[stevebrot]

It's well worth installing Darktable, loading a raw photo and switching off every single one of the processing modules, just to see what the image looks like without all default adjustments.

I use RawDigger for that task. Seeing the RAW data (voltages) and expressed as non-interpolated RGB and histograms can be very enlightening.

https://www.rawdigger.com/


Steve

[bicycle]

It always seemed to me that there is a spectrum of photography from documentation to art. The only real problem in my mind is if you pass off a heavily manipulated photo as a representation of the real world. Maybe others can remember better than me; but years ago didn't a picture of the Pyramids get photo shopped with an extra pyramid inserted into the photo. Then the photo then made it on to a well know magazine cover. Well just my two cents.

Bob

[robgski]

I believe that a "correct" crop can really take an image to the next level...

Almost always some of that, as well as straightening horizons, I seem to hold the camera at a 5-7 degree tilt at the best of times.

---------- Post added 12-23-21 at 20:25 ----------

The only real problem in my mind is if you pass off a heavily manipulated photo as a representation of the real world.

I agree.

[northcoastgreg]

I process every photo I plan to keep (I throw out at least 80% of the images I take). For landscapes, I try to make the image look as it appeared to my eye (cameras don't see like the human eye sees), and then I try to make the image look just a little better. I also apply some of the dodging and burning principles that Ansel Adams used in the Darkroom with black and white to color digital images. I go for a look that's aims at being "natural" but just a little better.

[gatorguy]

I process every photo I plan to keep (I throw out at least 80% of the images I take). For landscapes, I try to make the image look as it appeared to my eye (cameras don't see like the human eye sees), and then I try to make the image look just a little better. I also apply some of the dodging and burning principles that Ansel Adams used in the Darkroom with black and white to color digital images. I go for a look that's aims at being "natural" but just a little better.

I operate much the same as you.

Only a minority of my images are ever post-processed, and every one of those is one I intend to keep. I may not erase all the others, but I do at least purge anything I tag with one star, and depending on the shoot and location the 2 stars as well. It only takes a few seconds per image to review them (I almost always start with a 100% zoom view) and a second longer to apply a rating. I never bother with JPEGS either until it's time to export a finished image. Everything until then is in RAW only with rare exception required by specific program limitations.

[JimS_256]

Is there any one else that shares my desire to take the best photo as opposed to taking anything and creating something that was not there in reality?

Not really adding anything new to the thread but if you want to take the best photo possible, one that looks like what you saw as opposed to the camera saw then you need to do some post processing.

[Dartmoor Dave]

At home on the computer, I usually apply extreme HDR effects and generally clone in a blazing sunset sky, even when the photo was clearly shot at mid-day -- while making sure that the reflections of the clouds in any water on the ground don't match the fake sky, of course. Quite often I'll also clone in a 500mm shot of the full moon, especially when the main photo was obviously taken with a wide angle lens. And I'm always happy to add a unicorn or two if I think the image demands it.

But I like my photos to look as close to reality as possible. So, after I've finished processing, I go back to the place where I took the shot and drink as much booze and eat as many pills as it takes to turn the real scene into an accurate match with the photo.

[redpit]

At home on the computer, I usually apply extreme HDR effects and generally clone in a blazing sunset sky, even when the photo was clearly shot at mid-day -- while making sure that the reflections of the clouds in any water on the ground don't match the fake sky, of course. Quite often I'll also clone in a 500mm shot of the full moon, especially when the main photo was obviously taken with a wide angle lens. And I'm always happy to add a unicorn or two if I think the image demands it.

But I like my photos to look as close to reality as possible. So, after I've finished processing, I go back to the place where I took the shot and drink as much booze and eat as many pills as it takes to turn the real scene into an accurate match with the photo.

An example why photography is a painful and expensive hobby

[iheiramo]

I process every photo I plan to keep (I throw out at least 80% of the images I take). For landscapes, I try to make the image look as it appeared to my eye (cameras don't see like the human eye sees), and then I try to make the image look just a little better. I also apply some of the dodging and burning principles that Ansel Adams used in the Darkroom with black and white to color digital images. I go for a look that's aims at being "natural" but just a little better.

I do the same, thought my number of deleted shots is 90% or higher.

I shoot for pp in mind, so I don't try to get the final exposure when I take the shot. I want full histogram that avoids both edges so I have all the information to work with.

[John G]

As I see it, there are two distinct sorts of photographers - those who want to objectively capture what was in front of the lens (here I always first think of nature and wildlife enthusiasts) and those whose aim is to capture the essence of what they subjectively felt and saw when they captured the image. So, objectivity vs subjectivity, but I see that as 'horses for courses' rather than right or wrong.

I really appreciate the skill of the best wildlife photographers who open up unseen worlds for us but, equally, I am often amazed by the hugely evocative, deeply emotional connections that can be made when looking at a significantly edited and changed image. One thing sticks in my mind... many years ago, at a photography club (or was it a camera club? - I think the name difference is also relevant to this discussion!), we had two professional wedding photographers come along to talk about how they worked. The differences were stark - one person strove to present reality, the other put a lot of time into editing to present the bride and groom with an album that captured their idealised memories.

I imagine by now it's obvious which style of photography I most enjoy, but I'm not saying one is better than another. Probably the only reason I got into photography is because I've never been any good at drawing or painting, so 'creative' photography was the obvious avenue to explore. But different people, different interests, different objectives... it's interesting to think about, but surely every photographic print deserves to be appreciated, and maybe lightly judged, by viewers on its own perceived merits?

[bob5050]

I am not a person that believes in altering a photo. I say that as an amateur who takes photos for memories. If I were to print for framing or maybe contests I would do a little correction. Is there any one else that shares my desire to take the best photo as opposed to taking anything and creating something that was not there in reality? What level of adjustment do you make on photos and do you adjust every photo?

"an amateur who takes photos for memories"
Fits me to a T--
However, as someone who takes a lot of low-light pictures (indoors, restaurants, churches, etc.), getting the best shot possible may mean adjusting to a negative EV, then bringing the picture back up in post. I can always correct underexposure, but a picture blurred by too long a shutter, or too wide an aperture, can't be fixed. I'd rather start off with dark and sharp. That's easy to restore to my memory of the scene. So taking the best picture possible really means taking the best picture possible in the context of your camera, lens, goals, AND the pp tools available to you.
Additionally, fidelity to memory is a tricky standard: sure, that wire might have really been there, but is that actually what you remember about the cathedral façade?
I don't print a lot, but I do post, and there my practice splits: posts to gear forums like this are usually/generally/always SOOC, while posts to my website gallery are almost always tweaked in LR to get the best possible picture to share. Is that 'altering' a photo? Perhaps, but remember that the very act of framing is a 'falsification' of the original scene. The photographer is always 'directing' attention in one way or another. Calling post an alteration but not calling moving to the side to exclude that garbage can from the scene alteration seems rather arbitrary.
So bottom line: do what feels best to you, and that might be different under different circumstances or with image/occasion-specific goals.
traveler

[Mooncatt]

I use to have the goal of getting it right in camera, but I always found something lacking and I would touch up. Sometimes it is because a lens is soft and needs sharpening to get more true to life, sometimes it's a purely artistic desire where I spend hours on one photo. I now shoot only in RAW format, and enjoy the editing process.

In the end, what I do shouldn't matter to you and vice versa. What matters is is if you're satisfied with how your photos look. If yes, and that's straight out of the camera, great! If not, then do what you need to do to fix that (either by learning better skills to get the shot, or go with post processing). Don't feel pressured to doing things only one specific way.

[gatorguy]

Probably the only reason I got into photography is because I've never been any good at drawing or painting, so 'creative' photography was the obvious avenue to explore.

I'd never thought of it in that manner, but I think that may be what's driven me to photography as well. I have artists on staff, creatives who are at home with pad and paper or canvas as much as with a graphics tablet. I can't draw worth a hoot in comparison and use my tablets almost exclusively for minor changes or markups to what another has drawn.... Unless it's photography.

So photography is my art and my creative outlet. I envy those who need no more than a piece of chalk or charcoal and a blank space to use it.

[ChristianRock]

Someone raised up a good point - a lot of people with modern cameras will underexpose a lot to bring the levels up in PP.
I'm of the mind that the best I get the exposure in camera, the better the scene and colors end up being. Of course with sunsets and whatnot, you end up having to underexpose a little, but I try to never underexpose by more than 1 step or so, otherwise, the colors just don't look right anymore. To me a good exposure is the key for the look I usually go for.
With newer cameras like my K-S1/K-S2 there's usually enough details to be pulled from highlights, thankfully.
With older cameras like my K200D and K10D, it becomes even more critical to get the exposure right as like with slide film, exposure will hugely affect the color output.

And that brings me to a point... I'm not afraid of having a tiny bit of my picture blown out (I usually use a bit of highlight compression to mask this) or for a little bit of the blacks to be completely blacked out. I know some will scream in horror at the thought, but for me it's ok to sacrifice 1% of the picture to have the other 99% look better

[jgnfld]

I am not a person that believes in altering a photo. I say that as an amateur who takes photos for memories. If I were to print for framing or maybe contests I would do a little correction. Is there any one else that shares my desire to take the best photo as opposed to taking anything and creating something that was not there in reality? What level of adjustment do you make on photos and do you adjust every photo?

To be honest, when recording for just memories, I often use my quite good Huawei p30 pro. It's lite, fast, and quite "nice". So far as I'm concerned, I use a quality camera (KP w/ K70 as a backup) for anything at all where I want the possibility to be creative and for very special events I'm not actually participating in...like my daughter's best friend's wedding. If I'm participating in some event, I find a cell camera is easier.

Just my penny's worth.