poll: post processing or not

does anyone here like their pictures right off the camera, no p-p .
i think ( unless your a pro ) p-p is overused to correct picture problems instead of learning to control light and depth of field or composition.
me . i like to keep the p-p no none unless i feel creative.
what do you think. . i dont have photoshop, cs or any other bigname p-p software.
but i do some baisc p-p with a free software .

i want to hear opinions .

Any shot you take with a DSLR has processing applied to it; by shooting JPG you're not avoiding processing, you're simply letting the camera select the post processing. Shoot RAW and your photos will look like rubbish compared to a JPG with the appropriate picture style selected - unprocessed v. processed.

Why let the camera choose? You may as well have that control

photoPanda wrote in post #10471187
Any shot you take with a DSLR has processing applied to it; by shooting JPG you're simply letting the camera select the post processing. Shoot RAW and your photos will look like rubbish compared to a JPG with the appropriate picture style selected - unprocessed v. processed.

Why let the camera choose? You may as well have that control

yes i know. im talking photoshop, hdr or cs for extreme p-p. to make something pop. like blur, color etc

illrooster132 wrote in post #10471195
yes i know. im talking photoshop, hdr or cs for extreme p-p. to make something pop. like blur, color etc

Photoshop and the like offer a wide range of tools for a photographer to use... same as lenses, sometimes they're appropriate and they can easily be overused. Where the line is comes down very much to personal taste...

To me PP is an integral and essential part of photography just as using darkroom techniques were with film photography. It seems there's this huge misconception among folks that PP is for those who don't know how to take good pictures with their camera to begin with and therefore in need of post-surgeries to salvage their lousy images.

There are lots of photographers who shoot primarily RAW, including myself, and PP is even more so an integral part of the whole process.

I shoot RAW and do minor adjustments in Lightroom (whitebalance, exposure) I would like to shoot JPG but I'm afraid I'll get a "once in a lifetime" shot and not be happy with the JPG...

just to be clear. this is meant to those that are not pro. meaning they do this as a hobby.
dont get me wrong, i love the things you can do with p-p software.
like i said i use it and love the results.

DStanic wrote in post #10471212
I shoot RAW and do minor adjustments in Lightroom (whitebalance, exposure) I would like to shoot JPG but I'm afraid I'll get a "once in a lifetime" shot and not be happy with the JPG...

i shoot both. and admit my shots are not always what i wanted
thank GOD for p-p.

I almost believe that with Digital Images, post processing is almost mandatory.

You hear one person complaining about soft focus, and another tells them their exposure is wrong.

My first thought was how can exposure affect focus after all focus is a lens function, if lens is properly focused than so to should the image be.

Take a shot with a properly focused film camera, now take a few shot over and under exposed.
When you look at the negative or slide, they are all well focused but some are darker or lighter than others.

Do the same with the digital camera and noise becomes an issue. When you have noise in the image it can make focus look soft.

At least that's my thought.

photoPanda wrote in post #10471187
Any shot you take with a DSLR has processing applied to it; by shooting JPG you're not avoiding processing, you're simply letting the camera select the post processing. Shoot RAW and your photos will look like rubbish compared to a JPG with the appropriate picture style selected - unprocessed v. processed.

Why let the camera choose? You may as well have that control

If you know how to manipulate your camera's settings, you still have a great deal of control even when it's done in camera.

How is post-processing in a computer different than selecting a specific film? Some people preferred Kodachrome while some people preferred Velvia... precisely because they knew their choice would affect the end result.

To me I like to use Photoshop if necessary to make the photo looks better. I even combine three four shots together to make the picture more dramatic. I’ve been many “Pros” photo sessions especially fashion photos and noticed they all Photoshop right after they took the shots.

SYS wrote in post #10471210
To me PP is an integral and essential part of photography just as using darkroom techniques were with film photography. It seems there's this huge misconception among folks that PP is for those who don't know how to take good pictures with their camera to begin with and therefore in need of post-surgeries to salvage their lousy images.

For sure, and it was even more true for hobbyists in the film days than professionals. The argument back then was that a photographer who didn't know darkroom work didn't really know photography.

Yes, there were people who shot only transparencies, but nobody had the temerity to argue that they were better photographers for it than the photographer who knew both the camera and the enlarger.

"Post-processing" has been an integral part of photography since its inception. Any good portrait photographer could and did retouch his work--it was part of the art.

It has only been during a window from about the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s that with the supremacy of small cameras and color film into the professional realm it became economically necessary to "get it right in the camera." It was simply too expensive and difficult to retouch small-camera (smaller than 4x5) color film for most photographers.

But the point: "Get it right in the camera" was an economic necessity--not moral high ground. So we're finally past the dark ages of being unable to retouch color image--this is the Enlightenment Age of photography, and it's going to take a while for people to realize that the way things were done in the Dark Ages weren't the moral high ground just because that's the way they were done in the Dark Ages.

It depends, I think.

If I'm going out to shoot photographs, like in an expressive, artsy-fartsy way, then post processing is part of the idea.

But there is no way in hell I'm going to shoot 600 vacation photos in RAW and pp them all. Those are getting shot in jpg/vivid, and I'll get the composition/wb/exposur​e right when I take the shot.

Mosca wrote in post #10471699
But there is no way in hell I'm going to shoot 600 vacation photos in RAW and pp them all.

I am just the opposite. I will (and have as recently as last month) go on vacation and shoot over 600 raws a week. My requirements for a good image does not go down just because I am on vacation. In fact, if it someplace I will not be back to, I will make sure I have all I can get in each shot.

That said... my vacation PP is on a "as I feel like it" basis. I do not edit all at once. I will pull the top 200 for my wife for her facebook. And edit to an actual final as I feel like it.

As fat as the topic at hand.... For me it more depends on the final intention. If it will be published I can guarentee that it will have some PS at some point. ether you do it, or the publisher does it. But if it is just to be mailed to aunt Jackie it may not be worth the time, as she is half blind anyway.