Photographers vs Post Processors

Bazza's thread prompted me to post this

A while ago I was on a course where the instructors were discussing the merits of Post Processing. Their view (and one I agree with) is that a good photo shouldn't need any post processing, however they mentioned that they tend to see two main groups of people. The first group are the ones who try their hardest to get a good photo straight out of the camera (the photographers) and the second are those who are content to take an acceptable photo because they know they can enhance it with PP techniques afterwards (the Post Processors). It certainly made for an interesting debate with the other people on the course

Would like to hear others views on this subject

I think it depends on what final image you are trying to achieve. You certainly couldnt acheive the tonal images of HDR with 1 "good" photograph in certain conditions, no matter how good the photographer.

PP is good for those pics taken with time constraints. i certainly PP a fair few of mine as i have no time to set up when i have to screaming children by my feet LOL BUT on the other hand the picturess wich havnt been PP are those that i have been able to take the time over - so in some respects the instructors are true.

John, my hubby, is very much a purist and doesnt like and PP. He enjoys seeing what can be don with software ect but will always choos Au Natural over anything processed.

I enjoy my PP work alot, just as much as i do taking the pictures themselves - to me photooshop is just a digital dark room and helps to enhance my images to bring out the best in them

I would add, I would bet there are a lot of photographers out there who have taken what seems to be the perfect picture but when put on the pc its not as good as it looked on the cameras screen and welcome PP, on the other hand there will be people who love using PP who take a picture and when take a closer look they realize that there is nothing they would change.

I guess it's down to whether you have an end product in mind.

It's the old chicken and the egg (sorry private joke - Stormey)

If you plan to take a 'pure' image then you are going to make sure everything is 'right' at the capture stage.

If on the other hand you set out to take an image which you know to be material for a PP project then obviously you can overlook certain things.

Certainly with landscape - you can find yourself in a certain location knowing that you're not likely to back in the areas for a long time - the weather can be crap and the image you want isn't possible so you might take images knowing that you're taking them with subsequent PP in mind.

To further this alot of photographers will use various filters, even ones to add fog! They can easily spend hundreds of £s on these , all of which are realistically duplicated in PP software.

oh and just to add i havnt got the thousands of pounds it would take to buy the lens ,filters, pro camera, studio set up ect ect to shoot these great pics, so i think ill stick to photoshop LOL

I think i am half and half to be honest... i try and get the best picture i can with the lenses i have and the subjects i use... Some images are as i invisioned them to be and others need a little work after... depends on what i am trying to take.

I don't think there is anything wrong with post processing and i really enjoy making something different to what you can get just by photography alone and as Sam said above i don't have a spare few thousand pounds in the bank to get everything i want and need to take the perfect shot.

Good debate topic btw

I think I am half n half too

They are all tools, the camera and the pc - and while it would be great to get the perfect picture straight outta the camera, it's not always possible. Sometimes, PP can totally transform a pic, but don't forget that even that pic had to be taken first as well.

Personally, I try to focus on the photography aspect because that's what I am trying to improve on - but wouldn't hesitate to PP if my work was for a professional or other important project, eg a website or other graphical work, such as print.

I try to produce a photograph that doesn't need anything doing to it...but when I get home I sometimes find that I like the look of a slight;y*tweaked* shot rather than the raw file. I have never seen anything wrong with it personally ...I can see why , with film cameras especially and the expense involved with developing film, it used to be the case but I think that photography as an art form has moved on and PP has become far more acceptable

At least my original thread has brought up members different views which I respect. Guess it really boils down yet again to personal choice.

Bazza

I think both of the threads are really interesting