[acoufap]

This is a sort of comparison that I see. First image is out of camera without adjustment.



The second image has been run through Raw Therapee, pixel shifted with motion correction and a digital graduated neutral density filter applied. Is it a perfect image? Probably not, but I couldn't get the same effect straight out of the camera.

Tiny Barn at Dawn (FA 31 limited/pixel shift)

Nice example, Rondec! - Examples may help unexperienced people understand what it‘s about. Experienced people who don’t want to do it already decided not to invest any time in special post processing. They are happy with what they get SOOC. We won‘t be able to convince them that it‘s worth doing post processing.

[swanlefitte]

Examples are nice in many ways. One way is it shows you can have multiple versions. Maybe you like the barn dark better. Maybe a person sees it and says it was owned by their grandfather and it was torn down. If only the barn was more visible, so I could see where my parents had carved their initials in it when they had their first kiss.

How could you argue pulling those details out to make a print for this person is not better?

[StiffLegged]

This is a sort of comparison that I see. First image is out of camera without adjustment.

The second image has been run through Raw Therapee, pixel shifted with motion correction and a digital graduated neutral density filter applied. Is it a perfect image? Probably not, but I couldn't get the same effect straight out of the camera.

Tiny Barn at Dawn (FA 31 limited/pixel shift)

That's a fine image, thanks for sharing! It's also the sort of thing we used dodging in the darkroom to achieve when printing from colour negative film. Plus ca change ...

[devouges]

I usually do bird pictures. They do not obey the rules. They are usually far and cropping is a must.

...... my 2 cents

[swanlefitte]

I usually do bird pictures. They do not obey the rules. They are usually far and cropping is a must.

...... my 2 cents

But your camera dictates the photo must be x,y pixels.

Good on you for not letting your camera gatekeep you.
gate·keep·ing
1. the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.

2. COMPUTING
a function or system that controls access or operations to files, computers, networks, or the like.

[Fdooch]

A clean photograph without post-processing is a spherical horse in a vacuum. No matter how you compose a shot, there are things that affect the image. Static electricity that blows dust. Extraneous glare or reflections in jewelry. Your favorite model may not get enough sleep and she will have circles under her eyes. Difficult lighting can give shadows an unpleasant color. Traces of underwear and, God forbid, cellulite when shooting nudes. Unpleasant people in the landscape. Perspective distortions when it is impossible to change the angle in urban shooting. And this is only a small part of everything that can be. If you take this into account during construction, you will not shoot a single frame. And adherents of clean photos, in my opinion, are just trying to show their coolness compared to others. Although the main thing is the lack of desire to study a huge amount of information and develop a skill.

[nicolpa47]

This is a sort of comparison that I see. First image is out of camera without adjustment.

The second image has been run through Raw Therapee, pixel shifted with motion correction and a digital graduated neutral density filter applied. Is it a perfect image? Probably not, but I couldn't get the same effect straight out of the camera.

These two images perhaps demonstrate why I became comfortable with post-processing.

I came to digital photography from years using colour slide film where the aim was to get the image right "in the camera". With digital I did, and still do, try to capture what I think I see in the viewfinder. I have my cameras set up to produce jpeg images in the style I want. That doesn't always happen and was first most noticeable in that a sensor cannot match the dynamic range of the human eye. Initially, I looked on post processing as a form of failure to get things right but I quickly learnt that it was really a way of overcoming the limitations of the physical kit and errors I might make.

The two images demonstrate that you can drag out of a RAW image shadow detail lost in the SOOC version. This is something I do frequently and it sits well with the methods I used to use in getting exposures right for slide film. In short, many images are fine SOOC but some require adjustment of the jpeg, and others require more processing best done from the RAW file. I shoot RAW+.

I no longer feel post processing is a form of cheating but, nevertheless, I try to keep it relatively subtle and natural looking. I may not always succeed, but that is the aim.

[StiffLegged]

A clean photograph without post-processing is a spherical horse in a vacuum.

Marvellous phrase which made me laugh! Thanks!!

[TwoUptons]

My daughter's Fuji Instax laughs at all this talk of post-processing... "You push button. I give picture. All is good."

And there's a philosophical aspect of this... if I pick the square format on my K1 before I shoot, that's pre-processing... if I crop square afterwards it's post-processing... which is better? Which is more "pure"?
If I go and get the Rollei instead and shoot the image square on film, is that somehow superior? I might argue it is only because the Rollei needs some exercise... not for any other reason...
Don't agonize over it.

I am chronically inept at post-processing, and outside of whatever I have set at the moment for my JPEG settings, I typically limit most of my active post-processing to crops and simple, global changes to lighting and color. I generally use Photos on a Mac for that.
If I want to get fancy (focus stacking is so cool...), I'll use Affinity Photo because it was inexpensive, is plenty powerful for my modest needs, and because it has good video tutorials.
I tried the GIMP a million years ago, when I had a LINUX box and generally all software was horrible, so I'm a bad person to ask...

I spent a lot of time in a University darkroom years ago, prepping black and white images for publication, dodging and burning with paper clips taped bits of manilla folder. I like the new way far more.
As inept as I am compared to people who do this regularly, I can make small, simple tweaks to images that can improve them dramatically.

Even something as simple as a "heal" tool is post-processing magic... even if I use it on less than 5% of my photos.

A feature I also love about Pentax cameras is the ability to shoot JPEG most of the time but to simply chuck off a Raw whenever there is a particularly challenging lighting scenario or photo I think might be extra-good. There's no benefit up front. That's all for the post-processing. Maybe it gives me a better result, maybe not, but I like that it's there.



This was a shot with my wife's Minolta rangefinder. I changed the lighting and color a bit 'in post'. Took me a couple of seconds, but it improved the lab scan quite a bit and gave me back what I remembered the scene looking like. Post-processed? sure. Any "less than" the original scan? Nope.

-Eric

[vonBaloney]

This was a shot with my wife's Minolta rangefinder. I changed the lighting and color a bit 'in post'. Took me a couple of seconds, but it improved the lab scan quite a bit and gave me back what I remembered the scene looking like. Post-processed? sure. Any "less than" the original scan? Nope.

I know that building. Oatland Island?

[TwoUptons]

Ha. Yes. One of my daughter's favorite places.

-Eric