[Designosophy]

I keep running into (non-professional) photographers who seem to be obsessed with photos "straight out of the camera" and insist that post processing is an illegitimate and/or deceptive exercise. I also see a lot of photos posted with "no post processing." I find this puzzling. To me, an unprocessed photo is a lot like a box of Lego bricks. It might have potential, but it's not achieving that potential without some work.

Straight out of the camera, if you shoot JPEG, then the camera has post processed the image, even if it's with default values. If you shoot RAW, then it's really just data bits. Displaying it on screen, converting it to JPEG, etc. all involves some sort of post processing. Similarly, if you shoot film, straight out of the camera isn't anything usable, unless you shoot Kodak instant film, and even that is sort of like shooting digital JPEGs because it's developed using a default process. So there is always post processing. It's not a question of yes or no; it's a question of degree.

I know that it generally makes sense that the best processed photos result from the best pre-processed data, but why stop with pre-processed? Is a given photo really at its best "straight out of the camera?" Or could it be better? There may be something illustrative about a RAW, pre-processed photo, but an 800-pixel wide JPEG that has been created with default values is not very useful or informative, in my opinion.

So what is the point of this attempted purism?

[blackcloudbrew]

Other than if I wanted to point out that an image was as close as possible to what appeared on the LCD screen and even then it's subject to settings on the camera, I seldom bother with even remarking about this. I've been shooting raw for almost 3 years now and ALL of my images have some post processing.

I think the point people are trying to make is that when doing comparisons between say bodies or lenses, given the ability of PP work change an image, one wants to keep that to a minimum for comparison purpose. After that, I see no point to it, particularly shooting raw images.

[JinDesu]

I'm a post processing purist because I am lazy and I don't have photoshop.

[Macario]

There is no point in the purism. I mostly do my work in B&W, and you do need a lot of PP with your pictures.I used to spend hours in the darkroom to get a good print. I spend about the same amount of time behind the computer getting the same result with digital files.
If I have a good picture within 10 minutes of computer time, that is lightning fast.
Also when I take a picture of a scene, I have an idea in my mind to make something of it. I do not just "record" what my eyes see. I 'record' what my mind sees. And that means PP

So straight out of the camera for me is a big no (unless it is family pictures I qucikly want to share with the family)

[grhazelton]

No post processing?

Would that eliminate cropping? Back in the film days some folk filed out the negative carrier to print a black border, showing the "photographer's original intent." I wonder if these purists eschewed dodging and burning and the other darkroom magics.

Supposedly these people did no cropping, although I'll bet there were ways to fudge the black border. For example, one could mask the enlarging paper with an insert to expose only a black border, flash it, and then print the cropped image.

Ansel Adams for one did an immense amount of "post processing." He characterized the negative as the score, and the print the performance. I'll bet that most of the great film shooters did too.

[mr.b.snowden]

I am the type of person who tries to enjoy the type of media that I want to enjoy with the best possible quality and not any added "fluff." For example, with my music, where I demand a nice sonic balance that isn't too heavy on bass or too airy in the treble, I try to go for the cleanest image I can with my photography. I am marketing myself, as I am trying to break out in the biz, by not processing any of my photos beyond cropping, resizing, and some B&W conversion. I enjoy what my K-x can do for me, including the color extraction and pastel filters, but I rarely use them, unless I want to do it for some reason.

I love being able to share my pictures with others and I highly dislike some of the overdone post-processing that I see and don't want my friends to think I'm going to follow that trend. I always get kind remarks about my work, which sometimes has cross-processing in place, but other than that I only adjust my saturation and contrast in-camera. I don't want to get in the habit of always having to adjust certain aspects of my shots by spending five minutes fixing up an image. Unless I'm trying to achieve a certain look, I will not post-process. My motto is "If it's crap, I'm not touching it."

Please check out my flickr page, http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansnowdenphotography/ to see the types of shots I am able to achieve with only using the camera and Irfanview (my favorite free photo program), as I adjust settings in the camera, shoot, then crop/resize later on and add my watermark. Simple process that has produced great results.

[theperception2008]

I hear that from a friend as well. I like post processing as I can stretch the noise reduction a little more than if I shoot in jpeg. and the image come out cleaner too when shooting in raw... :-) I use Adobe lightroom and Aperture for all my PP needs :-)

[newarts]

I purposefully use out-of-the camera shots when in a discussion about some aspects of cameras or lenses as a means of establishing a baseline for the discussion. Once post-processing is done it can be difficult to unscramble camera/lens capabilities from software skills.

Also there are many people (perhaps most casual photographers) who just take what they get from the camera.

[InlawBiker]

At first I thought it was "cheating" to doctor your photos, or even to crop the image. I probably got this impression from using nothing but point n' shoot film cameras where altering the image was never really an option. All my film was sent out to be processed, I had no control over the resulting prints.

And then digital P&S cameras were pretty much the same, you had to make sure you framed the image correctly in the camera and get the colors right because you live with what you get. Remember not everybody has Photoshop and free/cheap digital editing software hasn't become commonplace until pretty recently.

But then once I realized DSLR photos are meant to be adjusted/developed and even carry the darkroom concept over to digital then it became no big deal.

[Ash]

I'm rarely completely satisfied with results straight out-of-the-box. So, RAW + PP makes much more sense than just settling for JPEG. Nevertheless, shooting in JPEG has its place...

As for the so-called no PP purism, there is clearly no such thing technically, but more loosely this ideology of photography only by lens and camera doesn't really achieve its purpose of creating photographs at their best. Even the most perfectly captured image out of the box (an elusive entity in itself) can be touched up to look more enhanced. Simple tools such as levels, curves, colour balance and sharpening can work wonders on the resultant work of art.

There are a number of reasons for desiring to stick to a purist form of photography, but in the end PP brings icing to the cake of a photograph.

[v5planet]

I keep running into (non-professional) photographers who seem to be obsessed with photos "straight out of the camera" and insist that post processing is an illegitimate and/or deceptive exercise. I also see a lot of photos posted with "no post processing." I find this puzzling. To me, an unprocessed photo is a lot like a box of Lego bricks. It might have potential, but it's not achieving that potential without some work.

Straight out of the camera, if you shoot JPEG, then the camera has post processed the image, even if it's with default values. If you shoot RAW, then it's really just data bits. Displaying it on screen, converting it to JPEG, etc. all involves some sort of post processing. Similarly, if you shoot film, straight out of the camera isn't anything usable, unless you shoot Kodak instant film, and even that is sort of like shooting digital JPEGs because it's developed using a default process. So there is always post processing. It's not a question of yes or no; it's a question of degree.

I know that it generally makes sense that the best processed photos result from the best pre-processed data, but why stop with pre-processed? Is a given photo really at its best "straight out of the camera?" Or could it be better? There may be something illustrative about a RAW, pre-processed photo, but an 800-pixel wide JPEG that has been created with default values is not very useful or informative, in my opinion.

So what is the point of this attempted purism?

I think a lot of people believe post processing an image somehow destroys the integrity of the photo and that they don't want to be a part of that. That it is a dishonest act of deception that misrepresents reality...

Just... ignore them, honestly. Every camera does post processing for you -- even if you shoot RAW your camera has settings dictating how it should treat certain information. To take direct control over this and do it on a computer with sophisticated programs is to me just another step in presenting your work. Certainly people can sometimes take it "too far", but that's not much of an argument against post processing by itself. You're creating an image, not dutifully reporting a summary of the photon activity in the area when you pressed the shutter button.

The way I see it, even the human eye-brain system is doing an enormous amount of post processing on the raw information that streams in from the environment, so who truly has the right to claim what an honest image is?

[Parallax]

ALL photos are post processed. In the case of digital, someone, at some point, has to decide what is done with the raw data collected by the sensor. They are either PP by the guy that wrote the algorithm for the in-camera engine, or by someone (you) after the they leave the camera.

[newarts]

As an exercise in planning composition it can be helpful to play a "no cropping" game. You might be surprised at much more thought you give to original composition if you know you cannot crop later (ok, maybe that's not true for you.)

[Northern Soul]

I am marketing myself ... by not processing any of my photos beyond

• cropping,
• resizing, and
• some B&W conversion

other than that I only adjust

• saturation and
• contrast

I enjoy what my K-x can do for me, including the color extraction and pastel filters ... I ... use them [if] I want to.

Unless I'm trying to achieve a certain look, I will not post-process. (so if you want a certain look, you will?)

I adjust settings in the camera (which as others have pointed out, is just telling the camera in advance how you would like it to process the image once you've captured it)

Sounds to me like you do a fair bit, compared to what the average film user used to do. Which is great - it's one of the many advantages of digital.

[Warped]

Making it known that you do little to no post processing can be one way to make yourself stand out from the crowd.
I post-process - but I don't do a lot simply because I'm not that great with Photoshop and a lot of the images I take don't need a lot of work due to the type of image they are. Portraits, get the lighting and props, clothing, make-up ...etc right and you really shouldn't need to do a lot (imo).
Being a semi-pro and competeting at the lower end of the market and in a small niche, if people know they can book me, do the shoot, and see the images within a day or two at the most Vs someone who will go back, do lots of editing and take weeks, if not months before they see the results ..... then that's sometimes the edge I need over the others to get the gig or score the chance to work with a certain model.
I find if you don't overdo it (as some can and come over all pious, pompous and holier than though purist like) it can help give the client confidence you know what you're doing and you won't be spraying and praying and hoping to rescue shots in post.
I know a lot of photographers who rely on post and won't show anyone their originals, not even to the model while shooting - I love being able to show the model the look we're acheiving, or what needs to change and if I'm going to do that then the shot better look good on the screen straight from the camera.
Again with the semi-pro thing - I only have a limited amount of time to shoot and even less to work in post. So purely to save me time and effort I'll do everything I can do get it right at the shoot and spend more of the spare time I have shooting rather than being sat in front of the PC.
Purist - No
Bit of perfectionist and taking self-pride in what I can do with a camera rather than a PC - Yes