Post processing vs 'getting it right' in camera

[BangAwayable]

at last. 

[thatnikonguy]

@BangAwayable you agree?

[BangAwayable]

@thatnikonguy yes I do. I love to take pictures, not to play around on photoshop. At the moment I have not much time for anything. But I love to watch you on youtube.

[thatnikonguy]

@BangAwayable haha, cool. I iwll keep going out, so you can watch!

[MK4GTI20VT]

Sorry about that, I always set those aside and work on them when I'm doen with the entire batch. Lightroom 3.4 really speeds things up!

[thatnikonguy]

@MK4GTI20VT gotcha

[MK4GTI20VT]

I tend to work through images rather quick because I also like to get it right with the camera first. You always get a image or two that needs tweaking and I always set tho

[schumionbike]

I spend 2 hours editing for every hour of shooting :) I just make sure I get the composition and the exposure right in camera and worry about everything else later :)

[thatnikonguy]

@schumionbike cool - how did you develop this process?

[schumionbike]

@thatnikonguy

Most of my editing time is spent on looking at the photos to see if it's worth editing. I also try to determine the mood I want to go for in the photo, the editing of each photo itself is 5-7 minutes.

[ibrahimalghamdi94]

I do more editing than trying to get it right before shooting. The reason is because, as a beginner, I don't have the proper equipment for getting stuff right, so I use editing software to do the job for me. Something I hate about post processing is that sometimes editing software will degrade the quality of your images, and I've noticed that many times when editing, maybe because I'm not skilled enough :)

[thatnikonguy]

@ibrahimalghamdi94 sure thing. As you progress, do try to get it better in shot - with whatever gear you have - if you want to improve as a photographer is important.

[SLRist]

Editing in post can take an unremarkable shot and make it something worth framing. Getting it right in camera is down to lighting, exposure, focus and framing. Most other things can be fixed in post. I spend longer editing than shooting on a per image basis, but if you include all the 'duds' it's probably 50/50. I have to say since I started shooting B&W JPG with my X100, I need to do far less editing than when shooting RAW with my D700.

[thatnikonguy]

@SLRist agree

[MrDmi3Bals]

Shot about 10 minutes, full retouch about 40 minutes. Totall about 1 hour. Very bad result. ):

[thatnikonguy]

@MrDmi3Bals maybe spend 30 mins shooting, and in time your editing will come down?

[MrDmi3Bals]

@thatnikonguy I'm going to achieve 5 minutes shooting and this is all. (;

[bwinn10]

getting it right in the cam is why i only shot in manuel but i also shoot raw because every pic can be made better even in film days every pic had to be edited in the darkroom useing chemicals. but for me pressing the shutter is just half the battle

[Simenoyen]

I do both!

[rokoksejuk]

so true :D

[americanbulldogy]

Thanks Matt, I use Adobe Elements 9 just to touch up colors and take out shadows. I shot 90% edit 10% of the time. Its always better to get the shot right the 1st time, but for those times when you must edit, we have Adobe.

Thanks Bill

[thatnikonguy]

@americanbulldogy agree

[greenophotography]

I'm not a brilliant 'post' guy, but the plasticity of an image in digital photography just shames anything one could ever do in the darkroom, and I spent years in the darkroom before digital became viable. What I can do with Silver Efex Pro 2 and Lightroom absolutely dwarves my not insignificant skills in darkroom toning, dodging, burning, etc. with a gelatin-silver print.

[masticina]

I love raw, sure it helps to get a good result to begin with. Aka the right settings and white balance [use a white balance cap :)] But .. even then things might still be slightly off. With raw I get the best out of my pictures.

[MichealSeaghdha]

I've not yet owned a camera that can provide me with the dynamic range, colour or contrast that I can witness with my own eyesight. Therefore I feel, rightly or wrongly, that I can improve the look of virtually every single picture I've ever taken. If I had more confidence in my equipment, perhaps I'd save jpegs instead of large raw files and not bother nearly as much. Apart from all that, I do enjoy post processing and have the time to do it.

[DeathStar012]

Photography doesn't end when you take the picture :)

[thatnikonguy]

@DeathStar012 yeah, common thoughts.

[boilerjack]

I shoot in raw and edit only the area/s of the image that may need tweaking. Sometimes I take it to b/w and play around with my plug-ins. I do however prefer to get the shot in-camera as close to perfect as I possibly can so I do have to do any "extra" work on top of the regular pp.

[Kornkrlz7]

If you look at a picture and the post-processing is even noticeable I think its a failure on the photographer's part. I think its useful for toning down colors and balancing contrast but any more is just creating fantasy art.

[thatnikonguy]

@Kornkrlz7 depends whaty our look is I guess

[tgnavantal]

I personally have no problem with post processing, but that just have to look natural, otherwise people will notice that it's something wrong with the picture. Of course that may be fine if you go for 'surreal' effect.

The good thing in post-process that at least at the very beginning it can replace expensive filters.

As I see now, the best results are in combining - you get best you can from camera and then just post-process to get the best results.

[thatnikonguy]

@tgnavantal totally agree