[35mmfilmfan]

<snip>
And I do actually shoot RAW now so that I have that digital negative should I want to do more than just straight convert to JPG for sharing with my family.
<snip>

Surely, if you are sharing images, no matter with whom, you should show the best of which you are capable ? If that requires some minor PP work, then so be it - the difference between showing an image where the reactions is 'Oh, that's nice', and an image where the reaction is 'Wow !'.

In my view, always try for the 'Wow !' reaction. It impresses the viewers, and builds your own feeling of self worth. If the image does not quite reflect reality - who else is to know ?

[normhead]

Always



Upgrading your gear can make a world of difference in the right hands, but you can still take a horrible photo with $5,000 worth of gear. Work on technique first, then upgrade if and when you find a technical limitation of your existing gear, and then start planning long term instead of getting something to improve an immediate need.



You can get free editors that are very capable, if not overkill already at your skill level. The more you work on the above, the less reliant you'll be on this. It's good to know some basic editing techniques, but not worth stressing out over as if you must be well versed today to be taken legitimately. Take your time and learn as you go. I didn't follow any set process to learn. Once I got the idea of the exposure triangle, I went from there. As I ran into new challenges, I would then go research them as needed.



Not at all. I think most everyone would agree you should strive for getting it as close as you can with the initial shot, even if it's only because it makes the editing process that much easier.

There is lots of good advice here.

Earn your "right" to a better camera, by exhausting the limits of what you have. For the most part, things become more difficult with better gear, not easier. You will use everything you learned on your cheaper camera, and then have to learn more stuff. Upgrade when you need to learn more. Not because you want something easier. Phones are easy. 645s need all kinds of knowledge, that you don't need with a phone. Everything in between is increasing levels of complexity.

[Wheatfield]

No I did not head for the hills. Just enjoying reading the responses. But I do just see it as strange that we set the aperture, ISO, shutter speed, and focus just so and we watch our composition and then spend hours redoing it all at the computer. We worry about having the best camera and good glass but then use the image captured as a rough draft. But I a couple of comments were about the same, whatever makes you happy. But I asked for opinions and I enjoyed reading them. Thank you all.

Again, you are making an egregiously false statement here.

[Rondec]

My point is that to me, the art or science of photography (again, I am pure armature here) is trying to capture a scene or memory. I keep trying to understand the camera and setting, finding an interesting subject and getting a well composed photo. My favorite photo I have ever taken in my eyes is flawed. I have a horizon line that is a degree or two slanted. I have an slight intruding object that I thought was out of the frame but the wind picked up. So I think that these are post process fixes that should be made. But to make these changes, crop the image down, get rid of a shadow that was in the hut, brighten up the ship in the background because a large cloud placed a shadow on this ship, and increase the softness of the waves, etc. And I do actually shoot RAW now so that I have that digital negative should I want to do more than just straight convert to JPG for sharing with my family.

And so the reason for my original question is do I try to improve my technical skills with the camera and spend more money on a newer camera body and lenses that are better than kit or mid range or do I need to now spend more time and money in editing software skills and programs. I think I want the skill with the camera / lens as I am thinking about breaking out the old ME Super again some day.

I was just curious if I was alone in my belief that having a better quality "digital negative" and only use post processing for small enhancements. I hope I did not offend anyone but I got what I thought I was going to get in this conversation. Some people saying that post process is just part of the process, one or two saying it was taboo, and most somewhere in the middle.

But at least none of my photos will end up in the "Photoshop Fails" conversations!

I think some people lean towards photo journalism, where your goal is to simply document things accurately. Even there, our memories of a scene are not going to be exactly the same as someone else is there.

None of my photos are being published in the New York Times and so I really don't feel compulsive about keeping a piece of garbage that was lying on the ground beside a fence or even cloning out power lines, if they seem to be a distraction.

Honestly, when I take a landscape photo, I have knowledge of what I can do with it in post. So, I often deliberately under expose by a stop to stop and a half. The resulting image looks dark, but it also keeps the highlights from being blown out. If I exposed for the foreground, the sky would be blown out and I would lose all of the brilliant color that is there. But I know that I can lift the shadows a couple of EVs in post and I plan to do that. It doesn't feel wrong and actually it is closer to what I remember seeing in the scene at the time, but it does involve post processing too.

[filmmaster]

Again, you are making an egregiously false statement here.

an egregiously false comment..

The person you qouted had a point,, whats teh point of spending 5,000$ on a camera body/lens set up,. DESIGNED for low light shooting.. then spending hourse in photoshop to make a "worthy photo"?

Seriously, its sort of like the UHD blu ray players with dolby vision that have 4k upscaling for standard dvd and blu ray disks..

even if the original image was supposed to be darker shadows.. the upscaling processing section of the player turns it into a lighter, more easier to see section on screen. NOT the visual intent, but its still technically on the film storage device.

[jersey]

What are you arguing about?

Does this: https://library.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/static/collections/epj/image..._coloring2.jpg answer the question if post is good or bad? It is XIX century hand coloured black and white photograph. Since beginning photographers were doing their best to show what they wanted and how they wanted to the public.

[Wheatfield]

an egregiously false comment..

The person you qouted had a point,, whats teh point of spending 5,000$ on a camera body/lens set up,. DESIGNED for low light shooting.. then spending hourse in photoshop to make a "worthy photo"?

Seriously, its sort of like the UHD blu ray players with dolby vision that have 4k upscaling for standard dvd and blu ray disks..

even if the original image was supposed to be darker shadows.. the upscaling processing section of the player turns it into a lighter, more easier to see section on screen. NOT the visual intent, but its still technically on the film storage device.

The problem is that the point he is making is egregiously false. Even your comparison is saying post processing is good.

[BigMackCam]

Upgrading your gear can make a world of difference in the right hands, but you can still take a horrible photo with $5,000 worth of gear. Work on technique first, then upgrade if and when you find a technical limitation of your existing gear, and then start planning long term instead of getting something to improve an immediate need.

Well said. Actually, I like shooting with older, simpler gear specifically because it forces me to get the most out of it. When a camera or lens can't do something I need it to, I have to become inventive or make different creative choices... which is fun, because it's challenging, and I learn as a result.

Whilst I love using my K-3 (and all-singing, all-dancing non-Pentax full-frame gear), I've become a better photographer by shooting my much-more-basic Samsung GX-10. There's stuff it can't do that my newer equipment can - but where there's a will, there's always a way

[mlag]

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?

I also always aim for the best photo out of camera, but I am not perfect, the camera isn’t perfect, sometimes the circumstances ain’t perfect either and I don't mind doing corrections. Cropping, exposure...etc no problem. Even pano stitching...

I would mind altering a photo in such a way that it depicts another reality. I am not pasting nice sky or clouds into my pictures or remove stuff.. no extreme photoshopping for me unless maybe it would be for an artistic or humouristic purpose and the change would be obvious.

Sometimes it depends on the purpose : a family holiday picture or a scientific project : in the last one even a simple crop could be an attempt to hide unwanted results, or sharpening/denoising could remove details of studied subject....here I would advise to keep the originals (next to the improved pictures?).

But in the long run , every picture is a kind of a lie : we are selective, we trash our failed pics, we only take pictures of things we like.... so one could always claim we did hide the ugly truth. In the same way journalists tend to picture the excesses of our society ( both good and ugly ones: from Olympic gold to war crimes) but rarely every days normality. Pictures are a kind of selective memory....

[jgnfld]

... Even pano stitching...

Re. stitching. Some photos are really a lot better when stitched. A situation I have a lot of the time is a coastal shot which is essentially a strip shot in the first place. Between taking a series at around 50mm or so or using an UWA lens, I find stitching works a lot better for me, at least.

One example I've posted here before is this pano of my marina's home arm which is (I forget exactly) a 2x4 or maybe 2x5 pano taken at 50 or 60mm and stitched with Hugin. At full res you can see individual boats and gulls far away. A cropped UWA shot would be nowhere near as detailed (I know...I've tried). You do, however, need to print//display this at full res at least 14" wide--preferably more--before you really appreciate the detail. This is a small jpg which washes out details. Those white dots out by and past the head on the left side opening to the arm are about 3 miles away and are easily individually identifiable in a full res display.

[Mooncatt]

Well said. Actually, I like shooting with older, simpler gear specifically because it forces me to get the most out of it.

There is certainly a lot to be said about making the best of what you have.

[filmmaster]

What are you arguing about?

Does this: https://library.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/static/collections/epj/image..._coloring2.jpg answer the question if post is good or bad? It is XIX century hand coloured black and white photograph. Since beginning photographers were doing their best to show what they wanted and how they wanted to the public.

hand coloring a developed film negative/print so that the cat or coat or robe has the right colors on it, is NOT the same thing as someone using photo shop to turn a persons hair orange, their eyes pink, and their t shirt green as has become a commong "artsy" photographic treatment.

[jersey]

It is exactly the same. You are taking photograph and changing the "original" to suit your (or your audience) taste.

[BigMackCam]

hand coloring a developed film negative/print so that the cat or coat or robe has the right colors on it, is NOT the same thing as someone using photo shop to turn a persons hair orange, their eyes pink, and their t shirt green as has become a commong "artsy" photographic treatment.

It is exactly the same. You are taking photograph and changing the "original" to suit your (or your audience) taste.

Yep... in both cases, it's manipulating the original result - whether by hand, brush and dyes, or by software. In one case the intent is to achieve a realistic result, in the other, an artistic result. Both require skill, both are valid for different reasons, and whether the end results are appreciated will depend on the individual viewer's personal taste...

[swanlefitte]

"True to what you saw"

With a drone camera you never see what was there. With a camera trap you never see what was there. With an evf you never see what was there. In these cases you can only be true to what was recorded, not what was there.

The most important point in the chain is missing before the capture. What is actually there was never seen. A process was set and it captured what it was set for. How can processing even have meaning to reality more than itself? I have never heard people questioning a drone shot.
The only thing left is the question of preprocessing vs post processing which is trivial. Whatever the process all we care about is the data or art and how to mix the two.