Post-Processing is it obligatory?

P

pirespt

Suspended / Banned
Messages
104
Edit My Images
Yes
Evening everyone

I'm new to photography and as I go for my first steps I see lots of pictures, however they all look/seem post processed and hardly any looks straight out of the camera.

Is this the rule? That all pictures will require a degree of post processing or some folks just like taking pictures and have no real interest in tweaking their photos.

I'm curious that's all.

David
 
I don't think there are any 'rules' for how you should create your images.

Post processing simply gives you more control over your image and the final product. You can take it or leave it. :)
 
Last edited:
Post production is entirely down to the artist. I often think that unless manipulation is the entire point of the art, the best post production is the work that looks unprocessed. Subtle adjustments can be much more effective than dramatic alterations. It's all down to individuals tho, if you're happy with your work without post production there's no incentive to put a photograph thru it. If you're more like me, you might feel the need to touch up this here & that there. I find that post production gives me more control over my final image & I quite enjoy working in Photoshop. Depends on you & what you like :} best wishes.
 
Last edited:
I do find that with raw capture, I have a 'base' set of tweaks - sharpening, NR, and if required, contrast boost (mainly for backlit shots). Other tweaks just follow as required.
 
Last edited:
im what youd call a novice so my opinion wouldnt carry much weight.
What you can achieve in pp and the software available is fantastic, but it does feel a little like cheating to me! If i could take that perfect picture without having to tweak it on photoshop etc , it'd give me a great sense of pride.
But maybe i'm saying this as i've only had my copy of elements for a month and don't understand how to use it yet!!!
 
Most, if not all, photos taken with a digital camera require a degree of sharpening in PP. This is just the nature of the beast.
 
Ploddles said:
Most, if not all, photos taken with a digital camera require a degree of sharpening in PP. This is just the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

None of My photos have been touched, uploaded the JPEG straight from the camera.

I don't mind a bit of sharpening, colours, hues, highlights etc. But hate adding or removing things or Ottawa photoshop
 
Not compulsory. But it's very difficult to get the best from an image without some work.

You need to remember, there is no such thing as a pure unadulterated image. The end result is always affected either by decisions about the processing you estimate in advance (the jpg settings you put into your camera, the film you choose and how you use it) or the processing decisions you take afterwards in response to the image taken (post-processing, development).

Post-processing has been around since the dawn of photography itself and it isn't going to go away any time soon. I wouldn't call it cheating and it doesn't always have to be done to the point that it's obvious.

Choosing to always go with SOOC is a bit like always using natural light, a perfectly valid choice providing it's not made in ignorance of the alternative.
 
Dale, actually they have been touched - your camera when converting to JPEG will have done basic adjustments, including sharpening.

By the nature of digital photography, even an image that's pin sharp at native size (4,000 or so pixels wide at least with most modern DSLRs, much higher on many) will soften when resized to a typical web size of 1024 wide or such, so sharpening to keep the original sharpness will be needed, at least.

Most of mine I'm not sure if you'd say look processed (flickr stream ones say), in fact all most have had is black/white/grey point adjustment (sorts poor WB, can also brighten it etc, basically puts it to how it should be though) and sharpening.

Some have had more mind, but 90% of mine have nothing but the above.
 
Dale_d3100 said:
None of My photos have been touched, uploaded the JPEG straight from the camera.

I don't mind a bit of sharpening, colours, hues, highlights etc. But hate adding or removing things or Ottawa photoshop
Click to expand...

In that case they have been PP'd already, check your in camera's styles/picture settings. Only RAW are unprocessed.
 
When recording a scene with a digital camera, it records it as a string of data, not as a picture. To actually see the image, the data needs to be processed. That can be done in camera and output as a jpg, or it can be done on a PC with image processing software. Anyone who says that their picture is straight out of camera and hasn't had any processing done is either trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or hasn't got a clue how their camera actually works.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Use film, but don't develope it...
Click to expand...

laughing_dog.jpg
 
There was a quote that I quite admired & it always stuck with me. It went along the lines of ➝

"Never consider a piece of work finished ~ there is ALWAYS room for improvement".

You can interpret that in any which way you like but it's inspired me to always look for new ways to improve myself & my work ~ I've actually gained something from it. Post production has been one tool I've used in improving my approach & technique.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Use film, but don't develop it...
Click to expand...

hahahahaha :}!
I've just spotted that.
 
Remember that if you don't tell your camera (before the shot) or decide what is white (on the computer after the shot), your camera is going to guess for you. Either way, that decision will be applied to the data after the shot is taken. As others have said, some sharpening is necessary too. If you're happy with the processing done by the camera (either by its default/program settings or by custom settings) then that's fine, but if you want to take control over that process and try/experiment with alternative settings, you're going to need to use the raw data for best results. Once the camera has saved the jpeg, then those decisions have been made permanent and cannot be reversed. If you're using raw data on the computer, you can start over again with different settings.

I usually pay attention to white balance, contrast/brightness, saturation and sharpening. imho, if the exposure is good, there is generally less need to adjust.

Post-processing can be useful for a little cleaning up too - removing sensor-dust marks and distracting background detail, for example.

Obviously there are a lot more sophisticated techniques and tools available but I'd say that the above is the basic PP required - whether in the camera or on the computer.
 
I never used to edit, for some reason I saw it as cheating, the skill was in taking the photo with the camera, not editing it afterwards... or some such bizarre reasoning.

I've got into photography much more these past 2 years and the shots I've taken in recent months are a world away from those I took 2 years ago. Quite a bit of this is down to improved skill, research and practice with the camera, but a lot is also down to editing.

I don't edit very much, the basic image always stays the same, I don't clone things out or go crazy in Photoshop, but I think simple changes make a big difference to a shot and IMO make it look better, more like what you "saw" when you captured the image with the camera.

I don't think PP is obligatory by any means, but I enjoy a little bit on my shots and feel my photos look better to me (and to others who comment as such) so why not do a bit. It is always fun to learn new tricks with the camera and with photography and I think PP skills are all part of that process!
 
In my photography, post processing depends on the intent of the image. For family snapshots and such like, I shoot jpeg, so I don't do any post processing out of camera. For my 'artistic' stuff, I shoot raw, which will always require a degree of post processing. This ranges from contrast tweaks and simple sharpening, to full blown multi layer stuff.

Post processing isn't cheating. Modern cameras are good, but they can't read your mind and they can only only go so far in capturing what you point the thing at. It's a bit like writing, writers will always edit their first draft until they get it like they want it. The books and magazine articles we read are rarely, if ever, unedited drafts that have not had varying degrees of post processing.
 
There is absolutely nothing wrong in pp'ing your work, but be warned, as well as giving a good photo a little nudge into a great photo it can also ruin a good image if you overdo it.

Plus, if you find yourself constantly having to mess with exposure and recovery sliders it may be time to give your shooting technique a tweak instead.

Ultimately though, it's what you are happy with. If you prefer to just drop everything straight from camera, fair enough...forget about RAW,switch to jpeg and shoot away.
 
When I had my Sony a200 and a390 I used to PP pretty much every shot I decided was a keeper. It could of been either my technique was lacking or I just liked playing with photoshop.

They say that it's not the equipment you use but the person behind the camera that makes for a good shot, but when I got my 7D my pictures suddenly became loads better and needed hardly any touching up at all.

These days I do most of my PP in camera RAW. Usually just adjusting blacks or adding contrast using curves and mostly levelling my shots. If I want a b&w conversion I'll use Nik Silver Effects pro.
 
I used to think it was cheating but then I bought Lightroom. Now I shoot raw most of the time and really enjoy making the small tweaks to my pictures. I don't really do anything fancy just, as previously mentioned, sharpening, WB etc. There is a great deal of satisfaction when you get it right first time but if you can improve the shots a little then why not?
 
Ploddles said:
Most, if not all, photos taken with a digital camera require a degree of sharpening in PP. This is just the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

That would depend on the camera and lens. With my 40D I upped the sharpness to varying degrees for every good photo. Partly due to the crop, partly the strong AA filter.

With the 5D I don't think I've ever touched the sharpen bar in PP.
 
Do you have to PP?......No

Can PP help improve images?.....YES :D

I've learnt so much about my camera and editing in the last year and half since I joined TP, I now shoot exclusively in RAW and it makes a massive difference :thumbs:

Just because everyone is saying they don't clone stuff out, I'll come out and say it, if there is something that I don't like in a scene you can rest assured I'll take it out :thumbs:

Matt
MWHCVT
 
Over 95% of my photos are Jpegs straight from the camera, and the ones I have on Flickr are generally the same photos but cropped. The people who have bought my photos have never come back saying it ought to be PP'd either. If you take the time to set your camera to how you want it in the first place you can get by on minimal processing afterwards and the only time I use PP a lot is when I've made a mistake on the settings and I'm trying to recover the image.
 
Loads of people have already said, but there's no such thing as an unprocessed image.

There wasn't with glass plates, there wasn't with film and there isn't with digital.

Unfortunately, what most people remember with film was sending their film off to Boots and getting a set of prints back (unprocessed?).

The reality of the situation was, they often chose film they'd found 'looked nice' and when Boots developed the negs, the printing machine assessed them and gave them auto levels.

With digital it's more 'in the open'; Sharpening is a necessary evil because of the nature of most digital cameras, the AA filter on the sensor of most cameras knocks the sharpness down. Then resizing for different outputs has a negative effect on sharpness. Whether you have a JPEG only workflow that boosts sharpness in camera along with the other style 'tweaks' or you spend time finetuning at your PC; every image is definitely processed.

If photography is something you genuinely wish to be good at, it's a folly to believe that SOOC is ever going to deliver your best results.

The closest you can get is by carefully setting up the camera styles on your camera to a 'look' that you're happy with. If you want to believe that's 'unprocessed' feel free:lol:. But to anyone who understands digital photography - you'll sound like an idiot!:cuckoo:
 
Phil V said:
If you want to believe that's 'unprocessed' feel free:lol:. But to anyone who understands digital photography - you'll sound like an idiot!:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Or to anything who understand photography.

To really know how strange this question is, shoot a roll of black and white film and develope and print it yourself.
 
MWHCVT said:
Just because everyone is saying they don't clone stuff out, I'll come out and say it, if there is something that I don't like in a scene you can rest assured I'll take it out
Click to expand...

Definitely & I'm not afraid to admit I'm a retoucher! In a way it's making a shot your own 'cause it's adding your own input to create an original photograph that's your vision. 'Post production' has been around since photography & there's a reason Adobe Lightroom is known as a 'digital darkroom'.
 
Last edited:
When i bought my three cheapo 250w strobes from the bay i wasn't expecting much and thought there would be plenty of mouse clicks and slider action post shot but no! Quite the opposite to be honest! I find that working with the lights, careful metering and pre meditated camera control i achieve my desired effect at capture point and can't think of anything i need to do in camera raw other than some tweaking.
But like mentioned earlier, all work done post shot is processing, it just depends on whether you mean heavy processing or just tweaks?
I feel the tweaking is necessary, heavy work is perhaps a warning to some that they need to work a little harder at capture, but that's not always the case, some work demands it but where do you draw the line on your graphics tablet that separates photography from digital art?
 
I personally like composites so have no problem with any level of post processing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top