PP good or bad?

Wheels

Wheels

Julian Keeler
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,812
Name
Julian
Edit My Images
No
Having been given 18 past issues of digital camera along with the tutorial discs I have spent a good few hours reading and going through the tutorials, it got me thinking how many images that are treated to a session of pp rather than just take a great photo 1st time.

What is the general view on PP?
 
all images are processed in one way or another wither by the camera or photoshop
 
Well, if you take a picture in RAW, which has the most complete "in-photo" data set, PP is not an option.

PP is what the darkroom was in the age of film. So to me it is not an issue of good vs bad, rather then the question what you do with it.

If you used to have portraits taken in the film days, you wouldn't expect the photographer to hand you a roll with the negatives either, you expected him to develop the film and prepare pictures. To me that is PP.

To me, PP used to optimise a good picture is part of the process. Using PP to add things that are not there or to chage the "content" of a picture can be interesting from an art perspective, but is really dependent on the purpose of the picture.
 
Wheels said:
What is the general view on PP?
Click to expand...

It has to be done, there's no getting around it.

Either you shoot JPG and it's all done in the camera for you.

Or you shoot RAW and do it yourself to get MUCH more control.
 
I prefer to get it 99% right and a small amount of pp as apposed to not really caring, shooting RAW and spending ages on a computer.

If i can go out take some images, upload them to my HD and send them to a hosting site in as little time as possible then i am happy, if i cannot do that, then i don't think my skills as a photographer are much good.
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
I prefer to get it 99% right and a small amount of pp as apposed to not really caring, shooting RAW and spending ages on a computer.
Click to expand...

I prefer to get it 99% right and shoot raw, and do one or two clicks to get more accurate curves and adjustments on the PC on a whole bunch of images at once, rather than let the camera figure it out for me. :)

Why do people seem to think that shooting raw means you're not as good a photographer? How do you think a JPG starts life? That's right, as a RAW. The only difference between the two is that the camera does all the thinking for you. Does that make you a better photographer, having the camera do it all for you? :)
 
Last edited:
I love post processing and see it as just part of the whole process. I do try and get it right in camera but still put the images through Lightroom / photoshop Elephants!
 
I used to grumble about PP and say that I never wanted to do it, or use RAW. But I have since realised that there are some limitations to the little D40 and there is some basics that you have to do, such as

Sharpening, Contrast Control, a little bit of exposure nudging if needed and minor s-curves. Maybe a little bit of whitebalance as well.

Since taking the time to add the little improvements to my pictures, I have noticed a marked improvement, I just hope I don't take it too far and over cook everything.

I still don't use RAWS as lightrooms handles a JPEG well enough.
 
Kaouthia said:
Why do people seem to think that shooting raw means you're not as good a photographer? How do you think a JPG starts life? That's right, as a RAW. The only difference between the two is that the camera does all the thinking for you. Does that make you a better photographer, having the camera do it all for you? :)
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Modern digital cameras are not capable of giving an accurate reproduction of what you see with your own eyes so you can't get anywhere close to 99% accurate can you?

What you do is get as much information into the sensor as you can and as close to what you want and then PP comes into play to compensate for the limitations of the camera.

Shooting RAW simply means you accept the limitations and choose to deal with them your own way. The only reason some Pros shoot JPG (I suspect) is for speed not for accuracy. A lot of what I do I need to do as JPG but if I had more time I wouldn't. The client is satisfied with the result - I'm not.
 
AndyB said:
The only reason some Pros shoot JPG (I suspect) is for speed not for accuracy. A lot of what I do I need to do as JPG but if I had more time I wouldn't. The client is satisfied with the result - I'm not.
Click to expand...

That's why I shoot RAW+JPG at the events. The JPGs get printed on the job and the RAWs come home for some special lovin' to go on my website and the venue's website.
 
'special lovin' - I like it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top