I always post-process.
I shoot in RAW and load images into Lightroom. RAW gives me total control and is a must for infrared shooting.
By default I apply the LR landscape profile and let LR auto whitebalance and auto expose.
From that starting point I will dodge and burn any areas that I feel need it and then crop as required.
When shooting at ISO 3200 I will often apply LR denoise. The default setting of 50 is too much (over processed) for my taste so I back that off to ~25 as I see fit.
I have no artistic issue applying LR's remove tools to get rid of minor unwanted objects or subtle use of other sliders to create a specific mood.
LR's photo merge capability comes in handy when deliberately shooting panos or when the lens I am using is too tight to capture a scene in one frame.
On the export side I use 100% quality, full-size, JPEG - but limit the output file size to 8MB max before uploading to Flickr.
When ceating the BBCode URL link from Flickr (to paste into a FM forum) I constrain the max image dimension to 1600 pixels - so downsizing and compression is applied to my images you view directly in FM.
A 24MB RAW file --> 8MB (max) JPEG in Flickr --> 0.5MB in FM (size of downloaded on-screen image using 'save file as')
Cheers,
Colin
jimmuller wrote:
I have to ask, while aware that this may not be the appropriate place to do so. How much post-shoot processing do most of you do before posting a pic or even concluding that an image is "finished"? I was just browsing through the Photo Critique forum. While there are some engaging and thought-provoking images there, it is clear that some of the content is the result of "creative manipulation", not merely "taking pictures". They might as well be AI-generated. It becomes more a question of creating art than capturing an image with a camera.
Some of the beautiful images here are awesome when downloaded in their near-native resolution and viewed on my laptop's screen. I wonder, would they look as good if downsized before being posted?
I downsize my images before posting, then generally apply Printshop Pro's Sharpen process to remove jpg artifacts. (It looks like GIMP might actually be better.) I rarely do much more. Then I save results as jpg at whatever the default quality value is, probably less than 100%, maybe 80%.
The point of my question is this: Where is the philosophical divide between image capture and image creation/modification? I assumed that since this thread is about specific lenses, then the subtlety of lens details is the whole point.
Just curious. You needn't answer, don't need to give away any secrets. I am still learning to be a "real" photographer, have only the experience of youth and what I see here to guide me!
