how often pics need work in pp

Well the question is how often do pics need work in post? Or on average say out of 100 pics taken do any come out just picture perfect straight out of the camera? If so which body do you yield the most perfect pics? I use the 5D2 and 7D and on averaged 80 percent are just perfect needing no wb or color work in cs5 or Lightroom. My averages have increased since using the 5D2 over 2 years with this body.
Roger

Back when I was using a DSLR, I used Photoshop to convert all of my Raw files to monochrome (the conversion method entailed the use of lab color). I would then apply curves, burn & dodge brushes, and sharpening for web or print. So 100 percent of the time did my photos need post processing.

Now I shoot B&W film, but I scan it, so again, I use Photoshop to stretch out the tonal range and then subsequently manipulate the tonality and contrast to my desire. So still, 100 percent use of post processing.

If I didn't scan, I would be in the darkroom, using dodge & burn and other post shutter release techniques to enhance the photo as I saw fit.

I can see using software to convert RAW files to jpeg or other format that is ok but how many of the pics are dead on not needing the color or wb or other techniques to improve on said photo? With the exception of converting files from RAW how many keepers do you yield on average that need no alterations to improve them?

This depend on what each person finds to be acceptable and what each person's post processing repertoire is. I find that Jpegs have gotten better but still prefer applying my own tone curve over the flat linear one the camera applies.

Totally off-topic...why on earth do you have 4 bodies (3 of them being croppers)? And why have multiples of the same lens?

It really depends on personal style, how much you care and how much time you're willing to spend.

I shoot in all of it raw out of principle just in case I get that million dollar shot, but I try to get it right in camera for the sake of purity and to save time.

If I like the shot, I apply curves to bring highlights and blacks to where I want them to be and most of the time stop there. Sometimes dodging and burning for emphasis of the subject. If it's a portrait that's printed large then skin softening and healing brush.

My goal is to get it right in camera and to save time tweaking it later.

But I'm not very good at post processing. I've seen some PP work which starts with a mundane image with ill defined subject and turns it around into a very pleasing image.

It's totally up to you and there's no right or wrong way.

Always for me. I shoot RAW, so even if its just a matter of boosting the contrast by a few points, it needs doing and that counts as PP.

I work on every image I print, and most I post. Unless it's just a snap of kids etc, though I might still click the auto adjust to see what it does.

But if I find something good enough to print, it can always be made even better with a little tweak here or there. Often less than a min work.

I shoot RAW so every single picture needs work.

Raw > DPP > CS2 or Gimp.
and
Film > scanner > CS2 / Gimp.

Film scans and noisy digital get some minimal Neatimage love. Often.
Color and White balance altered used in DPP. Occasionally
Blackpoint. Almost always.
Rotation correction (hopefully minor!) and a touch of cropping. Usually
Minor curve fiddling. Frequent.
Mild saturation +/-. Sometimes.
Small radius Smart or USM sharpening. Usually.

All this takes only a few minutes.

If I've got a nice image, I'll clone out any sensor or film dust and may even clone objectionable subject material, almost always limited to 'pollution' caused by civilization. Zorch the lone streetlight in the middle of an otherwise natural scene, etc.

Very nice images get dodging and similar 'classic darkroom' enhancement, which can sometimes consume up to an hour or so.

ROGERWILCO357 wrote in post #15849746
I use the 5D2 and 7D and on averaged 80 percent are just perfect needing no wb or color work in cs5 or Lightroom.

Kind of depends on what your idea of perfect is. Many people are happy to let the camera do their processing and just shoot jpeg. Many others want creative control and so shoot RAW and do PP. Doing PP doesn't necessarily mean that an image is less perfect than one which the photographer chooses not to do PP on.

100%

In general I see little reason not to throw images through post for general adjustments and additional work. Why should I assume the camera has things where I wanted them for a digital photograph? There are a lot of choices to be made when it comes to a digital image's final look, and many of them are just as easily set after the fact.

Everybody's definition of "perfect" is different.

Two weeks ago my wife and I took 2772 pictures at a wedding. Yesterday I finished sorting through them all in Lightroom, either pitching them due to technical defects or filing them to be processed. I would have to guess I was completely satisfied with maybe 20 of them straight from the camera. That's a 0.7% keeper rate, perfect straight from the camera.

I am glad to hear that you get such extraordinary results. I hope one day I could achieve that level of skill, but I doubt it. For the rest of us, it's hard not to at least try and see what a little touchup might change. A picture I'm satisfied with straight from the camera might turn into something I have to rush out and show to my friends with a few tweaks here and there.

Everything I shoot gets a curves adjustment, most get a color balance, and some get saturation adjustment. That's about it for me and post production.