Does everybody post process?

P

plymman

Messages
148
Edit My Images
No
I've been into taking photo's for a while but don't have a huge understanding of technique, I just try to capture a moment or an expression and most of my pictures are of family, landscapes etc.. nothing really artistic.

I look at them, print them and hang them but I never do any post processing at all, they're all just bare, straight from the camera. I don't know if its because I'm short on time, short on skill or just not sure whether I think they should be tampered with. Am I missing out? Does anyone else just take the picture and leave it at that?
 
plymman said:
Does anyone else just take the picture and leave it at that?
Click to expand...

No way.
Never.

I always sharpen or brighten or deepen the colours. Crop it. add boarders etc.

Never straight from the camera and leave it at that.

No No for me. :nono:
 
I post process all the time, even for ebay pictures, never take piccies straight from the camera without going through lightroom first.

unless i'm using the compact, then they are straight from the camera no PP :)

:D
 
Yes I process, in some way, virtually every photo I take. In fact I think I process every one.

It may be no more than a little sharpening, but sometimes it is more.

I think it is very easy to over cook things. With the simplest of editing progs you can produce, for example, a sunset of vivid colours that just was not there. In my mind that is going too far, but everyone to their own.

Post processing is just a part of producing a final photo, the same way the darkroom techniques were (and are still) used with film.


Dave

PS If you want to have a go with a very simple free editing prog try Photoscape
 
For some reason, I think that I'm changing what was actually there. As if it is in some way false. As if what I look back on the pics in years to come & it isnt actually what was there or something? I cant quite put my finger on it. Can anyone add anything to what Ive just said to help me see it in a different light? Its actually like a big dilemma I have.
 
I always post process, at least to some degree. I've not come across a picture that didn't benefit from it.
 
Rob 80386 said:
I post process all the time, even for ebay pictures, never take piccies straight from the camera without going through lightroom first.

unless i'm using the compact, then they are straight from the camera no PP :)

:D
Click to expand...

Same with me. Except, substitute 'lightroom' for DPP and you're on the money.

I know someone who refuses point blank to post process claiming it is unnatural. Little does he realise, because he shoots in JPEG he is just letting his camera post process - which is lousy compared to on-PC processing.
 
I think it's part of the fun of digital photography in exactly the same way that darkroom time was always well spent (well, mostly ;)).

It's an integral part of what we do and whilst we all probably strive to get it right first time in camera, there's invariably always a minor tweak or two that could be done.

Si
 
I haven't done any until this week. What I have done is just with DPP, I haven't done it through lack of knowledge and the feeling of being overwhelmed by it all.

Even if I did know more I would still only process a small percentage of my keepers or ones that I wanted to print. Ones that would just sit on my hard drive for very occasional viewing I won't bother with.
 
Bubby said:
For some reason, I think that I'm changing what was actually there. As if it is in some way false. As if what I look back on the pics in years to come & it isnt actually what was there or something? I cant quite put my finger on it. Can anyone add anything to what Ive just said to help me see it in a different light? Its actually like a big dilemma I have.
Click to expand...

No, what's false is failing to correctly sharpen a picture that has been softened by the anti aliasing screen on the image sensor (for instance). Adding a bit of saturation and contrast to make the image more lifelike is in no way false. I don't know what people find so hard to understand about that. Most PP work isn't to achieve an unnatural look but to put back some of the 'ooooh' that might be lost . If PP is unnatural so surely are ND filters? I never see the same people complaining about PP also complain about ND filters.Completely illogical and I suspect the peopel who complain about PP do so because they just cant do it.
 
Always for me :)
But, I prefer do it as fast as possible, 15-30sec a pic would normally do for me.
 
I always PP, again even for ebay pics and for minor tweaks. However, I don't spend long on it. A friend will spend nights just on one image. I tend to have 3-5 quick workflow steps for each pic and then I'm done.

If you've ever seen an image SOOC and the same one that's been PP side by side, you'll always PP :)
 
Does anyone keep the "non processed" pic? Or do you process it & delete the original?
 
Bubby said:
Does anyone keep the "non processed" pic? Or do you process it & delete the original?
Click to expand...

I keep both. The original RAW and the processed jpg. Purely because the RAWs are the original size and the jpg tends to be re-sized for the web, meaning if I want to change something on the image or go back to it for any reason, I have the original to start again with.
 
I didn't used to until I joined this forum and realised that you could.At first I also thought that it was faking it, but then realised i could amend the photo to what I had seen with my eye. I still only do the basics of sharpening and contrast and only to images that i really like and want to keep. Now that I have a dslr I am practising with it a bit more just to see what can be done. I have definately got over my feeling that it's fakery.
 
For most of mine I only use Canon DPP for RAW conversion, so that's a little exposure correction if needed sharpen and crop, can't spend too much time when shooting 1000= shot a day and then have them up loaded to the website ASAP.

I do PP them after an order to get the best possible print for a client.


I only keep the RAW files
 
I kind of know what you mean. It almost feels like cheating somehow.

Maybe it's because I'm new to a DSLR and still struggling to master the actual camera, never mind opening another can of worms with processing. Then there's the time factor as well. Not much of that at the moment with two young nippers.

Seriously, is it a good idea to try to immerse myself in something like photoshop (I have CS3 on my work laptop but so far have been a bit daunted by the prospect) or are there simpler solutions available?
 
When I started photography, I used to disagree with PP'ing. I used to think it was false. BUT....since reading this forum, and taking photos, I now see it is part and parcel of taking pictures. I don't edit every single photo, just ones that I like, and think could do with that little something.

I have learnt that the camera can't capture "the vivid blue sky" on it's own...the camera doesn't see what our eyes see. Hence, now why I with PP!
 
I've only recently started using PP. But that's mainly due to lack of knowledge. I'm now finding how easy it is to improve a pic with just a few simple steps.
I don't have any ethical issues with editting as long as there is no intention to deceive the viewer.
 
Most people PP. Even if you go back to film days you dodged/burnt etc. Also you could work the dev process to increase contrasts etc. I believe you could even print on papers that would give your shots a contrast or saturation boost. So don't believe for a second this is all new. It's just abused a lot more because it's much easier to completely rape a photograph with software these days so that it treads the fine line between art and photography.
 
When I used film, I always post processed - but then it was called darkroom work!

If you work in RAW, then post processing is always necessary to get the output just right, especially if, like me, you don't alter the colour temperature on the camera, but always set it in the RAW editor.

Capturing an image on a digital sensor is totally different to capturing on slide film, because the sensor certainly doesn't capture the perfect image, it needs to be tweaked to get the best out of it.

"Does anyone keep the "non processed" pic? Or do you process it & delete the original?"

I keep all my original images (except for naff ones). I post process them (changes in the RAW editor are kept as 'sidecar' files and can be discarded if required) and save as a PSD file, but the original is there to go back to if I decide to try a different technique - it's like having the original negs and slides.
 
Olly_K said:
I keep both. The original RAW and the processed jpg. .
Click to expand...

How do you have to do that? Make a copy of the original RAW, work a copy which you convert and leave the other be? Or is there a way to convert the RAW to Jpeg and still leave the original RAW as well?
 
dannyjo22 said:
Or is there a way to convert the RAW to Jpeg and still leave the original RAW as well?
Click to expand...

This bit. when you open the raw, you re-size/clone/adjust colours etc. When you save it to jpg, your saving your changes to the jpg. The raw is untouched.
 
i always post process too. i shoot raw so i do as much as i can in lightroom (basic levels, saturation etc) and then do the rest in photoshop (more precise curves adjustments if needed, final sharpen).

i try to get as much as i can right in camera, i seldom find myself correcting for exposure but it's good to know i've got a stop or so leeway should i need it.

the other thing i sometimes find myself needing to do is that because i take quite a few photos of my little girl and other children in the family i find it necessary to remove the various bits of food and snot that gets stuck to their faces which are invisible to the naked eye but stand out like a great big wart on the photo... good old photoshop healing brush tool!
 
After I learnt about just how much post-processing the camera does on any kind of file (RAW included) I realised there's absolutely no reason not to take it into my own hands.

With digital, the way the sensor is calibrated is already selecting elements in a specific way, and this is why experts can tell the difference between a shot taken on a Nikon and the same shot on a Canon - the manufacturers have to make decisions as to how the camera is going to interpret the light (even if the difference at the end of the day is minute), there's no "default" setting even at the most basic level.

So yeah, post-processing is not in any sense losing some kind of truthfulness about the image the camera initially captured. There was never any real truth to begin with!
 
I think maybe I just can't find the time, with work and toddlers, if I do get leisure time I end up taking photo's instead, I think I'm going to have to make the effort and try some PP, I may never look back!
 
Bubby said:
For some reason, I think that I'm changing what was actually there. As if it is in some way false. As if what I look back on the pics in years to come & it isnt actually what was there or something? I cant quite put my finger on it. Can anyone add anything to what Ive just said to help me see it in a different light? Its actually like a big dilemma I have.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, rarely will your unprocessed effort reflect what was actually seen. Often pp makes the image more like what you were looking at.
 
trencheel303 said:
No, what's false is failing to correctly sharpen a picture that has been softened by the anti aliasing screen on the image sensor (for instance). Adding a bit of saturation and contrast to make the image more lifelike is in no way false. I don't know what people find so hard to understand about that. Most PP work isn't to achieve an unnatural look but to put back some of the 'ooooh' that might be lost . If PP is unnatural so surely are ND filters? I never see the same people complaining about PP also complain about ND filters.Completely illogical and I suspect the peopel who complain about PP do so because they just cant do it.
Click to expand...
Agree. And the main aim is to produce a pleasing image.
 
bidden said:
...how do I access the raw
Click to expand...

Transfer them to your computer, using the supplied USB cable or by taking the memory card from the camera and putting it in a card reader.

Then you need a RAW converter: try the software that came with your camera or a freebie such as RAW Therapee before splashing out on paid-for alternatives.

Navigate to your RAW files using the converter's File/Open dialog. You'll be able to alter the exposure, white balance etc. Save as a TIFF (the file degrades, each time it's re-saved as a JPEG) and open in a graphics application for further tweaking.
 
Always. I shoot RAW, so even opening the file in Lightroom or RPP at the defaults is a post-processing decision of one kind or another. Often it's just limited to a small tweak of the contrast, but I used to use multigrade paper in a darkroom to do the same with film.

Black and white conversions from a colour digital original? You betcha. That's PP (actually, I quite fancy a genuine monochrome DSLR so I can play with colour filters on the camera properly, but that's a whole other discussion...).

Often I'll correct the perspective on buildings or distortions on a lens. Occasionally I'll clone out some rubbish that's in the way to do some tidying up (cigarette butts, etc).

I've never really been one for dropping in another sky and all that shenanigans, though.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I can't imagine anyone posting unedited raw files....seems crazy. JPEGS are processed in cam....
Click to expand...

Excatly, even a Jpeg set to "standard" in camera setting is processed. All compacts "post process" in camera. A Raw image can be pretty ugly, all depends on your camera and lens I guess. I PP all of my shots that I am showing anyone, its all part of the fun. PP isnt anythign new films while being developed were post processed in the lab, I remember being able to ask for more vibrant prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top