Photographing w/o post-processing

Do you post-process your photos?


Results are only viewable after voting.

GeckoZ

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
655
0
0
32
Telok Blangah
fotologue.jp
#1
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. :)
 

agape01

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2003
2,574
0
36
Somewhere Out There
Visit site
#2
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.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#3
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.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#4
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.
 

mayhemics

New Member
Apr 28, 2009
763
2
0
#5
i think if all of your photos need PP then something may be wrong w ur fundamental photography skills...!
 

henry soh

New Member
Aug 29, 2008
851
0
0
#6
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.
 

gibberi3h

New Member
Jan 30, 2007
201
0
0
48
#7
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.
 

Linnl71

New Member
Jul 2, 2009
387
0
0
26
East area
#8
IMO, minor adjustments such as contrast/saturation or creating a vigenette or correcting colours etc. will help better enhance your picture :bsmilie:

Moreover, editting your work and seeing the end result gives you a sense of satisfaction! (At least for me)
 

Last edited:

HeiPiGu

New Member
Jan 6, 2009
432
0
0
#9
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.
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
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. :)
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#12
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.
 

gibberi3h

New Member
Jan 30, 2007
201
0
0
48
#13
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 :D
 

Dream Merchant

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 11, 2007
9,659
6
38
#14
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? :dunno:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#15
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? :dunno:
it's called reality

but it's not really a photograph :bsmilie:

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
 

ed9119

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 11, 2002
11,014
38
48
56
Singapore
www.walkeast.com
#16
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 :)
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#17
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? :dunno:
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.
 

GeckoZ

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
655
0
0
32
Telok Blangah
fotologue.jp
#18
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. :bsmilie:

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!
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#19
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.
 

Top Bottom