Does anyone NOT use Post Processing?

Al1944

Al1944

Messages
7,120
Edit My Images
No
Maybe a stupid question on a forum like this, but does anyone not use post processing? Not talking about simple stuff like cropping etc.

Al
 
depends if i think the picture would look better with something then i will but i do have some that i think i wouldnt change that at all
 
Nope, I don't use it. I prefer to use what little skill I have to capture the scene as best as I can within my own limitations, both of my equipment and my own skill.

At least I know the picture represents the scene as I captured it, and it is not subject to massive alterations because of my inherent rubbishness at taking pictures.
 
I suppose there is very basic PP and there is high tier PP......:cautious:

I used to say a blanket NO to playing with my pictures at all, but shooting RAW means that the image hasn't been processed in any way. I don't have any of these 'fancy PP packages' and I'm very against the idea of changing backgrounds and cloning out unwanted areas of a shot. However, I do use a freeware product called FastStone as my default image viewer (as it lets me see my CR2 files) and this does have some vary basic tools to allow changes to highlighting, darkening, sharpening and contrast which I do use now to bring forth detail in some captures. My views changed when I realised that even my old 35mm film had some element of PP done on it by the processing house - hence the term 'film processing'.
 
Due to the way cameras work, with very few exceptions*, I consider all photos post processed. As John mentions this was especially true in the film days but also my gfs Sony p&s does so much to the colours that a normal pic almost looks HDRish

Those who say they don't post process in a roundabout way technically outsource their post processing to the engineers who built the camera :D

* - perhaps a daguerreotype or polaroid sort of process
 
Just got an X100 and very happy with jpegs so cropping is pretty much all I will be doing
 
Barely now but I use to do some extensive PP over a year ago now. I do have my own processing "style" but it doesn't suit quite a few scenes and types of photography so I barely touch it now. I always shoot RAW, but I usually just give the file a boost to colours just like the camera does in standard modes on nikon and canon cameras and go from there. Most images I take don't really require anything more than that really as I try to get the look I want on the camera to try and limit post processing later but this isn't always possible. Shooting in very bright sunlight in a forest for example is one such example where PP is required to get the best out of the shots otherwise the colours just look grey.
 
If I'm shooting JPEG (very rare, mainly for work) then no. Camera picture setting will be on either Standard or Landscape which looks good out the card.

For RAW (99.7% of my shots), then everything runs through LRs develop module. I do limit each shot to about 5 minutes max, anymore than that then it's either going to be very creative or its not worth saving.
 
shoot RAW and edit all that i can, sharpen, remove noise, remove unwanted objects, boost highlights darken shadows, what ever is going il do
 
viewfromthenorth said:
If I'm shooting jpeg on my compact, no I don't post process. Same for when I use film;)
Click to expand...

stu7397 said:
Nope, I don't use it. I prefer to use what little skill I have to capture the scene as best as I can within my own limitations, both of my equipment and my own skill.

At least I know the picture represents the scene as I captured it, and it is not subject to massive alterations because of my inherent rubbishness at taking pictures.
Click to expand...

so those settings you've applied in camera do nothing then? The developers, when you used film, would of applied a healthy dose of PP for yo. Just because you were unaware of it doesn't mean it didn't happen
 
boyfalldown said:
so those settings you've applied in camera do nothing then? The developers, when you used film, would of applied a healthy dose of PP for yo. Just because you were unaware of it doesn't mean it didn't happen
Click to expand...

If you want to be pedantic......

I don't post process, the camera does to whatever algorithms it wishes to use. There is a difference between that and a deliberate set of choices carried out by myself in photoshop or lightroom. Hope that clarifies what I meant.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
If you want to be pedantic......

I don't post process, the camera does to whatever algorithms it wishes to use. There is a difference between that and a deliberate set of choices carried out by myself in photoshop or lightroom. Hope that clarifies what I meant.
Click to expand...

I know what you meant..........

but I'm still going to bet you changed the settings to get results you like. And the difference between that and say applying a preset in LR is? Its still post processing. And just because you've done no work to your film, doesn't mean the lab hasn't
 
Last edited:
PP has been around as long as photography and is as much part of the process as pressing the shutter. Anyone who thinks there is no PP on any of their photographs is very very wrong
 
Yep I PP majority of my shots if not all. I do try to get it right in camera as much as I can and some shots do make it our untouched but i think there is nothing wrong with improving on an image with some post work.
 
boyfalldown said:
I know what you meant..........

but I'm still going to bet you changed the settings to get results you like. And the difference between that and say applying a preset in LR is? Its still post processing. And just because you've done no work to your film, doesn't mean the lab hasn't
Click to expand...


I also know what you mean:), but no I've not changed any jpeg settings in the camera, it's for snapshots and it's as it was when it left the factory. As for my colour film in the lab, yes they may well have done I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure the intent of the original question was around deliberate post processing in computer, not in the lab, darkroom or camera.(y)
 
EspressoJunkie said:
This.


For me personally PP is as much a part of photography as the camera!
Click to expand...


its just another tool, like a fisheye or telephoto
i love when people say i just shoot what i see,

i would love to put someone to that
shot at a medium aperture, a focal length of around 35/50mm, if your not colour blind shoot in colour and no editing at all

i would say your results would be that stand out


photoshop all you like its just another tool
 
Just my opinion, but having come back to photography from the "old" film cameras it feels very different when clicking the shutter button, gone are the days when you'd do the damned hardest to get the shot right, now you just click away, load them onto the pc and do a multitude of "sins" to make it into the perfect shot, makes me wonder which is the best....the brilliant photographer or the brilliant photoshopper.
 
they are two different skills, two skills anyone should be proud of, nothing to be a shamed of at all

its not like you older film guys did nothing at all to improve the photographs
different grades of paper or multi-grade paper and changing the grade on the enlarger, that makes a difference, then you have the would of burning and dodging and many other things you can do

i did some in tech for my hnd and there is many ways of improving the photograph
 
In my film days I used to spen ages in the darkroom making prints. I masked dodged and shaded to get the best results out of the shot. I hand tinted mono pictures to add colour to them, I see no difference between that and using a computer and software to achieve the same result.
It's just a lot easier to do now, like everyone I strive to get everything perfect in the shot, but it's nice to know you can correct it if you don't.
At the end of the day if the picture is a turd no amount of polishing in software with make it any better.
 
yea you still need a good photo in the first place

sure look at some of the names of the tools in photoshop and then look at the darkroom and see what are the same
 
The biggest difference is that now anyone with a computer can post process whereas with film they didn't have the gear, skill or inclination to do so.

Not sure why anyone really cares what anyone else does, it is the final image that matters.
 
All i do now is PP,no point taking the camera out of the bag.
Just google image search and pick one thats close to what you want then Photoshop the crap out of it until its what you want it to be.
 
I really hate those types, say on Flickr, who think it's really cool to use terms like "SOOC" - like they were amazing for not processing. Then you find out they shot Jpeg, which to me, basically means they allowed the camera to process the images instead.

I love PP, it's calming ... sometimes. Big mug of tea, a few sambos and I'm content to work away for a couple of hours, or more depending.

Last night I shot a gig for some local musicians though, and tonight pretty much just gave them the simplest LR tweak [adjust blacks, wb, add a slap of contrast and turned some B&W] and hit auto curves in Cs5 and was done. They just didn't need any more.
 
How deep do you want the rabbit hole to be?
Where do you draw the line with pp?
There is always a "process" to be done post shot, from getting the images from film or card into print or pixel the list goes on and we haven't even tweaked the contrast yet lol
I think post process is un avoidable
What i think you should be asking is how much editing and manipulation do you carry out.
Hell, even editing happens without photoshop as i find sorting the wheat from chaff to be an editing job.
 
I tend to just scan using the default Vuescan settings which generally work fine as long as I remember to lock the film base colour (only needs to be done once per roll) and set the white balance (right click on something that is supposed to be white or neutral grey). These quick but essential tasks each only take about 2 seconds so not too arduous.
 
Four days ago I was given the first dslr I've ever had, incidentally it's the first camera over ever had that shoots raw.

I use my iPad almost exclusively for my photos, using the computer purely to back them up onto dual external drives.

I have photoshop touch on my iPad but I rarely use it. I will crop pictures if needed, but I'm literally just learning and I haven't yet gained the confidence to try anything more than that.

I don't think it matters either way, but I do think it should be left to personal taste.
 
I would find it hard to stop post processing completely. Any image taken by any camera has imperfections no matter if its low or high end. These can be easily corrected so at a minimum i do WB, Distortion, Colour Fringing, Exposure, Noise Reduction and Sharpening on Export.

With lightroom this can be done quickly to sync changes within a set.
 
The post processing thing is a matter of choice or in some cases the reason that you get paid for your work or not.

The desire to make a picture as good as it can be will inevitably lead to much more sophisticated graphic manipulation software than Lightroom or Photoshop. The original image will become less and less important in the overall production of a finished photograph.

Creating a perfect image is an artificial endeavour from the beginning so forget about the camera and use Cinema 4D, MAYA, 3DS MAX or E-ON VUE to create a flawless image. Photographs have flaws and I like them.

CHEERS

PS. I tried to upload a few images but Photobucket uploaded is not working. Some sample artificial images http://www.e-onsoftware.com/showcase/?page=gallery
 
Last edited:
These threads always go the same way and turn into a what is post processing discussion.

I would think the the OP was asking do you take your image from the cameras card and maybe make very minor tweak such as cropping or do you tend to take a fair amount of time on each image once on your computer.

Doesn't really matter what you do as it is your time but assuming they are just interested in how people are approaching it.
 
I only do basic PP for exposure, contrast, etc. I don't have the brains or creativity to get into stuff like photoshop anyway!
 
I do as little as I can get away with. All the ones I have on my Flickr gallery, and subsequently posted on here have had no PP apart from crop and resize. On the few times I've felt the need to shoot raw then I have had to do some PP but it's not very often. I find it so much easier and quicker to set the camera to do the work. There's been a few times I've shot for customers and used raw and jpeg and preferred the camera jpeg to what I've created in PS Elements. I also find that using DPP with jpegs still allows me enough of an alteration if I want to.
 
Last edited:
sharris86 said:
at a minimum i do WB, Distortion, Colour Fringing, Exposure, Noise Reduction and Sharpening on Export.
Click to expand...

if I am reading that correctly you do every one of those actions on every single photo? Can understand sharpening if a raw file but why would the other actions be needed at a minimum?
 
I never used to do noise reduction, but I do I all the time now, makes a real difference, it just give. Differen look, I wish in light room it was near the top
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top