how much post process?

[paapoopa]

did you edit your photos in photoshop?
this is the question I have always been asked.

So my question is, how much post process is consider ok?

I usually just did some cropping if any, sharpening and adjusting the colors and contrast in lightroom.
is this consider too much?
is this what people use to do in darkroom when dealing with negatives?

[spidey89]

I don't think there's really a "too much" pp anywhere,different people have different style,some don't do pp at all,so wouldn't that make one process as too much pp?Don't worry too much,any amount of pp is fine,just don't overdo it to the point that the picture looks more like a drawing.

I believe this is what people used to do in darkroom,developing,dodge and burn are what i know anyways

[ahbian]

My approach is simple.

When it reaches the point where the output is not nice, then its too much.

[ssping83]

Originally Posted by ahbian My approach is simple. When it reaches the point where the output is not nice, then its too much.

that's a simple yet very important point.. =)

[retrovox]

Originally Posted by ssping83 that's a simple yet very important point.. =)

But this point can be very subjective.

[giantcanopy]

The output objective is subjective, and depending on what idea or mood the photographer wants to carry across. Some might argue for a true representation with some minimal processing, some do heavy processing and are ok with it, some insist on straight out of camera.

Ryan

[ahbian]

Originally Posted by retrovox But this point can be very subjective.

Which is a main point of photography, i think.

Its all subjective. But unless we depend on it for livelihood, the most important person to decide would be the photographer himself.

[giantcanopy]

Originally Posted by ahbian the most important person to decide would be the photographer himself.

And the paying client

Ryan

[ahbian]

Originally Posted by giantcanopy And the paying client Ryan

Agreed. Thats why I excluded people with photography as their livelihood.

[paapoopa]

But still there are a lot of people who don't practice photography thinks that any amount of post processing is consider cheating. At least that's what I have encountered.

[Snoweagle]

I used to not post-process any of my pics as i like them straight out from my cam. But now i do some, though not all my pics need to be post-processed.

So it's entirely up to u on what effect u want to achieve on the final result of your pics cos no one can tell u how much is enough.

[boyboy]

depends on ur output. processing may create artifacts or weird stuff in the image.

if u are processing for display on the web, in a small file, u can process more.

if u are printing big, the amount u can process will be more limited. or u need to be more careful when editing.

[boyboy]

Originally Posted by paapoopa But still there are a lot of people who don't practice photography thinks that any amount of post processing is consider cheating. At least that's what I have encountered.

digital cameras do internal processing. wanna eliminate "cheating", must shoot only slide film

anyway, u can try explaining to those pple, or save ur breath and ignore them. if they think u are cheating, ur images must be pretty decent eh?

i have a fren who commented that one of my images looks fake (i cropped and tweaked levels a bit). he thinks he knows abt photography. but lucky got istockphoto to validate that particular image. it was accepted

[sanas]

i think the less editing or no editing at all is better, it brings out the best in how you shoot.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by sanas i think the less editing the better, it brings out the best in how you shoot.

No doubt, but sometimes the contrast or saturation's not gd enough by default or u wish to add in some effects. Therefore post-processing comes in.

[ahbian]

Originally Posted by paapoopa But still there are a lot of people who don't practice photography thinks that any amount of post processing is consider cheating. At least that's what I have encountered.

Why are the approvals of these people important to you?

Unless these people are paying for your photos, I don't really see why you should be too concerned with them.

If they are able to offer constructive criticisms on your photos, fair enough, if the best they can offer is that PP is cheating.... well, you don't have to show them your photos actually.

[mabmy]

I always pp most of my shots but of course retain the originals as well. Like Snoweagle, some pictures that i took are likeable just the way it is. So it really depends on what you think. If pp is really considered as cheating... well i suppose HDR is as well...? lol

[sanas]

Originally Posted by Snoweagle No doubt, but sometimes the contrast or saturation's not gd enough by default or u wish to add in some effects. Therefore post-processing comes in.

but i believe you can still get the perfect picture buy getting the perfect setting in your cam, that is what i'm still figuring out. if you've seen the exhibits at the Nat Geo, i don't think most of the old pics underwent a lot of post processing. and they look very nice.

[Snoweagle]

Sometimes when i take pics i like to underexpose it a bit so i can process it when i load it up my computer. But when it's over, it's literally over.

[Octarine]

The question is age old and even during film era post-processing was done and was necessary. The amount of PP depends on the gap between the image taken and the finale image that you want to present. Some people want to have a look where PP is obvious, others prefer is as subtle as possible. There is no general rule and those "purists" who reject all post-processing are a bit far from reality. Do as much as you like and as much as you need to achieve your intended result.
But certain things cannot be post-processed: composition, focus and a decent exposure.