Is it always necessary edit photo in some programms after shoot?

[dan_south]

The simple answer is: NO! You do not need to edit your photos in any program. Most people never edit their digital photos. If the

results out of the camera (JPEG) are to your liking, you're finished as soon as you copy the photos onto your computer.

 

The more complex answer is that almost every digital photograph can be improved with some amount of editing. Contrast can be

optimized. Color can be rendered more accurately (or more fantastically if that's what you prefer). Blemishes can be removed from

faces. Cropping can emphasize a subject in some cases. But this is all done at the choice and discretion of the photographer.

 

Personally, I try to do as little editing as I can, but I always do a bit. I use a program called Photoshop Lightroom. It lets me edit

images quickly and intuitively. It lets me copy adjustments from one photo to another when applicable. And it does all of this without

hogging a lot of space on my disk drives for alternate renditions. I want to spend as little time editing as possible, but I accept that I

need to spend SOME time on editing in order to get the results that I want. I find that I can do what I need to do quickly in the

Lightroom program. If an image needs even more editing than Lightroom can accomplish, I typically discard that image and move on to another one that's more promising.

 

I've shared my approach with you only to show you that there are different ways of dealing with this issue. You can edit a little bit, edit

a lot, or not at all. It's your personal choice as the creator of the images. Over time you'll settle into the approach that works best for

you. If that approach delivers results that appeal to you, don't let anyone tell you that you're doing anything wrong. Not everyone is

going to have the same image post-processing workflow.

[GBarrington]

<p>Do what you want! They are YOUR photos! They represent YOUR vision. The minute you let some moron tell you what to do with your photos is the minute you should either throw your camera away, or you become a professional photographer.</p>

[jhindle]

<p>I think the output of a modern digital SLR is pretty much designed with post processing in mind. With my equipment, I tend to shoot very muted, flat looking photos which tends to protect the highlights and keep blocked shadows to a minimum. Then in post processing, I bring them out, more often than not with a simple preset for levels, saturation sharpening and so on.<br>

For screen viewing and small prints, some of the best OOC output, needing no manipulation seems to come from consumer point and shoot cameras, who's users often wouldn't bother with post processing. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the output of a modern digital SLR is pretty much designed with post processing in mind. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that were the case, there would be no need for all those settings that let you manipulate the photograph in the camera. </p>

[jhindle]

<p>With a few notable exceptions, I tend to regard all those settings as pretty gimmicky. Yes, I can shoot at my camera's most vivid setting and set the sharpness as high as it will go, and max out the contrast while losing a third of a stop or more of dynamic range in the process (not to mention sharpening artefacts, blown highlights around edges due to sharpening and so on). Both my main cameras can even be programmed to give the output a pop art look, but all I want is to be able to set aperture, shutter speed, ISO and shoot, knowing that I'll have the best degree of control I can get over the end result. That means either a fairly muted JPEG that responds well to my presets or, the situation requires it, raw.</p>

<p>If I wanted my images straight out of the camera with no image manipulation required, Casio and Kodak both make cameras that will do this.</p>

 

[dan_south]

Jason, are you surprised that the image suffers when every control is set to it's maximum value? That's like ordering a pizza with

extra everything. There are a lot of possible combinations for those settings.

 

A sports photographer who shoots the Olympics or the World Series doesn't have time to develop a flat image. He or she needs to

nail the white balance, saturation, contrast, and sharpening that their publication requires right out of the camera. Those images might need to be uploaded to a website within minutes, even seconds. Post processing is not feasible in all cases.

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If I wanted my images straight out of the camera with no image manipulation required, Casio and Kodak both make cameras that will do this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You obviously aren't shooting in situations that require it. I do on-site event printing and sometimes don't have room for a computer. I go straight from card to printer. It's amazing how just a few minutes getting the right settings will make the prints look quite good. I need a dSLR because I'm using radio slaves, Casio and Kodak don't make cameras that will work in that situation.</p>

[jhindle]

<p>Yes, you are both correct. I'm not in any rush to do anything with my shot, once I've nailed it 8-).</p>

[ronny_zou]

<p>Short and sweet answer, no.<br>

It is not necessary ALWAYS. That's quite an extreme. Yes editing helps 99% of the time, atleast for me, but there are many many times when I grab an amazing photo that I don't feel I need to edit at all.<br>

That's just my 2 cents.</p>