Anyway, are there any good/famous photographers who doesn't do PP at all or minimun PP? Cos PP seems to play an important part in making a picture look great. The point I wanna know is if it's possible to have a Great picture just Raw or all do great pictures have to go through PP to be great?
i am sure there are photographers which were not pped much, but relied more on the light, circumstance, skill, among the 80,000 other things that photography is about, rather than just pp.
you miss the point here, and the vibe i'm getting is that you're trying to say that pped good photograph is lesser than non-pped good photograph. that's like saying that bad pped photograph is lesser than non-pped bad photograph. the thing is, a bad photograph is a bad photograph. a good photograph is a good photograph.
in short, you don't need pp to get a good photograph, but pp can add to a good photograph. and in my view, a good photographer should recognise when he needs a certain amount of pp to bring across his message, to convey what he visualises, and when to stay away from it.
there are so many ways to take pp. take for example a swan picture. i can turn it into black and white, i can do selective colouring, i can just adjust the curves, or i can spend half a day burning and dodging it to achieve a certain effect. choosing the correct path of pp, or not pping at all because there is no need for it - that is what is important, if you ask me. and at the end of the day, what we see is the final result.
Last edited: