I tend not to post-process very much, but then I also shoot QTVR-cubics, which require a ton of post-processing.
I think that not only the quality of what you did in camera, but also your intent with the finished photo decides whether or not you need to dink with it and to what extend you're going to dink with it.
If you took the photo, envisioning what digital cross-processing was going to do, or you were working in infrared, or you took several exposures with the intent of stitching/HDR/stacking, or you shot RAW because you knew you weren't going to nail the exposure or white balance in camera, or you intended to composite several images together, then post-processing is definitely the order of the day.
If you got what you wanted in camera, then it depends on whether you were going for realistic photojournalism, or a particular artistic vision that relies on post-processing. I personally hate oversaturated pictures, but if someone wants candy apple colors, that's their choice.
The thing for me (personal philsophy, may not fit everyone) is that "saving it in post" should never be the object. Post processing should be more of a polishing process. It's like painting/detailing a car. You should make sure that the car's already got a sound engine and body work before you go there. Or, as Ansel Adams put it in musical, the negative is your score; the print is your performance. Spending time trying to polish a turd isn't worth it. I'd rather dump the file and reshoot.
But if you're a pro out there selling stuff, you'd definitely want the car on the showroom to be detailed.
|