Is Post-Processing unfair, or part of Photography. What you think?

[ahmad0420]

Hey everyone!

I just started photography not a long time ago, and starting to think of doing it more than just a hobby.

I've always been wondering the healthiness of post-processing photographs. You know, using softwares such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc.

Is it totally part of the photography workflow (read abit about it), or just a way to "cheat" one's self to showcase a better photo than the original?

Let's say, someone saw my PP-ed photograph and tell me its marvellous, but in real original form, it's just another photo. I sometimes feel that I'm just cheating myself.

I'm totally confused about this stuff, so people, enlighten me yeah.

PS: Anyway, how do I add a link to my flickr on my Signature? cant seem to do it.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Dream Merchant]

Do a search. This has been debated to death in many photography forums around the world.

 

[Hooky3659]

Hi there ahmad0420,

You mentioned in your post you want to take photography more seriously than a hobby, I assume you have the intention to make money from your photography? If so do not hesitate to learn more about post-processing techniques as it is required skill in this digital age. Clients dont usually care what fancy camera or post-processing techniques you use to attain your work, all they expect are perfect photographs which are up to their expectations. Post-processing in this case allows you to fix flaws, enhance details and acheive the visual imagery and impact a client has envisioned for their project. Even photojournalism invloves cropping and recomposing, an act of processing the original image initially shot. Anyway, nothing wrong with trying to improve a photo after its shot

 

[driveanegg]

Its a philosophy.... believe what you wish to believe....

Keep shooting !!!

 

[Wulla]

Hey everyone!

I just started photography not a long time ago, and starting to think of doing it more than just a hobby.

I've always been wondering the healthiness of post-processing photographs. You know, using softwares such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc.

Is it totally part of the photography workflow (read abit about it), or just a way to "cheat" one's self to showcase a better photo than the original?

Let's say, someone saw my PP-ed photograph and tell me its marvellous, but in real original form, it's just another photo. I sometimes feel that I'm just cheating myself.

I'm totally confused about this stuff, so people, enlighten me yeah.

PS: Anyway, how do I add a link to my flickr on my Signature? cant seem to do it.

Thanks everyone!

Hey, why dun we view it on a different perspective. a Beautiful lady who knows how to make up make her a gorgeous lady ^.^.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

If photography is only about capturing an image, just like motorsports is only about driving/riding a vehicle quickly, why does F1 spend so much money on research and development?

The 2 are part of a "package", just like PP and photography. If you don't like PP, or feel strongly against it, don't do it lor...

 

[chalib]

I think you should do a search and read up. This is a never ending debate. No right or wrong, the most important is the final result (photos) itself

 

[pessimisticcynic]

for me, PP is not important but it is sometimes necessary, it depends on the eye of the photographer. cameras can only do so much in terms of color saturation and sharpness. PP can help the pictures give that extra ummph :bigeyes: - but of course there should always be a limit -

knowing your own personal parameters is the key to your question :thumbsup:

 

[mabmy]

And incase you do not know, the moment you snap a picture, pp has already been done in your camera. So pp is cheating? Think about it again. Of course if you think that pros do not pp their pictures, like the ones you see in galleries and magazines,think about it again too.

 

[Sivakis]

Ask yourself this:

1. You take a picture
2. The lighting conditions aren't perfect but it's not a picture that you can take again anytime soon
3. You PP to tweak the picture to what it could have been should the conditions have been better

Is the above "cheating"? If that is cheating, then, as Wulla mentioned, ladies with makeup are cheating. Men who shave are cheating. Lol, even painting your house is cheating!

 

[Kit]

Hey everyone!

I just started photography not a long time ago, and starting to think of doing it more than just a hobby.

I've always been wondering the healthiness of post-processing photographs. You know, using softwares such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc.

Is it totally part of the photography workflow (read abit about it), or just a way to "cheat" one's self to showcase a better photo than the original?

Let's say, someone saw my PP-ed photograph and tell me its marvellous, but in real original form, it's just another photo. I sometimes feel that I'm just cheating myself.

I'm totally confused about this stuff, so people, enlighten me yeah.

PS: Anyway, how do I add a link to my flickr on my Signature? cant seem to do it.

Thanks everyone!

Ask yourself, if you are so into remaining "true" to what you see, why are you taking photos with your camera to begin with? What you take is never quite what you see if you haven't realised.

 

[Agetan]

In photography and the business...

You are the photographer and you are in charge of the images that you are going to produce.

Nothing more and nothing less. So it is your choice and you can take merit or blame on yourself.

For example, i choose to be available light photographer. Some might think I am crazy... but then again it is my choice and opinion don't matter.

Photoshop, like camera gear, they are tool. It depends on how you use it. Its not the merit of what they are capable of that worth us debating.

Regards,

Hart

 

[photoart]

you PP your photos heavily until they look perfect(but might appear "unreal"), look at it and ask youself if you feel good? if you are, good

if you post the PP photos and get negative comments(from anti-pp people) and becomes bothered by it, then you shouldnt do photography at all.

 

[Wulla]

Ask yourself this:

1. You take a picture
2. The lighting conditions aren't perfect but it's not a picture that you can take again anytime soon
3. You PP to tweak the picture to what it could have been should the conditions have been better

Is the above "cheating"? If that is cheating, then, as Wulla mentioned, ladies with makeup are cheating. Men who shave are cheating. Lol, even painting your house is cheating!

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Octarine]

Post-processing with Photoshop&co is just the continuation of what happened in the wet darkroom (hence the name of the Adobe product). Do you think there is only one way to process a film negative and make a print? All steps give the chance to influence the end result. So post-processing has been there since the first plates or rolls of film have been exposed and turned into prints.
Use whatever you need in order to achieve the image that you have in mind. Certain results can only be achieved by massive amount of post-processing (HDR, IR). You cheat yourself only if you think that the 'unprocessed' image is the only real thing.
But it's like with many other tolls and methods: know how to use and know when to use. It cannot replace basic knowledge about composition and exposure.

 

[lchoong78]

I think you should do a search and read up. This is a never ending debate. No right or wrong, the most important is the final result (photos) itself

totally agreed with you. the final result will be most impt!!!!

 

[Jeremy1]

U can do wonder to a photo ( just need to be sharply focus ) if you are good in PP.

 

[ovaltinemilo]

Treat it like a digital darkroom(tt's why there's a section on it...) coz after shooting post process is definitely a must...ur cam sharpened for you or you do it urself...crop a little, recover a little detail if you r nt satisfy...adjust ur colour balance...all these are really great convenience thanks to digital photography...why handicap yourself not to use it?

 

[Jeremy1]

And incase you do not know, the moment you snap a picture, pp has already been done in your camera.

Does that apply to RAW ?

 

[Octarine]

Does that apply to RAW ?

No, the term 'raw' implies that there is no processing done. The processing is done to create a jpg image (small resolution) embedded into the RAW image for easier viewing and those viewers who cannot directly read RAW data.
Depending on camera vendor certain camera-specific information / settings are embedded into the RAW image that can be used in PP software (e.g. picture styles, white balance, focus points used).