A Question for the Community

[BabetteKD]

Dear DPS members,

I am working on a research paper concerning digital photography and more specifically, post processing. What I ask of any reader who has a moment, to tell me their photography level (professional, hobbyist, etc) and whether or not they believe post processing is a valid process of photography. I recognize that there are photographers who believe it is a valid part of photography and others who believe it cheapens the art of taking photos, and I was wondering how the community felt.

[Doug Pardee]

I'm not sure what the phrase "a valid part of photography" even means. I've been taking pictures for about 50 years and I've never seen anything called "invalid".

Photography is an art, it's a business, it's a hobby, it's many things. You can't put a fence around it.

For the record, I'm not much of a post-processor. I like working with my camera more than with my computer. I shot slides for about 30 years, so I'm accustomed to getting the shot "in the camera" without darkroom/post-processing work. But that's my personal taste, my personal preferences, my personal style. I see no reason to look down on those who approach photography differently.

Photographic records—crime scene, photojournalism, etc.—will often have fairly strict limitations on "tampering" with the photos. But unless someone is representing that a photo is an accurate depiction of a particular subject at a particular time and place, what does it matter whether the image was manipulated or not?

[OsmosisStudios]

Photography level: Keen amateur/semi Pro.
VIews on Post Processing:
PP work is inevitable in digital, mainly because I shoot RAW. It means I have to do some kind of postwork with it. My style is very light in post-work: I like to have the subject matter stand out for itself. There are times, however, when I find it almost necessary to do some minor touch ups. It really depends on what Im going for.

[MOmilkman]

I believe if it is something that is freely available to the masses then I believe it is a valid process. If there was just a handful of people out there that were able to PP their photos then I would call it cheating.

When photos are over processed then yes I believe it devalues them IMO, but subtle processing,(increasing saturation, contrast, cropping etc...) is quite valuable.

by the way, I'm not Pro. Just a hobbyist.

[HankW]

Hobbyist
and I try to get my photos composition and focus as near perfect as possible, this is my real goal, I do PP because I mostly shoot RAW any more, and try to only use lightroom.

[windrider86]

This is what I do for a living. This conversation has been had many many times before.
I go both ways. Depending on the image, it may need nothing, it may need alot. Who's to say which way to go, you do. The artist creates his/her version of a piece in a manner that they choose and what they feel enhances that image to its greatest potential.
If it's say, a portrait and the person has bad acne or needs a tuck here and there, yuppers, you betcha I touch them up all the way.
Weddings, yup, I do a lot to about 1/2 of the photos. Brides like those (ugh) selective coloring things and things like vingette hearts around her and the new groom. Cant really do those SOOC.
Is there a telephone line in the way, darn tooting I remove it.
Do I think pp is cheating? Hell no I dont. Its the same thing they did back in the film days only now we are doing it on the pc. I like to call it digital painting
Some images look great with heavy processing some dont. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

[Big Nick]

I am a hobbiest with professional friends who are trying to get me to join in the profession.I use my camera as much and in as many ways as humanly possible. I started in photography by working in dark rooms and I loved every minute of it.

I have had the great opportunity to see both aspects of the debate, and until the last couple years really struggled with trying to get away from film. It wasn't the money or concern about changing the way I shoot. I just thought of myself as a purest. That being said I think the worlds needs both purists and people who embrace and try to take post processing to the next level with their creativity and imagination.

There are sometimes when you can just see someone took an ok shot and mastered photoshop and made it something else and it captures your imagination in ways ever a great picture cant. And there are other times when you see a shot that is amazing and beautiful and has little to no work done to it and you see how great the world really is.

I say Photography needs post processors and purest alike and both help make the world a little brighter.

[Alexandra]

Im a hobbyist, turning semi-pro lately as i have people asking me to shoot them and offering to pay me for it...

Some photos i hardly retouch. Landscapes, flora, products, at the most i might fix up saturation and contrast. Other photos, mainly portraits i retouch a lot. If the person i photograph wants to look like a supermodel for once in their life, i'll do it. From touching up their skin to slimming to anything...

I do think that retouching is a great tool but if i use it or not depends on the photo itself and what i want to convey with it.

[Gulpa]

Skill level: hobbyist
PP

I compensate my shortcomings in skill and equipment through post processing.

I believe that photography is not about getting the perfect picture directly from the camera... it's about capturing a piece of the world around us and then showing it back to the world, but in the way we see it - whether it is straight from the cam, or after some PP.

[Gonzo13]

Skill level: I have done a few paid photo shoots and have sold a couple of prints. Semi-pro I guess, maybe.

PP is something that has been done for a long time. Doing it digitally is just the newer way of doing it, and it requires less chemicals. I recall doing some of the things that I do now in photoshop in high school with negatives and paper. Not a lot of things mind you, it was mostly just guess work back then. It's not cheating or invalid.
I feel that a good picture doesn't need much PP (contrast, cloning out something, sharpening, brightness, etc...) but a horrible picture probably isn't worth the time that it would need in PP to make it a decent picture. If it takes more than 30 minutes or so then the picture probably wasn't good in the first place.