[Imageman]

There have been many excellent posts here some speak to the question but some simply wish to score points and only serve to cloud the issue.


The question was a simple one.


Why post-process?


Surely this has been answered.


If the image you get out of the camera isn't how you want it, you post process.


If the image you get out of the camera is how you want it, you don't post process.

[Abower]

As most have commented, there are many reasons why or why not. I would suggest looking at others work and some tutorials and don't become too reliant on the presets in your editing tools, etc as it tends to make your photos too 'samey'.
Usually if your effect is easy to see, you have used too much ;-)

[Sigmund]

Good advice.
I see some landscape photos here that have a saturation and colour cast that make me wince.
On the web I see some worked examples of PP that show a silk purse made out of a sow's ear.

[dtmateojr]

While I agree on post processing, beginners should avoid it. They should try to get it right in camera as much as possible and that implies shooting in jpeg so that the feedback they get on the LCD will match what they will see in the computer. With this they will understand light and understand when to shoot and, equally important, when not to shoot.

[Sigmund]

That's about the position I started this thread with.

The analogy that had the most impact on me was that of the sensor being a negative and the processor being its development.

Now that the kit has been upgraded it's time to move towards optimal development.

[Macario]

While I agree on post processing, beginners should avoid it. They should try to get it right in camera as much as possible and that implies shooting in jpeg so that the feedback they get on the LCD will match what they will see in the computer. With this they will understand light and understand when to shoot and, equally important, when not to shoot.

there is no such thing of when not to shoot, there is only how to shoot.

[Imageman]

Why should beginners avoid post processing.


If an image is a little too dark, is lifting the brightness a tiny bit somehow beyond them or not allowed?


The same is true if its a little too bright, can they not lower it slightly.


What if the image is a tiny bit fuzzy as most digital images are, can they not lift sharpness a little, or contrast.


I see no issues with post processing. In film days nobody was told to avoid developing and printing, it was expected that they learn it and it was a much more difficult process than tweaking a few settings.


Or are you suggesting modern photographers are incapable of learning how to twiddle a knob now.

[dtmateojr]

Why should beginners avoid post processing.


If an image is a little too dark, is lifting the brightness a tiny bit somehow beyond them or not allowed?


The same is true if its a little too bright, can they not lower it slightly.


What if the image is a tiny bit fuzzy as most digital images are, can they not lift sharpness a little, or contrast.


I see no issues with post processing. In film days nobody was told to avoid developing and printing, it was expected that they learn it and it was a much more difficult process than tweaking a few settings.


Or are you suggesting modern photographers are incapable of learning how to twiddle a knob now.

Because it breeds that evil thought that it can be fixed later. If you can't even get your horizon straight or you try to take a photo of the moon and your flash pops up, photoshop will not save you. If you do not know what is wrong in a shot you wouldn't know how to fix it in the computer. You will only make a bad photo much worse. Then you will end up in this gallery:

http://youarenotaphotographer.com

That's what happens to noobs.

---------- Post added 05-06-14 at 07:03 ----------

there is no such thing of when not to shoot, there is only how to shoot.

That's what a lot of togs think. They think they can just get in a tour bus and expect a good shot.

[DeadJohn]

Because it breeds that evil thought that it can be fixed later. If you can't even get your horizon straight or you try to take a photo of the moon and your flash pops up, photoshop will not save you. If you do not know what is wrong in a shot you wouldn't know how to fix it in the computer. You will only make a bad photo much worse. Then you will end up in this gallery:

You Are Not a Photographer | Exposing fauxtographers since 2011

That's what happens to noobs.

You're being a purist. Processing has a place for beginners, assuming they want to learn image capture and processing in parallel. Processing is not about "saving" but about "refining".

YouAreNotAPhotographer is IMO more a case of too much processing and bad taste, rather than being a noob. Some of the photos there may have started off nice but then get ruined by indiscriminate use of selective color, skin softening, and other heavy-handed effects. No amount of practice behind the camera will help some of the camera users (I hesitate to call them photographers) that wind up on that site.

[TenZ.NL]

That's about the position I started this thread with.

The analogy that had the most impact on me was that of the sensor being a negative and the processor being its development.

Now that the kit has been upgraded it's time to move towards optimal development.

PP tends to have a negative taste for some. "Developing" is indeed the better term for mild corrections.
Start with the basics and do you research. For LR and PS youtube is a great source of information, no courses needed

Also, don`t be afraid to fool around with a picture. Sometimes playing around with a boring picture on a rainy afternoon in your PP program can learn you tons of things.

[dtmateojr]

You're being a purist. Processing has a place for beginners, assuming they want to learn image capture and processing in parallel. Processing is not about "saving" but about "refining".

YouAreNotAPhotographer is IMO more a case of too much processing and bad taste, rather than being a noob. Some of the photos there may have started off nice but then get ruined by indiscriminate use of selective color, skin softening, and other heavy-handed effects. No amount of practice behind the camera will help some of the camera users (I hesitate to call them photographers) that wind up on that site.

And that's what I meant when I said that if you don't know what's wrong in a shot then post processing will only make it worse. A beginner must understand a shot first. Post processing is for things that you can't do in camera. It follows that you understand what can't be done in camera. It also follows that you will now adjust your shooting to accommodate post processing. For example, I intentionally shoot at -1 or even -2 from the metered exposure to save my highlights because I know that my K5 can push the shadows later in post. I won't even do this with my other cameras. My NEX 6 for example tends to underexpose so it's at +.3 most of the time.

Post processing is learned by understanding actual photography first. Doing it at the same time is what leads to HDR clown vomit for example. I have been there mind you and it's so funny looking back at what I was thinking.

[Bagga_Txips]

Sorry, I totally disagree. I really wish I could get more vehement about this, but I don't want to start a flame war.

We often advise beginners to shoot in RAW, or maybe RAW+. If you are shooting in RAW, post-processing in almost always vital. If you are shooting in JPG you are just allowing the camera to use a preselected batch of postprocessing commands, and as you take a lot of photos you will slowly learn how to adjust your JPG presets to suit your own taste. This is also a form of post-processing. I always shoot in RAW, I use Faststone for PP almost always, and it seems to me that nearly every shot needs +10 contrast, +5 or +10 saturation, and +10 sharpening. Then the results are invariably better than the jpegs I used to get when I shot RAW+. Then I crop like an army barber, because the default image proportions are rarely perfect for the content.

I agree that is is a good idea to try to get the shot as near to perfect in camera as you can, but sometimes it is fun to take a shot not knowing how you will post-process it, but knowing that there is a worthwhile image somewhere in there.

With film, we ALWAYS used postprocessing, as we could not look at the strip of film and perceive an image. And some of our post-processing presets included not taking the film to the one-hour rubbish film lab if they were vital shots, always sending our overseas snaps to Kodak labs even though they were very expensive, and so on. With digital we do that sort of "development" work ourselves, and learning the ways in which rotten in-camera shots make it impossible to create a worthwhile image with pp is part of the feedback that tells us how we should amend our shooting methodology.

Shooting and PP are mutually dependent, and if you don't practice a bit with a PP prog, you are hampering your own learning.

[dtmateojr]

Sorry, I totally disagree. I really wish I could get more vehement about this, but I don't want to start a flame war.

We often advise beginners to shoot in RAW, or maybe RAW+. If you are shooting in RAW, post-processing in almost always vital. If you are shooting in JPG you are just allowing the camera to use a preselected batch of postprocessing commands, and as you take a lot of photos you will slowly learn how to adjust your JPG presets to suit your own taste. This is also a form of post-processing. I always shoot in RAW, I use Faststone for PP almost always, and it seems to me that nearly every shot needs +10 contrast, +5 or +10 saturation, and +10 sharpening. Then the results are invariably better than the jpegs I used to get when I shot RAW+. Then I crop like an army barber, because the default image proportions are rarely perfect for the content.

I agree that is is a good idea to try to get the shot as near to perfect in camera as you can, but sometimes it is fun to take a shot not knowing how you will post-process it, but knowing that there is a worthwhile image somewhere in there.

With film, we ALWAYS used postprocessing, as we could not look at the strip of film and perceive an image. And some of our post-processing presets included not taking the film to the one-hour rubbish film lab if they were vital shots, always sending our overseas snaps to Kodak labs even though they were very expensive, and so on. With digital we do that sort of "development" work ourselves, and learning the ways in which rotten in-camera shots make it impossible to create a worthwhile image with pp is part of the feedback that tells us how we should amend our shooting methodology.

Shooting and PP are mutually dependent, and if you don't practice a bit with a PP prog, you are hampering your own learning.

I'm sorry but film pros that shoot slide film get it right in camera. Photography practically ends when they trip the shutter. A JPEG is way more forgiving than slide film and you have immediate feedback on the LCD. No reason you can't get it right. Others have been doing this for ages.

Those that shoot negatives previsualize the print and they shoot accordingly. Adams expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Digital photographers now don't even know what they got until they get to their computers and spend another 5 hours clicking a mouse. Huge difference.

I am not against post processing but there is a time for everything.

I play the guitar as well and it's funny when you listen to beginners play the intro to Sweet Child Of Mine when they can't even bar a chord. That is the closest analogy I can think of.

[Imageman]

Well I don't know what experience you have but film guys who shot chromes (slides) never got it right in camera.


Chromes show a great deal of variance in brightness contrast and colour temperature not to mention often being is mis-composed.


The only film stock you had any real control over was negative stock and the colour balance was never controllable of that.


So stop perpetuating the myth that with film you got it right in camera. Beginners are reading this and that kind of rubbish doesn't help them one bit.


Digital images always need to be post processed period or you end up with digital trash. So the sooner people get used to the idea the better.

[dtmateojr]

Well I don't know what experience you have but film guys who shot chromes (slides) never got it right in camera.


Chromes show a great deal of variance in brightness contrast and colour temperature not to mention often being is mis-composed.


The only film stock you had any real control over was negative stock and the colour balance was never controllable of that.


So stop perpetuating the myth that with film you got it right in camera. Beginners are reading this and that kind of rubbish doesn't help them one bit.


Digital images always need to be post processed period or you end up with digital trash. So the sooner people get used to the idea the better.

Tell that to Steve McCurry, Ken Duncan and Peter Lik. Ken Duncan especially is very proud of his 6x17 slides and he gets asked often if they are real.

And I can show you my slide films as well. Not to sound arrogant but I get it right in camera.

Pros used to send their only copy of mounted slides to magazines for publication via snail mail. No post processing there. They get judged at click-time.

I dont know where you got your info and I dont know if you even shot with slide film.

---------- Post added 05-06-14 at 15:46 ----------

BTW, there's another Ken called Rockwell who shoots slide film. He gets it right and he wins contests with them too.

---------- Post added 05-06-14 at 16:01 ----------

Just to prove that I'm not lying, check this out: http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/drive-by-shooting-34-2/

All shots are jpeg from my crappy Oly E-P3. If you get it right, you get it right.

---------- Post added 05-06-14 at 16:29 ----------

My last post for this thread. This is coming from the director of photography from Nat Geo:

http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/26/why-shoot-in-raw-format/

Listen and learn.