How much post processing do you do?

Zafar Iqbal · 07-26-2012, 03:26 PM

I have a love/hate relationship regarding post-processing.

I fancy my images well enough to do some work with them (some more, some less), and I quickly find myself buried in too much work. I don't work slow, I just shoot a lot

I do most processing when it comes to portraits and model shots. I'm barely into model photography though, so I still needs loads of experience to fine tune and speed up that kind of workflow.

The pics you (OP) posted has undergone basic processing in my book. I rarely do not do anything or very little to my images. I too try not to crop but it can be necessary.

Katier · 07-26-2012, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by SpecialK

That would not really matter, as you say the first is uncropped. The first has the flower in the center and a lot of background in...the background. The second has a lot of asphalt in the foreground :-) That's just my take on it.

I realize this is not a critique thread, but you say you do very little PP where, to me, the examples call for more.

Which is part of the reason for posting them - to me they look fine - happy with them.. which is why I included them.. essentially a 'what would you have done' scenario.

stevewig · 07-26-2012, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Katier

Which is part of the reason for posting them - to me they look fine - happy with them.. which is why I included them.. essentially a 'what would you have done' scenario.

If you are really inviting input...??

One example from myself, (apart from the foreground/background issues mentioned previously) I would have brightened them for a start because they are all a touch too dark in my opinion, although that is subjective opinion - I agree.

Katier · 07-26-2012, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by stevewig

If you are really inviting input...??

One example from myself, (apart from the foreground/background issues mentioned previously) I would have brightened them for a start because they are all a touch too dark in my opinion, although that is subjective opinion - I agree.

Essentially yes because, as the saying goes, a picture paints a thousand words. Not so much critique as just "What would you have done"

liukaitc · 07-26-2012, 04:34 PM

almost every photo of people I took, I do color adjustment. like color overlay, gradiantmap or I just use plug-in, like nik software.
I feel for people, it need to add some color to boost the feeling.
but for other type photo, like food, building, etc..I do not do that.

twitch · 07-26-2012, 04:49 PM

PP is not as much of an issue as is currating and outputting (for me anyway).

FWIW, the 3 images posted in the thread opener all could have been improved with some basic and quick PP.

LeDave · 07-26-2012, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by L33tGreg

RAW files don't have a colorspace.

Then I am a fool =( I thought RAW has either Adobe RGB or sRGB... Guess I was wrong all these years of shooting photography.

stevewig · 07-26-2012, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by LeDave

Then I am a fool =( I thought RAW has either Adobe RGB or sRGB... Guess I was wrong all these years of shooting photography.

Not at all!

But see this article (..in total, not just the piece that I quote here...):

Quote:

The truth is, a raw image doesn't really have a color space at all in the traditional sense. Yes, there are limits to how bright as well as how "green" or how "red" a camera can record, but if you considered these limits as part of a color space definition, they wouldn't describe either sRGB or Adobe RGB at all. The total gamut of a typical raw file actually exceeds even that of ProPhoto RGB in many respects, but a lot depends on just how you convert it to a usable image.

When Shooting in RAW, What Color Space Should You Use? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

wildman · 07-27-2012, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Katier

How much post processing do you do?

As much as is necessary to accomplish my intended purpose.

Is any other answer possible?

demp10 · 07-27-2012, 08:54 AM

Just because an engineer and an accountant decided to use a sensor with specific aspect ratio, size and pixel density for technical and financial reasons, does not mean a photographer should adhere to these restrictions.

After all, the camera just TAKES a picture. The photographer MAKES the picture.

I prefer most of my non-landscape images in square or 5x4 format, so at a minimum I crop images to that. For landscapes, if they are going to be displayed on a HD monitor or projector, I usually go with the display’s native format of 16:9 or sometimes with the wider cinemascope-type 2.4:1. For printed landscapes, I prefer wide panoramas usually stitched and printed 6 to 10 feet wide.

In terms of other processing it depends on the setup. A studio image where everything is controlled with plenty of time for setup and test shots is very different than one in the field capturing a fleeting moment. I always try to capture a well-focused and fairly well exposed frame with all the elements I want to be present. The final image will happen in the “Lightroom”.

Generally speaking, every digital image can be improved by adjusting the white balance to accurately represent the lighting source, use lens corrections if available, fine-tuning the exposure a bit if needed, and adding a small amount of clarity and sharpness to compensate for the anti-aliasing filters. Beyond that is a case-by-case situation and in most cases less is more.

devorama · 07-27-2012, 09:07 AM

I do a good amount of post processing on all my pictures. Pretty much every one of my final pictures is cropped to some degree. Even with a 100% viewfinder, I find I can get the composition really spot on in post with a good crop. Resolution is not a concern because most of my stuff is just for screen and not print. Besides cropping, just about every image also gets some fill light, recovery, and/or curves adjustment. Many are color corrected. High ISO shots get their luminance/color noise reduction adjusted. Anything RAW gets sharpness adjusted as well as some of the JPGs I shoot.

Beyond that, if it's a portrait I'll go a bit further. Fix some backgrounds that are distracting. Exposure gradients. Dodge and burn to fix lighting I don't like. I'll clone out a pimple. Maybe slightly whiten teeth. If the subject is of a certain age I might flatter their skin tone with some negative clarity or added noise reduction. I'll clone over directly reflected hot spots on the skin from the on-camera flash shots.

It certainly sounds like a lot. But all the adjustments are actually quite subtle. They just add up to a more pleasing result. I do not believe photographs represent some pure form of objective truth. But they should still be a good representation of the person you shoot. It's all about balance.

devorama · 07-27-2012, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by demp10

A studio image where everything is controlled with plenty of time for setup and test shots is very different than one in the field capturing a fleeting moment. I always try to capture a well-focused and fairly well exposed frame with all the elements I want to be present. The final image will happen in the “Lightroom”.

My feelings exactly. The majority of my shots are not in studio, so there is little control over lighting. At the time of capture, I want something reasonably well exposed, in focus, and composed well. Just get the shot close enough that I can effectively finish it off in post.

cali92rs · 07-27-2012, 09:53 AM

I use UniWB and expose to the right. I also turn down color saturation and sharpening in camera, so I am forced to do some pretty extensive PP on every shot I do. Honestly, I really don't know if the results are worth the effort, but its a hobby, lol. If I was a pro that shot thousands of pics in a session, I would definitely be more practical about PP.

JenniferLeigh · 07-27-2012, 10:01 AM

Being a raw shooter, majority of my pictures go through basic post processing. I do try to create the best in camera image I can. I'm a self employed graphic/web designer so I don't want to spend any more time infront of the computer than I have to

I can not wait until tables are powerful enough to take on all my photo editing, currently I use splashtop app combined with my iPad to access Lightroom on my computer. It isn't the best but I can casually make minor adjustments and add keywords from the couch.

JenniferLeigh · 07-27-2012, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal

I fancy my images well enough to do some work with them (some more, some less), and I quickly find myself buried in too much work. I don't work slow, I just shoot a lot

I found I started to have this problems as well, I was shooting too much and ending up with a digital overload. I'm really trying to slow down my shooting, not taking as many photos and thinking a little more about the ones I do take. Do I really need 25 photos of that tree stump I thought was interesting?

07-27-2012, 01:01 AM	#24
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by Katier How much post processing do you do? As much as is necessary to accomplish my intended purpose. Is any other answer possible? Last edited by wildman; 07-27-2012 at 01:53 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic NO Post Processing!	wzdevito	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	160	03-18-2015 05:13 AM
Post Processing	Tatume	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	18	05-21-2012 10:28 PM
Machinery Post Processing	mikro	Photo Critique	19	03-16-2011 07:41 PM
Lens Correction: 15mm DA Limited (in-camera Pentax Kx processing or post-processing?)	ADHWJC	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	11-29-2010 08:11 PM
Architecture How did I do with the Post-Processing	iocchelli	Photo Critique	10	08-01-2010 11:24 AM

07-26-2012, 03:26 PM	#16
Zafar Iqbal Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229	I have a love/hate relationship regarding post-processing. I fancy my images well enough to do some work with them (some more, some less), and I quickly find myself buried in too much work. I don't work slow, I just shoot a lot I do most processing when it comes to portraits and model shots. I'm barely into model photography though, so I still needs loads of experience to fine tune and speed up that kind of workflow. The pics you (OP) posted has undergone basic processing in my book. I rarely do not do anything or very little to my images. I too try not to crop but it can be necessary.

07-26-2012, 03:33 PM	#17
Katier Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 72 Original Poster	Originally posted by SpecialK That would not really matter, as you say the first is uncropped. The first has the flower in the center and a lot of background in...the background. The second has a lot of asphalt in the foreground :-) That's just my take on it. I realize this is not a critique thread, but you say you do very little PP where, to me, the examples call for more. Which is part of the reason for posting them - to me they look fine - happy with them.. which is why I included them.. essentially a 'what would you have done' scenario.

07-26-2012, 04:11 PM	#18
stevewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 773	Originally posted by Katier Which is part of the reason for posting them - to me they look fine - happy with them.. which is why I included them.. essentially a 'what would you have done' scenario. If you are really inviting input...?? One example from myself, (apart from the foreground/background issues mentioned previously) I would have brightened them for a start because they are all a touch too dark in my opinion, although that is subjective opinion - I agree.

07-26-2012, 04:23 PM	#19
Katier Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 72 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevewig If you are really inviting input...?? One example from myself, (apart from the foreground/background issues mentioned previously) I would have brightened them for a start because they are all a touch too dark in my opinion, although that is subjective opinion - I agree. Essentially yes because, as the saying goes, a picture paints a thousand words. Not so much critique as just "What would you have done"

07-26-2012, 04:34 PM	#20
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	almost every photo of people I took, I do color adjustment. like color overlay, gradiantmap or I just use plug-in, like nik software. I feel for people, it need to add some color to boost the feeling. but for other type photo, like food, building, etc..I do not do that.

07-26-2012, 04:49 PM	#21
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	PP is not as much of an issue as is currating and outputting (for me anyway). FWIW, the 3 images posted in the thread opener all could have been improved with some basic and quick PP.

07-26-2012, 05:43 PM	#22
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by L33tGreg RAW files don't have a colorspace. Then I am a fool =( I thought RAW has either Adobe RGB or sRGB... Guess I was wrong all these years of shooting photography.

07-26-2012, 05:57 PM	#23
stevewig Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 773	Originally posted by LeDave Then I am a fool =( I thought RAW has either Adobe RGB or sRGB... Guess I was wrong all these years of shooting photography. Not at all! But see this article (..in total, not just the piece that I quote here...): Quote: The truth is, a raw image doesn't really have a color space at all in the traditional sense. Yes, there are limits to how bright as well as how "green" or how "red" a camera can record, but if you considered these limits as part of a color space definition, they wouldn't describe either sRGB or Adobe RGB at all. The total gamut of a typical raw file actually exceeds even that of ProPhoto RGB in many respects, but a lot depends on just how you convert it to a usable image. When Shooting in RAW, What Color Space Should You Use? - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

07-27-2012, 08:54 AM	#25
demp10 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Atlanta Photos: Albums Posts: 602	Just because an engineer and an accountant decided to use a sensor with specific aspect ratio, size and pixel density for technical and financial reasons, does not mean a photographer should adhere to these restrictions. After all, the camera just TAKES a picture. The photographer MAKES the picture. I prefer most of my non-landscape images in square or 5x4 format, so at a minimum I crop images to that. For landscapes, if they are going to be displayed on a HD monitor or projector, I usually go with the display’s native format of 16:9 or sometimes with the wider cinemascope-type 2.4:1. For printed landscapes, I prefer wide panoramas usually stitched and printed 6 to 10 feet wide. In terms of other processing it depends on the setup. A studio image where everything is controlled with plenty of time for setup and test shots is very different than one in the field capturing a fleeting moment. I always try to capture a well-focused and fairly well exposed frame with all the elements I want to be present. The final image will happen in the “Lightroom”. Generally speaking, every digital image can be improved by adjusting the white balance to accurately represent the lighting source, use lens corrections if available, fine-tuning the exposure a bit if needed, and adding a small amount of clarity and sharpness to compensate for the anti-aliasing filters. Beyond that is a case-by-case situation and in most cases less is more.

07-27-2012, 09:07 AM	#26
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	I do a good amount of post processing on all my pictures. Pretty much every one of my final pictures is cropped to some degree. Even with a 100% viewfinder, I find I can get the composition really spot on in post with a good crop. Resolution is not a concern because most of my stuff is just for screen and not print. Besides cropping, just about every image also gets some fill light, recovery, and/or curves adjustment. Many are color corrected. High ISO shots get their luminance/color noise reduction adjusted. Anything RAW gets sharpness adjusted as well as some of the JPGs I shoot. Beyond that, if it's a portrait I'll go a bit further. Fix some backgrounds that are distracting. Exposure gradients. Dodge and burn to fix lighting I don't like. I'll clone out a pimple. Maybe slightly whiten teeth. If the subject is of a certain age I might flatter their skin tone with some negative clarity or added noise reduction. I'll clone over directly reflected hot spots on the skin from the on-camera flash shots. It certainly sounds like a lot. But all the adjustments are actually quite subtle. They just add up to a more pleasing result. I do not believe photographs represent some pure form of objective truth. But they should still be a good representation of the person you shoot. It's all about balance.

07-27-2012, 09:13 AM	#27
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638	Originally posted by demp10 A studio image where everything is controlled with plenty of time for setup and test shots is very different than one in the field capturing a fleeting moment. I always try to capture a well-focused and fairly well exposed frame with all the elements I want to be present. The final image will happen in the “Lightroom”. My feelings exactly. The majority of my shots are not in studio, so there is little control over lighting. At the time of capture, I want something reasonably well exposed, in focus, and composed well. Just get the shot close enough that I can effectively finish it off in post.

07-27-2012, 09:53 AM	#28
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	I use UniWB and expose to the right. I also turn down color saturation and sharpening in camera, so I am forced to do some pretty extensive PP on every shot I do. Honestly, I really don't know if the results are worth the effort, but its a hobby, lol. If I was a pro that shot thousands of pics in a session, I would definitely be more practical about PP.

07-27-2012, 10:01 AM	#29
JenniferLeigh Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Southern Alberta Posts: 281	Being a raw shooter, majority of my pictures go through basic post processing. I do try to create the best in camera image I can. I'm a self employed graphic/web designer so I don't want to spend any more time infront of the computer than I have to I can not wait until tables are powerful enough to take on all my photo editing, currently I use splashtop app combined with my iPad to access Lightroom on my computer. It isn't the best but I can casually make minor adjustments and add keywords from the couch.

07-27-2012, 10:09 AM	#30
JenniferLeigh Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Southern Alberta Posts: 281	Originally posted by Zafar Iqbal I fancy my images well enough to do some work with them (some more, some less), and I quickly find myself buried in too much work. I don't work slow, I just shoot a lot I found I started to have this problems as well, I was shooting too much and ending up with a digital overload. I'm really trying to slow down my shooting, not taking as many photos and thinking a little more about the ones I do take. Do I really need 25 photos of that tree stump I thought was interesting?