To Post or not to Post - Your thoughts

[Badgood]

I read many articles on post processing and it amazes me how far we have come from the “good old days” when we chucked in a roll of 36 shot 200 iso film either colour or Black & White and made as many decisions as we could before clicking the shutter button.
It is quite the topic of conversation between myself and fellow snappers.
Some like to process their images almost to death, but others think post is sacrilege and what comes out of the camera shows the image and skill of the person pressing the shutter release.
So I thought I would throw it open to the forum and see what larger audiences think.
Personally I shoot mainly jpeg and this limits me to what I can and can’t do and only allows me to push so far in post processing.
How about you ?
Remember, no one is right or wrong, we all have our likes and dislikes.
Your thoughts…..

 

[Bear]

Personally, I’m of the belief that any processing should be kept to the bare minimum. Minor tweaks fine. Major tweaks (over processing) not so much. No tweaking (with Photoshop, etc.) is even better. It brings out the photographers expertise, with their camera/gear. Yes, todays cameras due process internally, but the photographer controls the processing through his/her settings and his/her view of subject (landscapes, portraits, etc.) Just my personal thoughts on the subject. Let the discussion begin.

 

[Badgood]

This was shot with absolutely no post processing whatsoever.
Does it need tweaking ?

 

[Badgood]

Personally, I’m of the belief that any processing should be kept to the bare minimum. Minor tweaks fine. Major tweaks (over processing) not so much. No tweaking (with Photoshop, etc.) is even better. It brings out the photographers expertise, with their camera/gear. Yes, todays cameras due process internally, but the photographer controls the processing through his/her settings and his/her view of subject (landscapes, portraits, etc.) Just my personal thoughts on the subject. Let the discussion begin.

Thanks Barry
I really like your view, very much the same myself.
It’s a topic that really divides people, no right or wrong way as photography is very much an individuals opinion.
Thanks for starting this topic off.

 

[Bear]

This was shot with absolutely no post processing whatsoever.
Does it need tweaking ?

Your photo looks great and therefore, no post processing. You took the photo without the need to tweak/process (in photoshop, etc.). Very nicely done!

 

[Tim Mayo]

I struggle to find time to take photos these days let alone play around with them much in post. But I'd say for around 90% of my images I'm happy with how they look straight out of the camera. I will use DeNoise AI if it's a shot I really like but a little too noisy for my tastes, and occasionally I'll move the exposure/highlight/shadow sliders in LR but that's typically the extent of my post processing. I prefer the minimalist approach.

 

[Photofarmer]

thought a prime requisite of a camera forum would be plenty of time to shoot photo

I struggle to find time to take photos these days let alone play around with them much in post. But I'd say for around 90% of my images I'm happy with how they look straight out of the camera. I will use DeNoise AI if it's a shot I really like but a little too noisy for my tastes, and occasionally I'll move the exposure/highlight/shadow sliders in LR but that's typically the extent of my post processing. I prefer the minimalist approac

 

[Badgood]

I struggle to find time to take photos these days let alone play around with them much in post. But I'd say for around 90% of my images I'm happy with how they look straight out of the camera. I will use DeNoise AI if it's a shot I really like but a little too noisy for my tastes, and occasionally I'll move the exposure/highlight/shadow sliders in LR but that's typically the extent of my post processing. I prefer the minimalist approach.

I know the feeling of too little time Tim. Even though I’m retired!!!
I haven’t tried DeNoise AI but will check it out and maybe post an opinion.

 

[RedCobra]

I use whatever tools are needed to produce the photo I want. I always shoot full RAW. I do decode the RAW with a good RAW converter (Not LR). After that, whatever it needs......PS, Topaz, Nik, then convert to jpeg for social or web. I retain the RAW, DNG-DxO, TIF, and jpeg.

 

[Tim Mayo]

thought a prime requisite of a camera forum would be plenty of time to shoot photo

True! I was doing ok with time until kid number two came along this year, but things can only get better from now and there are definitely no plans for three of the little rascals.

 

[Badgood]

True! I was doing ok with time until kid number two came along this year, but things can only get better from now and there are definitely no plans for three of the little rascals.

Tim
Congratulations on kiddy No 2, but don’t expect things to get much better for at least the first 35 years….
Trust me on this

 

[Photofarmer]

try 5 should used a condom ...... nah not really all grown adults youngest on the farm coming 21

 

[Badgood]

try 5 should used a condom ...... nah not really all grown adults youngest on the farm coming 21

 

[Copterdoc]

There is room for all in this discipline of photography. What and how you choose to capture and process your images depends on your personal vision and approach.

I applaud those who are "purists in the direct from-camera" group. It is very true that you must check a large number of items off your list before pressing that shutter button. This only comes from a very disciplined approach to often "self-limitation" and not the limits of the tools. This approach is not for everybody, however, but is a great approach to learning all the issues that need to be considered when capturing the image. A good foundation. We should remember though that many of these purists often "dogged and burned" the images when printing them to achieve what could not be captured in-camera.

This approach is however very limiting for others with different visions and tasks to accomplish. For those who would capture an image as true to the human eye as possible to "document a moment in time, a documentarian, " it is often necessary to replicate as close as possible the actual dynamic range of the human eye which often requires both multiple shots from the camera and software to replicate that range (HDR). Their approach and tasks are just as valid as many others.

When shooting images of the Milkyway that are compelling, the capture is only the information that must be enhanced to actually bring out the dynamic range and the majesty of the image as seen by the photographer and those they see as their audience. Tools for tracking stars and things like lens correction profiles are necessary tools to achieve this vision. Often it is the limitation of the capture tool that necessitates the additional software manipulation of the captured image data to represent reality as we perceive it.

Photo stacking in macros and landscapes provides an image that to most of us represents what we perceive. We often view the world as a combination of higher-resolution glimpses of a landscape that cameras cannot often capture in a single focused image. When we look at an insect in a macro photo, we perceive it often in complete detail and the very narrow depth of field we see in a single capture is in many ways surreal.

For those who use the camera tool and the software to achieve an artistic vision, the capture is often just a starting point for the final image, and it is often the manipulation of that base image that is in the eye of the photographer when the image is snapped. Also remember there are very few modern digital cameras shooting raw black & white images, so most of what we see is a software derivative of the original raw image.

JMHO

 

[Copterdoc]

I read many articles on post processing and it amazes me how far we have come from the “good old days” when we chucked in a roll of 36 shot 200 iso film either colour or Black & White and made as many decisions as we could before clicking the shutter button.
It is quite the topic of conversation between myself and fellow snappers.
Some like to process their images almost to death, but others think post is sacrilege and what comes out of the camera shows the image and skill of the person pressing the shutter release.
So I thought I would throw it open to the forum and see what larger audiences think.
Personally I shoot mainly jpeg and this limits me to what I can and can’t do and only allows me to push so far in post processing.
How about you ?
Remember, no one is right or wrong, we all have our likes and dislikes.
Your thoughts…..

Great conversation starter. One thing many people forget though is that the film was a one-shot capture of light. Nowadays modern digital cameras provide much post-processing of that light capture within the camera itself to include len correction, chromatic aberration, color shifting options, and other focus, and capture attributes not previously available in a "film camera". We need to remember that all our attempts to capture a moment in time are both influenced and enhanced by the tools used. A perfect example is the freedom and opportunities open up to even the purists with the advent and continuing improvement of the auto-focus capabilities of the new cameras. It is the advance of this technology, and the only way to capture true purist nostalgia is by shooting film. This is both challenging and informative. JMHO

 

[Badgood]

Very informed, in depth and informative view.

 

[Bear]

This was shot with absolutely no post processing whatsoever.
Does it need tweaking ?

Nope. Photo looks great!

 

[Chris Summers]

I think you have to decide for yourself if photography is in of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science. I am in a photography club that hold an annual show where selected judges chose winners in 8 or 9 categories, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as well as an honorable mention. I am on the rules committee for next year's show and we are discussing what to do about all the advanced AI editing that is now fairly common as well as the new topic getting all the buzz, AI image generation. We have a category for Creative Digital Manipulation which pretty much allows everything in advanced editing but we are discussing the later AI image generation I mentioned and have not decided yet if we will allow that. Anyway, our rules stipulate in the other categories for entries only basic post processing can be done and exclude sky replacement, stitched panoramas and a few other things. But we are reconsidering these because they used to actually be challenging to do in programs like Photoshop. Now swapping a sky is a click of a button, the masking is usually near perfect and the programs even adjust the lighting to the direction of the new sky.

I personally see photography as an art in of itself just like painting or sculpture. So I feel that post process editing is part of the creation of art and I don't like overly constrictive limits. I shoot RAW only, last time I shot JPEG was with my first Nikon CoolPix 20 some years ago. I see RAW as my digital negative that can be processed in so many different ways. I shot professionally for 35 years but am now retired and unless I was shooting slide film like Kodachrome I did my post editing in the darkroom and I now see editing software as my digital darkroom. Asking a photographer to show "out of the camera" images is like asking a painter to paint with the colors that come out of the paint tubes and not mix them with each other. Now that doesn't mean I'm against showing off an image that does not have much if any processing. Sometimes all the parameters are met when we click the shutter and the image looks great without doing anything. But I don't set that as my goal.

So much has changed as far as technology when it comes to photography. Our cameras now are basically computers with a lens attached.

 

[Bear]

I think you have to decide for yourself if photography is in of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science. I am in a photography club that hold an annual show where selected judges chose winners in 8 or 9 categories, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as well as an honorable mention. I am on the rules committee for next year's show and we are discussing what to do about all the advanced AI editing that is now fairly common as well as the new topic getting all the buzz, AI image generation. We have a category for Creative Digital Manipulation which pretty much allows everything in advanced editing but we are discussing the later AI image generation I mentioned and have not decided yet if we will allow that. Anyway, our rules stipulate in the other categories for entries only basic post processing can be done and exclude sky replacement, stitched panoramas and a few other things. But we are reconsidering these because they used to actually be challenging to do in programs like Photoshop. Now swapping a sky is a click of a button, the masking is usually near perfect and the programs even adjust the lighting to the direction of the new sky.

I personally see photography as an art in of itself just like painting or sculpture. So I feel that post process editing is part of the creation of art and I don't like overly constrictive limits. I shoot RAW only, last time I shot JPEG was with my first Nikon CoolPix 20 some years ago. I see RAW as my digital negative that can be processed in so many different ways. I shot professionally for 35 years but am now retired and unless I was shooting slide film like Kodachrome I did my post editing in the darkroom and I now see editing software as my digital darkroom. Asking a photographer to show "out of the camera" images is like asking a painter to paint with the colors that come out of the paint tubes and not mix them with each other. Now that doesn't mean I'm against showing off an image that does not have much if any processing. Sometimes all the parameters are met when we click the shutter and the image looks great without doing anything. But I don't set that as my goal.

So much has changed as far as technology when it comes to photography. Our cameras now are basically computers with a lens attached.

I have to agree with everything you've said, and guess I need to clarify my initial post (when all of this started). I have nothing against processing. Technology has changed how people view photography. My pet peeve is with those that use PS and LR to over process their photo. People replace the sky (as mentioned) or add a full moon that's larger than the empire State building and pass it off as their own photo (I've seen it done on FaceBook). Processing to that extend is now "photo art". Well stated Chris.

 

[Copterdoc]

I think you have to decide for yourself if photography is in of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science. I am in a photography club that hold an annual show where selected judges chose winners in 8 or 9 categories, 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as well as an honorable mention. I am on the rules committee for next year's show and we are discussing what to do about all the advanced AI editing that is now fairly common as well as the new topic getting all the buzz, AI image generation. We have a category for Creative Digital Manipulation which pretty much allows everything in advanced editing but we are discussing the later AI image generation I mentioned and have not decided yet if we will allow that. Anyway, our rules stipulate in the other categories for entries only basic post processing can be done and exclude sky replacement, stitched panoramas and a few other things. But we are reconsidering these because they used to actually be challenging to do in programs like Photoshop. Now swapping a sky is a click of a button, the masking is usually near perfect and the programs even adjust the lighting to the direction of the new sky.

I personally see photography as an art in of itself just like painting or sculpture. So I feel that post process editing is part of the creation of art and I don't like overly constrictive limits. I shoot RAW only, last time I shot JPEG was with my first Nikon CoolPix 20 some years ago. I see RAW as my digital negative that can be processed in so many different ways. I shot professionally for 35 years but am now retired and unless I was shooting slide film like Kodachrome I did my post editing in the darkroom and I now see editing software as my digital darkroom. Asking a photographer to show "out of the camera" images is like asking a painter to paint with the colors that come out of the paint tubes and not mix them with each other. Now that doesn't mean I'm against showing off an image that does not have much if any processing. Sometimes all the parameters are met when we click the shutter and the image looks great without doing anything. But I don't set that as my goal.

So much has changed as far as technology when it comes to photography. Our cameras now are basically computers with a lens attached.

I think you have concluded that " photography is in and of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science" is in fact an amalgamation of all these things. One thing humans have been exceedingly good at is improving the tools used to create civilization and within this "art". The sculptor does not just use the chisel to shape the art but selects other tools and techniques to smooth its surface.

As for competitive classes, the demonstration of the artist's skills and knowledge can be tested in many ways. One might be choosing the limits on the tools that can be used either through cost limits or sensor size/lens selections, etc. Another might be to have these same "equipment limitations" apply to various types of photography such as architectural, macro, flash, portraits (with its own equipment limitation), landscape, etc.

Lastly have two additional categories. An "Open Class" with virtually no restrictions other than maybe "total cost to present" the results. And an open class covering all the specified disciplines to show the artist's depth and breadth of skills and knowledge (a high over all).

Each of these classes can be designed to make access to the competition more widely available to all who wish to compete. Just some musings.

 

[Copterdoc]

Just one example of rationalizing compositing as an acceptable form of "photography". The photo of the instrument panel I have provided here would not be possible within the limitations of the camera (tool). I used my Canon R5 and photoshop to combine three different exposures. This type of "manipulation" is often necessary for product photography to capture all the available details.

 

[MikeZ]

I guess that you can put me into the purist category - minor processing adjustments only. Post processing to adjust exposure, brighten/soften colors, even HDR, are attempts to bring a sensor's dynamic range closer to the human eye. I know Ansel Adams et. al. "adjusted" their photos in the darkroom, but they likely started with an image that most people would have been extremely happy with. Being able to "easily" manipulate a photo to extremes, I think, makes me wonder about the original image and the person who made it. Yes, heavy manipulation can be categorized under art, but at that point is it a photo (photos used for educational purposes not withstanding)? Compositing images andadding features and components that did not exist in the "real" scene, and all at the touch of a button. Is that person a photographer or an expert/artist with computer software ?

 

[Copterdoc]

I guess that you can put me into the purist category - minor processing adjustments only. Post processing to adjust exposure, brighten/soften colors, even HDR, are attempts to bring a sensor's dynamic range closer to the human eye. I know Ansel Adams et. al. "adjusted" their photos in the darkroom, but they likely started with an image that most people would have been extremely happy with. Being able to "easily" manipulate a photo to extremes, I think, makes me wonder about the original image and the person who made it. Yes, heavy manipulation can be categorized under art, but at that point is it a photo (photos used for educational purposes not withstanding)? Compositing images andadding features and components that did not exist in the "real" scene, and all at the touch of a button. Is that person a photographer or an expert/artist with computer software ?

Interestingly, I agree with you that there is an esthetic that is admirable and foundational in the "Purist" leaning but I wonder if Ansel would have taken advantage of the new technology had he truly had the opportunity. Often, I will limit myself to achieving an experience such as using a light flyrod and limiting myself to dry flies. I also like other forms of this discipline as well.

There is a place for everybody here. If you look at the compelling and knowledge-advancing photos using various new technologies such as different wavelengths of light and the associated enhancements through software it becomes hard to argue that there is no place for this type of photography. I have a friend that takes stunning infrared photos with his modified Canon and I consider this a valid form of photography as well. JMHO

 

[Chris Summers]

I think you have concluded that " photography is in and of itself an art, an artistic technique or a science" is in fact an amalgamation of all these things. One thing humans have been exceedingly good at is improving the tools used to create civilization and within this "art". The sculptor does not just use the chisel to shape the art but selects other tools and techniques to smooth its surface.

As for competitive classes, the demonstration of the artist's skills and knowledge can be tested in many ways. One might be choosing the limits on the tools that can be used either through cost limits or sensor size/lens selections, etc. Another might be to have these same "equipment limitations" apply to various types of photography such as architectural, macro, flash, portraits (with its own equipment limitation), landscape, etc.

Lastly have two additional categories. An "Open Class" with virtually no restrictions other than maybe "total cost to present" the results. And an open class covering all the specified disciplines to show the artist's depth and breadth of skills and knowledge (a high over all).

Each of these classes can be designed to make access to the competition more widely available to all who wish to compete. Just some musings.

Thanks for the well thought out reply! I've been looking at rules for editing in many national and international competitions and I usually see the most restrictions on photojournalism and wildlife competitions. It probably makes sense for photojournalism, it would border on being unethical to really alter an image by adding or moving things within the image because of the nature of the type of photography. But even back in the film days there was some editing. I'm reminded of the powerful photograph that Bill Eppridge took of Bobby Kennedy just after he was shot and lying on the hotel kitchen floor and the busboy is cradling his head and looking at the camera (see attached). I saw a lecture the photographer gave and he explained how much burning and dodging he quickly did in the darkroom before submitting the photo to the newswire services.

Not so sure about wildlife, I have a shot of 3 snow geese I took a few years ago as they flew in a formation like a triangle but one bird was too far off to the right so I just moved him a bit in Photoshop and then filled the sky with content aware and you can not tell it was edited (see attached). It was a subtle adjustment in editing but would disqualify me from some competitions. Sometimes I change the sky on bird shots if it's a dull one. When I hear people complain about changing a sky I think of landscape artists like William Turner or Rubens I imagine the beautiful clouds in their paintings were how the imagined or remembered or briefly saw the clouds in a scene, not the very exact clouds because of course clouds change constantly.

 

[Badgood]

Hi Frank,
I enjoyed all the points you raised and you have my sympathy in trying to judge anyones images, as photography is very individual and to expect someone to look at your images and think they can see what you had in mind is really very difficult.
However, I do stand by my original point that swapping out the total sky or using AI to enhance/improve the actual image for me doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as photography and becomes more about image manipulation.
Surely what used to be about aperture, shutter speed and film speed is being lost these days to a more manipulated art.
I very much admire all these developments to our art form but for me it is much to easy to take what is a poor image and improve it beyond all limits simply by sitting at a keyboard and manipulating an image via software.
This is only my take on it, but at the end of a day sat in front of a keyboard (before retirement) it was the last thing I wanted to do.
It should be about getting out and shooting images and we have all shot thousands of poor images haven’t we, these belong in the bin and not tweaked and made to look good.
Controversial stuff I know and I no one is either right or wrong I guess.
Great review though, I enjoyed it enormously.

 

[Copterdoc]

Hi Frank,
I enjoyed all the points you raised and you have my sympathy in trying to judge anyones images, as photography is very individual and to expect someone to look at your images and think they can see what you had in mind is really very difficult.
However, I do stand by my original point that swapping out the total sky or using AI to enhance/improve the actual image for me doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as photography and becomes more about image manipulation.
Surely what used to be about aperture, shutter speed and film speed is being lost these days to a more manipulated art.
I very much admire all these developments to our art form but for me it is much to easy to take what is a poor image and improve it beyond all limits simply by sitting at a keyboard and manipulating an image via software.
This is only my take on it, but at the end of a day sat in front of a keyboard (before retirement) it was the last thing I wanted to do.
It should be about getting out and shooting images and we have all shot thousands of poor images haven’t we, these belong in the bin and not tweaked and made to look good.
Controversial stuff I know and I no one is either right or wrong I guess.
Great review though, I enjoyed it enormously.

I agree that in many cases the photos should not be manipulated for the purposes of documentary purposes such as reporting events where the truth or reality of things matters. We have seen so many failures within supposed news agencies that take liberties and even falsify supposed accurate representations of truth/fact. When the intent of a photo is to "document" facts it should not be changed or enhanced for any purposes except where the corrections are necessary for reproduction in print or other media concerns for clarity as long as the changes do not change the fact or truth being reported or conveyed such as changing the sky as you indicated. It is a skill often not promoted these days.

On the flip side, much commercial photography is the vision of some company's "creative or marketing director" for the purposes of marketing products and services. Also a valid form of employment. I guess we need both. I don't want to give the impression that I don't appreciate or even in many cases envy those who can make images "in camera" picture perfect.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Have you ever seen Ansel Adams' handwritten notes on a test print (I wish to god the internet would let me find one)? Ansel was all about maximizing post processing to bring the most out of the things he photographed.

Magnum Photos released a set of examples of test prints with instructions from editors on how to maximize the impact of their photographs...

Ask yourself how many well known photographers spend hours post processing and you'll get a rather small number. Ask yourself how many well known photographers have someone on staff that takes their shot and their instructions and does what the Magnum darkroom folks did and you're going to get a number close to "all". Heck, a woman I went to high school with has been a pro fashion photographer since her 20's. When she saw some "work" I did last year after posting three dozen "Bernie Sanders in gloves" memes on a whim I got a PM asking if I did contract post-processing work in case she needed someone in a pinch.

It's important to have a great image out of camera. But if you can't "print" it to its maximum impact then you're left with snapshots. You can build a house with a hammer and a saw. Find a pro that does it.

For the record, after 12 years of trying to 'fix' my stuff with filter-based programs I now limit my post to Camera Raw, Topaz DeNoiseAI (I do a lot of high ISO wildlife), and Photoshop for 95% of my shots, with Ps mostly used to apply layer masks, dodge, burn, and then resize and apply watermarks. I don't care if you use more or less than that, I only care about how your photo looks, and that it's authentic in that you represent it as what it is, a documented moment in time or a piece of constructed alternate reality. Both are valid, but only if they are truthful.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

Thanks for the well thought out reply! I've been looking at rules for editing in many national and international competitions and I usually see the most restrictions on photojournalism and wildlife competitions. ...

Not so sure about wildlife...

For a while I felt the same way you do about wildlife competitions, Chris. More from a frustration level than anything else. I was definitely on board for adjustments that involved moving subjected within the frame or swapping out skies, not because I don't think you should be able to do it but because I believe that disqualifies a shot that is from being judged against a shot that isn't. My issue came with not being able to clone out a stray twig or something completely unimportant utterly distracting. One competition my club participates in prohibits any man made object from appearing anywhere within the frame. And when I started shooting with those things in mind it opened my eyes to the distinctions between "animal" and "bird" photography, and "wildlife" with the emphasis on "wild".

That's not to say that your manipulated shots are a form of cheating or somehow invalid photographs, they're simply your art and not what most would consider 'wild' life. When I approached the leaders of my local club with my complaints about not being able to clone out things I was told, "You are more than welcome to enter them in the open category where these things are permissible", and after a day's sulking I realized that was the way it should be.

I see competition rules as not limiting what can be considered a photograph in that category, I see them as setting a level playing field so that when photos are judged they are done in a way that weights any award on the capture well above the processing, which for the categories you've mentioned makes all the sense in the world. At least for me. Now.

 

[Hali]

This is a thoughtful and difficult topic. It has the ability to create strife, but it also lets us get to know each other better, but mostly it's all about personal preference. Like some here, I have been shooting for decades, I started with a pocket 110 camera (who remembers those) and got a Canon AE-1 with a 50mm 1.8 lens for my 16th birthday, it was my favorite thing. I remember spending hours in a dark room with an enlarger and all those funky smells of developer and fixer to "develop" my film and "create" a print. I see the RAW image as the negatives I used to work on, and I try hard to think of what I do as "Developing" my image, not "post-processing" it. What that means is that I see possibilities in a RAW image, just like in a negative, but that also means I can spend a lot of time creating the image that I saw in my mind's eye when I shot it. To me, that's MY art. It isn't for everyone, and it isn't every image that happens to. When I go out to shoot wildlife, I often only do minor tweaks, mostly because I tend to wait for the moment I want and in a minor way, to stay within the PSA (Photographic Society of America) rules for competition.

I think that we all have our own definitions of art and where photography falls within that framework. I think documentary photography is not art - it's journalism, and therefore shouldn't be subject to overt manipulation that creates a lie. We have enough out there with the spoken word, we shouldn't have that in our photojournalism. As for other types of photography - landscape, wildlife, macro, abstract, etc I think that we all need to follow our own inner voice to do as little or as much as we want to develop the image to be all it can be.

I am a big fan of Guy Tal, and I think much of my thought processes on art and photographic art come from him. If you've never seen his work or read his articles, they are beautiful and well written.

 

[Chris]

I use whatever tools are needed to produce the photo I want. I always shoot full RAW. I do decode the RAW with a good RAW converter (Not LR). After that, whatever it needs......PS, Topaz, Nik, then convert to jpeg for social or web. I retain the RAW, DNG-DxO, TIF, and jpeg.View attachment 12172

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