Originally posted by Knock I'm curious to know how many people edit their photos. I've heard people say that every photo needs some editing. I've also heard people say that editing is cheating and takes away from learning to take the proper exposure. Personally, I'm not a fan of editing--not because I think I'm a purist or anything, but mainly because I'm terrible at it! I do not own Lightroom or Photoshop. I have GIMP (because it was free--I'm on a budget). I am not very good with computers and operating software. GIMP isn't very easy to use, but it seems that I tinker with the photos too much and end up with an over processed piece of crap. After going through this frustration a few times, I now tend to just stay away from editing. I've heard that Lightroom is pretty user friendly. Is it worth the investment or should I keep trying to get the perfect exposure? Your opinions are appreciated.
Show me one good photographer who doesn't edit....
Post processing is part of photography. People who don't post process are not getting the most out of their photos and for the most part, their photos could be better. I've seen maybe 5 of my images over the past 50,000 that didn't need post processing, and none of them were "winners". I've never posted an unprocessed image to the forum...
As to whether or not you are personally a person who would get anything out of post processing is another issue. Richard Avedon (one of the best photographers of the 20th century) had the same technician for most of his working career, he didn't work in the darkroom much, but he paid someone who was really good at it to do it. You can't assume that because you are a decent photographer you will also be good at PP, but if you don't you might want to find a technician you trust to do it for you, on your best images. Just getting something easy that has an "auto enhance" function will improve, 90% of your photos. At least try and do that much. Load the photo, press the "auto-enhance" button, see what you think. Even if you don't do any more than that, it's still worth giving it a look. If you don't like PP then Lightroom is probably overkill. You can do a lot with light room. There are many less comprehensive programs, probably some for free, that will allow you to do a little.
The idea of no post is total nonsense. Even in the old days with film, those bulk developing machine at your local mall analysed your negative and made decisions on how to best print it. There was post processing, just the ignorant didn't know it was happening. Every camera has a jpeg engine... if you shoot jpeg and don't post process, the camera actually dod some PP work for you. Look for a RAW un PPed image on the web, you won't find many.
Or do what this guy does....
How To Take Photos That Require No Post-Production
You'll notice it's a lot more work, for no noticeable benefit. Look at picture number 8 "Where's your focus" in the above article... how would that image not be improved by increasing the detail in the clothing in shadow in this image? You can read these kinds of things, but to most main stream photographers these guys are just kooks. Again in step 10, there's no detail in the woman's blouse. Fer god's sake dude, if you're going to promote no PP, at least show work where you were successful. Showing people that you can produce less satisfying results without PP, most of us already knew that. This guy doesn't know how bad his examples are... and most people who advocate no PP are in the same boat. His images simply aren't as good as he thinks they are.