Post Processing

[NewTekBuzz]

I have had my own Dig.cam since 1999. My first was P & S kodak dc290.. it was ok. Last Feb. I picked up a Canon 20D, my first DSLR. I really love this camera. For christmas I got a Canon 50mm f/1.4, my first prime lens. I have to admit that not all of my pics have turned out with the right lighting or some little thing was in the way. I would really get down on myself about not being able to take the perfect picture. Then I came accross a little something called "post processing"... whats that I asked. In the digital word it is a great thing that we can snap a shot, analize the results instantly and retake if we need to. even after putting the pics one the computer you still see things that you might want to add or change + you can learn waht went wrong. There are plenty of programs from $40 on up that will do just about anything you want.
Is post processing a must? I have taken some nice shots with this DSLR.. but I often wonder how many people use post processing in "ALL" there pictures or in "MOST" of them or maybe you dont do ANY post processing. I would like to hear what you think. maybe even a percentage.. I use post processing about 15% of the time. I like the natural look, im strange like that.

Thanks
Tim

[D Thompson]

Is post processing a must?
Depends on how you look at it. Generally, no it is not a must if you shoot jpeg. However, I shoot in RAW so I have to process each shot. I usually will tweak in the conversion from RAW to TIFF. For me, it's worth the extra steps to have a little better control over my image. If I'm going to frame an image then I'll take a closer look and do some cloning and such. I also work on some portraits that I might do quite a bit of work on.
I have taken some nice shots with this DSLR.. but I often wonder how many people use post processing in "ALL" there pictures or in "MOST" of them or maybe you dont do ANY post processing. I would like to hear what you think. maybe even a percentage.. I use post processing about 15% of the time. I like the natural look, im strange like that.

Thanks
Tim
It is still best to get it right "in camera". However, post processing can save an image and gives you a lot of creative/artistic ability. There are members of both camps. Do what works for you! After all, it is your shot and if it looks good to you then that's good enough.

I guess you can put me in the 100% group since I have to process my RAW files. Hope this helps.

[timmciglobal]

On almost every single shot I take I adjust sharpening, contrast, color balance sometimes and levels.

I'm a big outdoors nature person though or indoors informal shot person so no light boxes and reflectors for me to get perfect conditions.

Tim

[Norm in Fujino]

. . . Then I came accross a little something called "post processing"... whats that I asked. In the digital word it is a great thing that we can snap a shot, analize the results instantly and retake if we need to. even after putting the pics one the computer you still see things that you might want to add or change + you can learn waht went wrong. There are plenty of programs from $40 on up that will do just about anything you want.
Is post processing a must?

In the ultimate sense, that's like asking "is developing film a necessity to photography?"
All cameras, digital or film (with the possible exception of Polaroid), require post processing. What kind and how much, and where it's done all depend on the person behind the camera. A lot of the tricks that used to be darkroom dependent are now possible in the camera--things like sharpening, contrast, color adjustment, noise (grain) reduction, and even correction for vignetting. Other things require use of the digital darkroom in a computer--but how much is up to you, just as it used to be with film. You can take your film to the 30-minute Walmart place and get prints/slides back, or you can work in your own darkroom to get the kind of results that Walmart can't provide. I personally do some degree of "computer darkroom" work on 99.9% of my photos, just because I enjoy trying to get the most from each image. Sometimes I succeed and sometimes not. I never take bunches of photos just to print up masses of them for friends or family, though. I take lots of photos, then usually select only a few of the best to work on hard enough to want to print out for display.

Different people have different needs and wants, so it's a question you've got to decide for yourself. How important are your shots to you? Software and techniques are available that can truly revolutionize your way of seeing photography, so if photography is important to you, it pays to check them out.

--Here's a simple example:
Original jpeg photo, resized only:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/Peregrinor/P1014667x.jpg
This wasn't a great photo to begin with, but I needed to take it for information value; it was particularly listless due to the haze in the air and the generally dull winter colors.

Here's a "post processed" version
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/Peregrinor/P1014667a.jpg
Here, I corrected a bit for light/contrast, hue/saturation, and most important, a broad unsharp mask to increase local contrast and cut through the haze, followed by normal sharpening. This doesn't make it a great photo by any means, but sure makes it more viewable than the original.