Quote:
Originally Posted by HomrQT
Digital cameras themselves literally process photos as they are taken. Color saturation and balance, lighting, contrast, etc are all being manipulated on the fly by the very things we use to take the photos. Post processing just allows for further enhancement. True to life photos with actual realistic properties usually make for pretty flat or boring photography. Like makeup on a woman though, the goal of processing and post processing is to give the impression of realism while adding just a touch more character.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago
Or Lightroom. . . I process all my images that way and only use Photoshop for extreme processing - say if I need to fix a corrupt RAW image file or remove some element in the photo that needs attention. . .
Everyone uses some sort of post-processing. . . I don't know anyone who would admit otherwise as there's no shame in it. . .
. . .
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle
They are photoshopped though. All good photographers use photoshop for post-processing. That doesn't mean they are fake or any less impressive though.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie77
Anyone else starting to resent Nik for his perfect almost photo-shopped pics?
Jk, lovely shots Bonbon and Nik.._._.Keepem kumin
|
I do spend
a lot of time in Lighroom editing and tweaking my images...but I have to. I shoot in the RAW format, so my files are uncompressed and completely 'unprocessed' so to speak. It gives me more data to work with when it comes to editing. The downside is that most of the files look relatively flat when I load them into my software. So it's up to me to make the photos look how I want.
JPEGS, the viewable/easily sharable files, are processed via some set of pre-determined settings programmed into the camera (like HomrQT said). Have you ever seen the 'vivid', 'landscape', or 'portrait' type settings on a point and shoot?
But editing can only get you so far. A lot of my work is about taking advantage of the right light at the right time.