How Much Post Processing Do You Do?

[Gadgeteer]

I feel It's a challenge and a sense of completion while photographing a subject. If I can capture the shot w/o post processing but sometimes you just have to. And photoshop is fun and Magic!

[Particles Of Light]

When I first got into Photoshop with version 4, it wasn't until version 5 that I did alot of editing. Once you get passed learning the tools, you can sort of make more logical sense of a media. Today after going through all that red tape, I prefer to do little or no editing on my photographs. I want to try and retain the camera work as much as possible as an artist. In fact, I just quit computers to stay focused on raw camera photography. Other than minor tweaks 'here' and 'there', I don't want to **** with my shots as an natural intent.

[Paddy]

I post process a lot. Not because I cannot get a picture right in the camera (well, ok, not many times I admit) but for a few reasons. One, and this is a big one, I just enjoy post processing! In the old days of film, I never felt guilty of anything if I spent a few hours printing in the darkroom until I got the look I was after and it is the same now with Photoshop and other editing software. To me, post processing is an extension of the hobby.

Two.My time out with the camera is very limited due to work and family commitments and picking the time when the light is at it's best is a luxury I rarely have, so, a bit of tweaking is sometimes required to get the image more to how I would have liked it.

Three, similar to two I suppose but it adds drama... In the UK we don't always have the quality of light that gives the blue skies, depth of colour and contrast I like to see in pictures so in these cases, it would not be possible to get it how I want in the camera.

Four, the more I understand and gain the skills of post processing, the more 'natural' I am able to make the image and, the more I understand what I need to to do to get the image how I want it, the more I think about it before I press the shutter. So, paradoxically, the more I post process and learn now, the less I may have to do in the future.

[inn]

I use to barely do any to none processing work on my shots, but since I'm started shooting in raw I've gone a bit crazy with the processing of late. It's only because I'm trying out stuff and learning really than anything.

At the end of the day there's nothing like the sheer satisfaction of shooting a shot that comes out spot on

[NJHeart2Heart]

I've just jumped on the RAW file bandwagon, and thus of course have to learn something about processing. I'm currently learning Lightroom and am adjusting things somewhat randomly. Once I'm more familiar I'll start organizing a workflow for editing.
NJHeart2Heart

[PLouie]

It really depends on the shot with me. If it looks good from camera, I'll keep it that way.

The thing I see is that some people tend to think post processing the image is a bad thing as if it's cheating yet are amazed at what the pros can do. Modern photographers like Dave Hill and Michael Grecco very noticebly use post processing in their photos. While they post process they still use the importance of lighting and light techniques. What they process just adds that punch. Post processing does not take away the art (although it can, it wouldn't then be considered a photo)

Also note the difference between post processing, and full out manipulations and composites.

[windrider86]

I wish i could say i was good enough to never do any post processing at all. But genetally what i do is cropping and boosting colors and possibly cloning. And unless I'm going for some sort of effect thats all i do.

[Kvikken]

I don't edit a lot of my photos, but every picture I use for something (mainly uploading to deviantart) is edited (probably less then 5%). I don't think it is a "failure" if I have to edit a shot. Even shots I consider really good straight out of the camera, always gets a lot better with some editing.

Also I love to edit, I can sit for hours in front of photoshop editing pictures, finetuning the settings, adjustment layers, filters or what ever I use (mainly adjustment layers), to get it exactly the way I want.

[Olivier H]

I do postprocess a lot of my keepers, sometimes for almost no changes, just for fine tuning.
I've been using Capture NX for a few months, I like it, so I don't fear anymore shooting RAW.
So I most often crop, play with tone compensation, exposure, a little white balance tuning, a bit of curves.
Sometimes, I put in some filters, like black and white conversion, or photo grain.

Very rarely though, I throw it through Photoshop for "advanced" corrections (clonings out things, or using filters).

[mirod]

I post-process a lot, mostly to make-up for my lack of skills at photography: cropping, making-up from a wrong exposure by changing levels, isolating the main subject by sharpening it while blurring the background and adding a light white veil on it, actually changing the background sometimes, when it's really ugly, pumping up the colors, erasing warts... you name it ;--)

I don't usually see it as cheating.

What I consider cheating is making the viewer believe that the picture captured a "magic moment" when there was none. When that beautiful orange sunset is just a filter, either a physical one or one that was added in post-processing, or when the fireworks that appear to explode right under an arch were never there in the first place, that would be cheating.

But enhancing a picture so it shows you better what happened on that day, just by highlighting it, well that's kosher I think.

Oh, and after a while, if the processed version doesn't show a real improvement over the original, I either give up on the picture or publish the original.