To Post or not to Post - Your thoughts

[Hali]

Sorry but for me this pic was largely overprocessed....

Sorry you think that, Chris. What do you think is over processed about it? To me it's not. The color is good, there is adequate sharpness, it's not over sharpened, the eyes are in focus (although the left eye of the hippo could be a touch sharper). There seems to be a little brush stroke in the water on the upper left, I'm guessing that's an artifact of some sort. The water is a good color and not over blurred. Those are my thoughts when I look at the image.

And remember- you don't know what the RAW file looked like, so it's hard (for me) to make a judgement.

But here's the point - he didn't process it for you, he did it for him. And to me that's where discussions like this become icky.

 

[Grahamk]

I’m with Hali on the hippo photo. RedCobra’s aim is stated in the first sentence of his post “…to produce the photo I want.” – others may well have processed the original differently to achieve the photo that they desired. On the general issue of post processing, I don’t seem to have the time to process the number of digital images that I take – hence I mainly shoot jpg. Perhaps life is too busy or maybe I should take less photos!

 

[Bear]

I’m with Hali on the hippo photo. RedCobra’s aim is stated in the first sentence of his post “…to produce the photo I want.” – others may well have processed the original differently to achieve the photo that they desired. On the general issue of post processing, I don’t seem to have the time to process the number of digital images that I take – hence I mainly shoot jpg. Perhaps life is too busy or maybe I should take less photos!

Great answer. I’ve just started dabbling in post processing and yes, it does take a lot of time. I got back into photography to learn about the new “digital” process and to stay out of the wife’s way (recently retired). Part of this new way of photography may include post processing, but I’m always concerned about over processing (photo just looks wrong). Finding the balance between “photo straight out of the camera” and “post processing” is not easy to achieve, but it seems to be the direction photography is taking. Keep shooting and do it your way!

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Editing takes time.
Post-processing doesn't.
I post-process everything I want to share.
I edit everything I want to save. And some things I would never present as a photograph.

 

[Bear]

Editing takes time.
Post-processing doesn't.
I post-process everything I want to share.
I edit everything I want to save. And some things I would never present as a photograph.

I guess I need to understand the difference between editing a photo and post processing a photo. To me they’re one and the same, but I may be wrong. More learning required. PS I like that you “would never present as a photograph” comment. Sadly, too many out there try doing just that.

 

[RedCobra]

Thanks guys for the comments on the hippo shot. Here's the original.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 500.0 mm
• ƒ/7.1
• 1/1600 sec
• ISO 5000

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I guess I need to understand the difference between editing a photo and post processing a photo. To me they’re one and the same, but I may be wrong. More learning required. PS I like that you “would never present as a photograph” comment. Sadly, too many out there try doing just that.

I wanted to put something in an analogy like...

Post-process : Print :: Edit : xyz

...but I couldn't come up with an analogous film term that spoke to the scope of what I would refer to as "editing" for digital. There's "airbrush", there's "composite", and likely others that I can't think of. Maybe "Manipulate" would cover it?!

 

[Hali]

I wanted to put something in an analogy like...

Post-process : Print :: Edit : xyz

...but I couldn't come up with an analogous film term that spoke to the scope of what I would refer to as "editing" for digital. There's "airbrush", there's "composite", and likely others that I can't think of. Maybe "Manipulate" would cover it?!

I think Manipulate works well. I look at it that Post-process (develop) to me has an end goal, whilst editing is just mucking around to see what I might find. In full disclosure, I do both, but spend much more concentrated time on things I develop for an end production.

 

[Hali]

Thanks guys for the comments on the hippo shot. Here's the original.View attachment 12339

Wow! That came far. I would have been disturbed if you had been *that* close to a hippo. They aren't known for their soft and kind dispositions.

 

[Copterdoc]

Great answer. I’ve just started dabbling in post processing and yes, it does take a lot of time. I got back into photography to learn about the new “digital” process and to stay out of the wife’s way (recently retired). Part of this new way of photography may include post processing, but I’m always concerned about over processing (photo just looks wrong). Finding the balance between “photo straight out of the camera” and “post processing” is not easy to achieve, but it seems to be the direction photography is taking. Keep shooting and do it your way!

One of the analogies I think is apt here is that with film there is always a post-process before one can present an image, I consider the RAW as analogous to a negative as I do not see the manufacturer's processing in-camera as a choice I can make over and above what they choose to include in the firmware. In that vein, enhancing the RAW (negative analogy) is similar to the analog "darkroom" but digital in nature. Also more environmentally sound possible?