View Poll Results: Do you post-process your photos?

Voters
335. You may not vote on this poll
  • Seldom, I always try to make sure my everything are done in-camera.

    110 32.84%
  • At least half of my photos needs to be post-processed to bring out the punch in them.

    184 54.93%
  • I don't do post-processing at all and the images looks great!

    41 12.24%
Page 1 of 7 1236 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 130

Thread: Photographing w/o post-processing

  1. #1

    Default Photographing w/o post-processing

    Hi all, I've been shooting for about a year or more and I realized that my photos requires atleast basic post-processing before it will look good.

    I'd heard about people saying a good photographer could do magic with his camera and post-processing is not necessary at all!

    Hope the pros out there could guide newbies like us and inspire us to develop better photography skills.

    Do show us nice photos w/o any post-processing done if you have them! And like-wise, for other photogs who thinks that atleast a minimal PP is necessary, do post the photos and share with us what kind of PP you'd done to your image too.

    I believe this will help a lot of us here.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    2,573

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    To shoot without any post-processing, you would be needing to know the relationship between shutter speeds and f/stops otherwise known as equivalent exposures.



    One shot taken at f/32 for about 15 seconds.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by agape01 View Post
    To shoot without any post-processing, you would be needing to know the relationship between shutter speeds and f/stops otherwise known as equivalent exposures.

    One shot taken at f/32 for about 15 seconds.
    i think you need to know a lot more than that.

    believe me, it's a lot more than simple math and turning of dials.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoZ View Post
    Hi all, I've been shooting for about a year or more and I realized that my photos requires atleast basic post-processing before it will look good.

    I'd heard about people saying a good photographer could do magic with his camera and post-processing is not necessary at all!

    Hope the pros out there could guide newbies like us and inspire us to develop better photography skills.

    Do show us nice photos w/o any post-processing done if you have them! And like-wise, for other photogs who thinks that atleast a minimal PP is necessary, do post the photos and share with us what kind of PP you'd done to your image too.

    I believe this will help a lot of us here.
    this has been discussed to death.

    my view, that i will push forth again and again.. if you are happy with in-camera processing, that's your choice. if you are happy to customise the processing and spend 8 hours on the image, that's also your choice. what people will only care about is the end result. no one is going to look at a really good piece and say "oh wow, that is just photoshop magic", unless it is a pure digital piece with no composition in the picture to begin with that you took down or recorded.

    why do i say there is no difference? because in camera, adjustments are made. just because you don't see them doesn't mean the image isn't cooked. if you are FINE AND HAPPY with the camera cooking it for you, fine! if you'd rather bring it home to cook yourself , that's fine too. it is just like making a pizza. some people like to make pizza with raw ingredients themselves, some people like to buy ready made from supermarket.. both can be delicious, and no one really cares where it came from.

    the people who tell you that post processing is 100% necessary are deluded. sometimes the camera cooks it well enough. the people who tell you that post processing is 100% unnecessary are equally deluded. if the camera doesn't cook it well, of course people wnat to cook it themselves.

    what is the main goal? establishment of a vision, and accomplishing it through proper execution.

    some of my photos i do USM only, i am happy with them being cooked by camera. people think it is UNCOOKED, that is nonsense. some of my photos, need something more, that extra mile to bring out what i saw, because the camera is not 100% true to reality.. then i can spend more time on it.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    i think if all of your photos need PP then something may be wrong w ur fundamental photography skills...!
    d850 | a7r3 | I1P | P4P | Videos | Photos | Aerials

  6. #6

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Hi all, It dependents on what you are and what you need. Raw + PP for Art work, publications, etc. I don't do double processing by camera + software editing. I use JPEG Fine, Optimal Quality, base ISO for outdoor shooting and JPEG basic, etc for website loading of images. Sharpening +JPEG compression at low level degrade the image quality.
    Many other factors are also involved eg type of camera, etc. It is easy just to pinpoint certain factors and vote for it.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    As a photography newbie, one of the reasons why I bought my new camera was to minimize the amount of PP.

    If I upgrade my camera and still have to do that much PP, I would rather not waste money in the first place.

  8. #8
    Member Linnl71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    East area
    Posts
    388

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    IMO, minor adjustments such as contrast/saturation or creating a vigenette or correcting colours etc. will help better enhance your picture

    Moreover, editting your work and seeing the end result gives you a sense of satisfaction! (At least for me)
    Last edited by Linnl71; 12th August 2009 at 11:55 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by gibberi3h View Post
    As a photography newbie, one of the reasons why I bought my new camera was to minimize the amount of PP.

    If I upgrade my camera and still have to do that much PP, I would rather not waste money in the first place.
    You can do batch processing, applying the general PP elements to your photos in batches.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by mayhemics View Post
    i think if all of your photos need PP then something may be wrong w ur fundamental photography skills...!
    all of your photos have pp

    it's just whether your camera does it, or you.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by gibberi3h View Post
    As a photography newbie, one of the reasons why I bought my new camera was to minimize the amount of PP.

    If I upgrade my camera and still have to do that much PP, I would rather not waste money in the first place.
    dslr outputs at default settings are less processed than p&s settings

    therefore, your logic is wrong. if you wanted to minimise pp, you should buy a consumer camera.

  12. #12
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,901

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    post processing means after capturing the image, to make the images available for viewing/using, so can we capture the image with out processing?

    when you shoot film, the film will need to send for film processing (developing), if it is negative, when making print, the person making print for you will also do some kind of adjustment for you, even it is very minimum, that also call processing.

    if you shoot instant film like Polaroid or Fuji instant print, there is also chemical come with film pack to processing your prints.

    so if you shoot digital, camera will process the data to make it into images for you, you can set some kind of parameter in the camera to tell camera how you want the image to be, or do it with the computer after you download it.

    so can we totally do away post processing? the answer is clear.

    now the question is how much processing you need or want.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  13. #13

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    dslr outputs at default settings are less processed than p&s settings

    therefore, your logic is wrong. if you wanted to minimise pp, you should buy a consumer camera.
    That's what I'm using now anyway: Lumix lx-3

  14. #14

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by catchlights View Post
    post processing means after capturing the image, to make the images available for viewing/using, so can we capture the image with out processing?

    when you shoot film, the film will need to send for film processing (developing), if it is negative, when making print, the person making print for you will also do some kind of adjustment for you, even it is very minimum, that also call processing.

    if you shoot instant film like Polaroid or Fuji instant print, there is also chemical come with film pack to processing your prints.

    so if you shoot digital, camera will process the data to make it into images for you, you can set some kind of parameter in the camera to tell camera how you want the image to be, or do it with the computer after you download it.

    so can we totally do away post processing? the answer is clear.

    now the question is how much processing you need or want.
    Without getting into the debate of process or no process which I feel is redundant and a waste of time ... I would love to see a photo that has ABSOLUTELY NO processing whatsoever. Does such a thing even exist?

  15. #15

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    Without getting into the debate of process or no process which I feel is redundant and a waste of time ... I would love to see a photo that has ABSOLUTELY NO processing whatsoever. Does such a thing even exist?
    it's called reality

    but it's not really a photograph

    and you better be wearing nothing but your eyes, even if you are short-sighted, else you'd be processing the photo as well with cool lens thingies

  16. #16
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,943
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    just a VERY PERSONAL choice..... but just very curious what some of you might consider minimum actions in PP ?

    So for me.....at most PP involves simple things like

    1. adjust contrast/brightness levels
    2. resize to fit screen
    3. burn/dodge
    4. convert to bw (optional)
    5 sharpen

    Heck, I dont even know how to use layers or curves kekekeke

  17. #17
    Moderator catchlights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Punggol, Singapore
    Posts
    21,901

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    Without getting into the debate of process or no process which I feel is redundant and a waste of time ... I would love to see a photo that has ABSOLUTELY NO processing whatsoever. Does such a thing even exist?
    got, got, got, if you shoot film, after exposed and unload, throw the film inside the dust bin, 100% no processing.

    but shooting digital a little difficult leh, cos even default factory setting also consider processing, so you see images from the camera LCD also processed images liao.
    Shoot to Live, Live to Shoot
    www.benjaminloo.com | iStock portfolio

  18. #18

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Hahahaha it's nice to see moderators of ClubSnap joining in the discussion instead of sending out warnings. I got a shock when I first saw the red nick.

    When I started this thread, I wasn't referring to the processing of raw datas done in the camera, it was meant more for post-processing from exposure, contrast, hue and saturation to cloning, healing, masking, adjusting all sorts of funny funny things. So please stop talking about all photos has first been processed by the camera's inbuilt software and stuff.

    I realized that there were a lot of words but no one has really posted their photos to show an example like I'd suggested earlier?

    Also, I believed most photogs that responded to this thread does studio photography, would like to know how far the photo can go without using ant post-processing tools like photoshop, gimp and anything, just the basic control on lighting setup and in-camera settings.

    Please do keep the valuable discussions coming!

  19. #19

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    Quote Originally Posted by ed9119 View Post
    just a VERY PERSONAL choice..... but just very curious what some of you might consider minimum actions in PP ?

    So for me.....at most PP involves simple things like

    1. adjust contrast/brightness levels
    2. resize to fit screen
    3. burn/dodge
    4. convert to bw (optional)
    5 sharpen

    Heck, I dont even know how to use layers or curves kekekeke
    minimum for me just USM

    slightly more than minimum = curves + usm

    then other than that = a lot of work, usually 30 min to 2 hours, depending.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Photographing w/o post-processing

    about 90% of all my pictures need PP!

Page 1 of 7 1236 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •