
Peter10d said:
If you are happy with the results after your PP, I suggest keep doing it.
It is part of today's digital photography, and I have yet to meet anyone that does not use it to some extent.
Some people spend ages at the PP stage!
Click to expand...

Well I'm one of the people who will do just about anything to avoid having to use it.

I'm not sure if resizing for the web and converting to a jpeg counts, but I always like to try and get everything correct at the picture taking stage if possible.

I find that if i start tweaking an image in capture nx2 then I can never make up my mind on the "ideal" set of tweaks, so often just hit the "revert to original" button and often prefer that to the image I have messed about with.

A lot of images I see online simply shout PHOTOSHOP and hold very little appeal - I favour the "return to basics" approach, and really like to just see images that look similar to the actual original scene.
 
My view is that you HAVE to edit your images in PP to get the best of them - might be adding just a touch of contrast/sharpening or a little more. BUT you must also start with the best image you can get. So both should be used to compliment each other.

There is no doubt that PP can help a poor shot but that should not be relied upon.
 
Depends what it is you're trying to achieve

PP can either do massive things to your photos or minor tweaks.

Either is fine in my view if you know what you're trying to do

Its just a tool like all the others - and I include setting the aperture, shutter speed and ISO in that list of tools

I sometime take a shot at a wedding knowing I'll have to use PP to fix it, but if that's the best compromise to get the shot I want then I'll do it

In the general run of things though I'll aim to get it right in camera and minimise PP mainly because it reduces editing time!
 
boliston said:
Have you never taken an image that is just fine "as is" ?
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on what your goal is, many 'fine' shots can still be improved with PP

or 'changed' if you prefer

Photography is 90% personal taste and the use and results from PP is just taste too
 
PP is half the fun.

boliston said:
I favour the "return to basics" approach, .
Click to expand...

Not forgetting that in the days of early film processing a myriad of processes would be - and still are - used. From dodging & burning to cross processing and masking.
 
Last edited:
PP? never done any myself....all mine are straight from camera, honest!


...but no, seriously, I use a HELL of a lot of processing to get a photo to look how I want the scene to look...which is not always how it looked at the time. It might go from pushing the colours in the sky to form the sunset I wish there had been, and not the muted nothingess that was really there.....or a simple increase in saturation of the blues in the sky to bring back the range the camera couldn't capture. I use to worry that I was doing way too much processing, so I started to do very little....and I VERY quickly got bored of the stuff I was producing, so I went massively in the other direction, and found it was just too much for many people (though I still have some of my all time fav shots from then)...now I just do as much as I feel the photo needs, but not quite as much as I would really love to do ;)
 
boliston said:
Have you never taken an image that is just fine "as is" ?
Click to expand...

Digital images NEED processing. Even if just a small amount of sharpening or contrast!

Perhaps the OP means more than that?

The camera when shooting jpg may do much of that already. I shoot RAW.

I should say I have plenty that do look ok SOOC - tweaking them helps them look better,
 
Last edited:
I find it depends on the subject matter. When I'm taking sports photos, I generally leave them "as is" - you don't need to render them artistically (perhaps a crop here & there) if they're being used for editorial purposes. However, if they're being used for illustrative purposes, then I would turn to PP for assistance.

The aim of any image is to produce a satisfactory end result. If you get there without using PP, great. If you use PP, so what? So long as the final image is one you're happy with, and what you want, then it's all good...however you got there.
 
Some interesting replies.

Although I like to nail the shot (exposure-wise) in-camera, processing is a must for me because it allows me to take that good shot and apply the processing 'look' that I feel best suits the image.

I used to tone and bleach when printing, and cross-process film all the time; I see processing in software to be the same principle. If the tech is there to be used then use it.

My only advice would be to process because you want to, not because you feel it's expected of you....
 
I enjoy playing with my images in PS Elements to see what I can come up with. Most images shot in RAW seem to need at least a few tweaks to contrast etc to my eyes as if not they can look a bit flat, but as I understand it, processing RAW images is the digital equivalent of the dark room. I could be wrong though as have only just started using RAW
 
Photo Plod said:
I find it depends on the subject matter. When I'm taking sports photos, I generally leave them "as is" - you don't need to render them artistically (perhaps a crop here & there) if they're being used for editorial purposes. However, if they're being used for illustrative purposes, then I would turn to PP for assistance.

The aim of any image is to produce a satisfactory end result. If you get there without using PP, great. If you use PP, so what? So long as the final image is one you're happy with, and what you want, then it's all good...however you got there.
Click to expand...

THe editor of the newspaper/mag is likely to edit your image.
 
EOS_JD said:
Digital images NEED processing. Even if just a small amount of sharpening or contrast!

Perhaps the OP means more than that?

The camera when shooting jpg may do much of that already. I shoot RAW.

I should say I have plenty that do look ok SOOC - tweaking them helps them look better,
Click to expand...

If you shoot raw on a Nikon DSLR and save the image as a jpeg using capture nx2 then all the in camera settings are retained so the output should be very similar to what you would get if shooting jpeg.
 
At the end of the day PP is a tool that enables you to make your image better in some way 99.9% of the time, obviously you will get the purists that believe the image should be perfect straight from the memory card but in my opinion I see PP as an added bonus to enhance your shots and in turn should be used!
 
I think that the more you/I/we understand about composition, colours, the way exposure works, DOF, our camera's optical and noise characteristics etc, etc, and the more we experiment and practice, and the more helpful responses and advice we can get from others, then the better the images that we see straight out of our cameras will tend to be. And some images can be terrific straight out of the camera when the circumstances are propitious and we get the "technicals" right.

More usually though, for my part, I need to use PP to make an image more to my liking.
 
I dont believe in over processing, but on the other hand I feel a bit of help from software can make a good photo great.

I try and avoid heavy processing, one thing I hate is false smooth skin created with photoshop etc, id rather see some texture and realism on the skin of a model.

My normal process is to adjust the WB if I feel it lacks warmth or looks too warm, contrast adjustment, level adjust and a little bit of sharpening if required.

For me i'd rather nail the photo correctly with the camera rather than become to heavily dependant on software to save an average looking snap.

I'm sure others will agree, and I am also sure many would disagree. :)
 
It seems users who use and can afford CS3,4,5, Lightroom etc can probably get more out of their images than an Elements user such as myself, it's why the Photoshop software is far more expensive, this is just an assumption as an Elements user who wasted a year on Gimp.
 
boliston said:
If you shoot raw on a Nikon DSLR and save the image as a jpeg using capture nx2 then all the in camera settings are retained so the output should be very similar to what you would get if shooting jpeg.
Click to expand...

So why not just shoot jpg?

I prefer to take my images beyond what the camera's generic settings can produce.

Editing in Ps is the same as photographer's shot then edited in a darkroom. To create your own images you need to do something to them - whether it's basic or more.
 
EOS_JD said:
So why not just shoot jpg?

I prefer to take my images beyond what the camera's generic settings can produce.

Editing in Ps is the same as photographer's shot then edited in a darkroom. To create your own images you need to do something to them - whether it's basic or more.
Click to expand...

There is no advantage in shooting jpeg with memory being so cheap per MB.

A D700 raw file is 25MB in size, but a fairly standard 16GB CF card holds 606 shots!

It would take me a LONG time to fill up a card so file size is a non issue.

The only reason I can see for shooting jpeg is if you have a small card and want to fit a lot of shots on it.
 
boliston said:
There is no advantage in shooting jpeg with memory being so cheap per MB.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand my post - Size has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

boliston said:
If you shoot raw on a Nikon DSLR and save the image as a jpeg using capture nx2 then all the in camera settings are retained so the output should be very similar to what you would get if shooting jpeg.
Click to expand...

You shoot RAW (as I do), then as you state you edit in Nx2 to a recipie that matches the camera settings? Why then shoot RAW at all if that is all you do?
 
PP is kinda the modern equivelent of what used to be done on an enlarger in the darkroom, nobody ever complained about taking a bit of dodging and burning, test strips etc. Cropping too!
 
Last edited:
I shoot in jpeg, generally the only thing I'll adjust is contrast, just because I can't get the contrast I require from the camera... and sharpen for web sized images. I don't even crop, I feel that composition is my (only) strength.
 
boliston said:
If you shoot raw on a Nikon DSLR and save the image as a jpeg using capture nx2 then all the in camera settings are retained so the output should be very similar to what you would get if shooting jpeg.
Click to expand...

That would be processing then :shrug: be it in a highly automated way
 
Dave in Wales said:
Is it bad to rely on PP ?

YES....IMHO

Get it right in the camera.

D in W
Click to expand...

:shrug: every image is PP'd. Doesn't matter if your converting to JPEG in camera or using LR/PS to do more. Its still PP'd

The only people who make statements like that are people who don't understand processing
 
I think it is absolutely necessary to post-process digital pictures. Digital images are often quite flat in contrast and often the colour balance isn't quite right, and somehow lack character. Of course it is possible to alter these aspects IN camera, but why would you want to? I would trust skills in photoshop over in-camera presets any day, and I actually found that the original lack of character from digital shots a good thing, because it allowed me to build up on adjustment layers to create the picture I wanted.

Nowadays I shoot mainly film so don't PP at all, but still use PS to edit my snapshots with my P+S using gradient maps and curves to bring them to life. I think, if you have the ability and have actually bought the software, then why not use it?
 
Do as you please, it's your photograph. All digital cameras shoot raw anyway and apply processing - using the defaults or the owner's settings - to convert them to JPEGs. Most high street printers use machines that interrogate the image and adjust it too, unless you tell them not to.

I don't "rely" on post processing at all, but I do shoot raw for the extra flexibility, if I need it.
 
EOS_JD said:
You misunderstand my post - Size has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You shoot RAW (as I do), then as you state you edit in Nx2 to a recipie that matches the camera settings? Why then shoot RAW at all if that is all you do?
Click to expand...

Raw is the native way that a Nikon DSLR stores picture data and is what I would describe as an "archive" format for storing that data.

If you shoot film you will generally get back a set of prints and a set of negatives. Shooting jpeg is the equivalent of asking the lab to only send you the prints and telling them to bin the negatives.
 
boliston said:
Raw is the native way that a Nikon DSLR stores picture data and is what I would describe as an "archive" format for storing that data.

If you shoot film you will generally get back a set of prints and a set of negatives. Shooting jpeg is the equivalent of asking the lab to only send you the prints and telling them to bin the negatives.
Click to expand...

But if you had an unlimited supply of prints (which is what you essentially have with a digital Jpeg), then why would you need negatives?

If you convert straight to Jpeg from the RAW file without doing any PP, it will look worse than shooting in Jpeg.
 
It isn't critical to PP any normal photo, however there are other things that can only be done with PP - HDR for example, Can't do that all in camera!

Of course there will always be adjustments that can be made to photos, straightening, cropping, white balance, Mono conversions etc that aren't much of a sin to be doing in PP.

The necessity to shoot RAW with a lot of supposedly 'Good' cameras means that some PP is practically unavoidable. The other side of the coin being that the JPEG equivalent will have had some PP done in camera!
 
boyfalldown said:
OK then :shrug:

every digital photo needs some PP, it doesn't matter if its done in camera during a jpeg conversion or afterwards in LR. It still needs it
Click to expand...

If you believe that JPEGs are PP'd then you could argue that, if you don't class it as PP because it was in camera at capture, then I have loads of Photos that have no PP at all, and they don't need it.

All how you interpret it, but I'd be inclined to class JPEGs on default camera settings as not PP'd, as you have done nothing to them other than pressed the shutter. Make sense?
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
If you believe that JPEGs are PP'd then you could argue that, if you don't class it as PP because it was in camera at capture, then I have loads of Photos that have no PP at all, and they don't need it.

All how you interpret it, but I'd be inclined to class JPEGs on default camera settings as not PP'd, as you have done nothing to them other than pressed the shutter. Make sense?
Click to expand...

You may not have done any processing, but the camera has. Therefore, they've been processed.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
If you believe that JPEGs are PP'd then you could argue that, if you don't class it as PP because it was in camera at capture, then I have loads of Photos that have no PP at all, and they don't need it.

All how you interpret it, but I'd be inclined to class JPEGs on default camera settings as not PP'd, as you have done nothing to them other than pressed the shutter. Make sense?
Click to expand...

nope, no sense at all I'm, afraid - you've also chosen which settings, or processing the camera will apply. Thats active d-lighting, sharpening settings, saturation options etc etc...........(or used the defaults but even defaults will apply default settings to these sort of parameters) these are the sort of things that are still processing and essential to get a good image.

Just because you've chosen to apply those settings as one size fits all rather than have the choice of applying them on an image by image basis doesn't mean its not happening

The simple answer to is it PP'd in that case is is it exactly as it came off the sensor, and it in no way is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top