Is post processing compulsory?

[cpc1225]

Is post processing compulsory?
Please view images at the link below and offer your suggestion.

http://www.ezez.netfirms.com/Photo-L/PhotoPageL-01.htm

Thank you.

[G3]

I have had very few photos that could not be improved upon with some post-processing. Most of those that could not benefit were hopeless to start with.

Even with film, nearly every image needs some sort of correction. The difference is that with film, you never see it because the lab that prints the phots does it. With digital you do it yourself on your PC.

It may be minor adjustment, but some adjustment will almost always be needed.

In this photo, the bottom is definitely better, but still could be made even better. Saturaturation could be increased a little, levels (or curves) could be used to pull the shadows out a little more and adjust the highlights slightly.

Most images cover a fairly wide range of tones from dark to light. No one camera exposure setting is going to be perfect for every part of the range. With post-processing you can individually adjust each color channel, light tones, dark tones and mid-tones.

As long as the data was recorded by the image sensor when the photo was taken, it is available to be adjusted. If you think of the dynamic range the image sensor is capable of recording in one photo as a comparison with film it make things easier to understand. Most image sensors are capable of recording the same 5 1/2 stops or so of difference (exposure latitude) as print film. With film, if an image is underexposed, it means that not enough light struck the film. Same with an image sensor, not enough data was recorded. With film, if an image is overexposed, too much light struck the film. Same with the image sensor, too much data was presented for the sensitivity setting of the image sensor (ISO setting). If you take that train of thought a step further, another comparison with film can be made. Use the histogram for reference. If you divide the histogram into 5 evenly spaced sections from left to right, that will represent 5 stops of exposure latitude. If you expose on the extreme underexposed side, the only data in the histogram will be in the extreme left section (black or dark tones). If you expose on the extreme overexposed side, all of the data will be in the extreme right section (white or light tones). With an image sensor, just as with film, each f-stop represents double the amount of light striking the image sensor. So, the second from the left section will be twice as much light as the extreme left section, the third from the left will be twice as much light as the second from the left and so on. That means that the space on the right contains 16 times as much data as the space on the left. As long as the image is not completely blown out (overexposed past the dynamic range of the sensor for it's ISO setting), that data is there to be manipulated. If the histogram data is all the way to the left, (dark) the data was never recorded in the first place and is not there to be manipulated. I try to expose most of my shots so that the bulk of the data is just to the right on the histogram. Of course, mostly black or mostly white subjects will be different.

[Bruce Hamilton]

...you never see it because the lab that prints the phots does it.
And generally does a poor job of it, as well... :roll:

[mr_clean001]

I like the way the plants seem to frame the towers, but for some reason the towers look too soft, almost as if they have been pasted into the photo. Not sure how to take care of that, although I will say those towers offer a great deal of shooting material.

Overall I think it is a great shot.

[Meerkat17]

Good advice G3 - I would agree with all you have said and in nice easy, understandable terms.

Cheers
David

[shniks]

I much prefer the processed image. Sometimes I think that processing helps make the picture look more like you saw it with your own eyes, due to the normal limitations of the camera compared the eye. I know sometimes you can go too far with post processing, and make the photo unrealistic. It all depends on what you are trying to achieve with the photo. It really works here, in my opinion.

[stopbath]

The original seems under exposed.
The modified is not improved too much. There is still no contrast in the building, and the sky is getting washed out.
The third verision is much much better. the sky has nice contrast (perhaps a bit washed out on some bright clouds, but that's ok..) the building now looks nice and contrasty. The red sign is punchy.

Very nice.

The shot is nicely framed with plants. Makes the "humans pushing out nature" theme.

[cpc1225]

Many thanks to all your input.
Especially the lengthy explanation by G3.
Histrogram tell us the exposure for each f/stop, how should we relate it to curve adjustment or level adjustment?
What should be the rules or formula?
Looking at the preview image is something I am not confident.
Any advice?