Do you have to rely on post processing to get results you like? If none of the answers above apply, pick the best fit, and then if you like, post your thoughts on the relative importance of getting the shot right in the fist place, virsus trying to fix it later on your PC.

I'll post my own comments in a seperate post, so I can include some images.

 

Hahaha, there is a mistake in the poll questions. The word "because" should be followed by three periods "...", because I'd like to see some elaboration. Just pretend the two extra periods are there.

OK, I think post processing on a regular basis is for those who can't get their image right in-camera, or in some cases, when we're trying to produce high quailty prints. I believe that any decent photographer can make great images without the need to fix up his images later on, while others here feel that post processing is the mark of a good photographer. Since I see it as exactly the opposite, maybe I'm not worth my salt (something a guy who depends on post processing to get good images has implied in another thread). Here's the kind of image anyone worth their salt should be able to get easily, in camera, without any post processing.













Cropping, maybe, but other than cropping and resizing, what would be gained. The above images were shot for the Web and are exactly what I wanted, so I guess I'm an idiot and not worth my salt.

How many others are in the same boat.

 

Its very rare that I dont post process my images. Usually very mild though - USM, levels and maybe saturation. I used to ALWAYS, and i felt like I had to.

I dont think I've really found a case though where USM doesnt help an image - so....I almost feel like why not

 

Back in the old days... with lab work... I was taught to always do at least a little burn/dodge.... which I typically do digitally still.

I didn't answer the poll, because I'd say both. Many photographs I take get almost no post processing... but many also get a lot. It's one of those situations where the ends do justify the means--at least in my line of work, as it's all about the final image. Now if we're talking about photography for art... that can really be debated further...

 

It all depends on the final intention of the photo.

If its a snapshot around the house or a random shot while out probably no

If its for a client absolutely

So my answer is - depends on final use of the photo.

 

[quote name='zzziippyyy' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:41 PM']It all depends on the final intention of the photo.

If its a snapshot around the house or a random shot while out

 

When shooting large format (sheet film) I tend to adopt some of Ansil Adams practices, including edge burning. However, I've found it less useful for color images. Hahaha, I think we're supposed to develop our own styles after we are schooled in the traditions.

 

Depends on what I do. If it's shot in the studio, almost always. I can't stand crappy looking skin.

If I'm shooting cars on the track, other than levels / curves, that's about it. Sometimes burn/dodge, but I almost never crop.

 

To the OP - its very evident in those photos that you didn't PP. They look very, well, snapshot'ish. PP is part of photography. The level of PP depends on the individual taste. It was during the film days (it still is for those who use film), and is today in digital.

That's part of the art of photography. Now when you start adding stuff that wasn't in the viewfinder to begin with (like a fake moon during a night shot), then that's beyond what I call good photography.

Now another point - what about shooting RAW vs JPEG? Jpeg uses in-camera tweaks to produce photos. What's the difference between that and a RAW that requires computer based tweaks?

And as far as extra 15 seconds goes....how is an extra 15 seconds going to give me more contrast? More/less saturation? What about vignetting? What about the 15 seconds you just took thinking about it....now you've missed the shot.

I say shoot shoot shoot.....not necessarily spray and pray, as I do believe in some form of composition, but PP is as much a part of photography as oil changes are to car ownership.

 

I think in the end it's all about the final product. PP usually helps and it's hardly "cheating."