In the digital photography age, post-processing is often inherent for a number of reasons.
• First, I shoot everything in RAW file format which means the camera's processor makes no "decisions" for an image prior to recording it to the memory card; thus, if my settings are not quite perfect for a given shot, I need to post-process to get the image to what I envisioned and to my satisfaction.
• Shooting in(i.e.) JPEG format results in the processor removing information in order to compress file size in order to save memory. That works all right for most photographers, but I'm competing these days with a world full of cameras and cell phones with cameras, so, an image that is just technically correct as far as exposure and composition … is the minimum I expect from myself.
When I shoot for publishers, "technically correct," viable subject matter is what they want, and, if derivatives are desired, most publishers prefer to have their own editors create them.
• When I shoot to market directly to the public … it's a different story; there is no predicting which image will sell in a week, and, which one will sit on my web site … literally forever … with lookers but not takers. So, I try to shoot what I think are "popular" subjects, but, process them in a way to make what otherwise might border on a cliche, to a fresh appearance. In this case, the birds in my article.
Thanks for asking … I love to discuss not just photographs … but photography, aesthetics, iconography and even philosophy (on the latter … regarding lots of subjects).
I am an amateur photographer, as well as a couple others I know here. I use some of my stuff as background art like the one below. I've been using RAWTherapee 5.2 for my post. The picture below is all technique & camera, however.
Prayer for Rain Clematis - photographed in Langenau, Germany, June 2014
No disrespect intended.
Two beauties Mac.
Excellent Audubon Magazine quality photos. Unfortunately the birds here have drab colour and are difficult to photograph.
Nice captures. Did you use any post processing?
Did you use any post processing?
In the digital photography age, post-processing is often inherent for a number of reasons.
• First, I shoot everything in RAW file format which means the camera's processor makes no "decisions" for an image prior to recording it to the memory card; thus, if my settings are not quite perfect for a given shot, I need to post-process to get the image to what I envisioned and to my satisfaction.
• Shooting in(i.e.) JPEG format results in the processor removing information in order to compress file size in order to save memory. That works all right for most photographers, but I'm competing these days with a world full of cameras and cell phones with cameras, so, an image that is just technically correct as far as exposure and composition … is the minimum I expect from myself.
When I shoot for publishers, "technically correct," viable subject matter is what they want, and, if derivatives are desired, most publishers prefer to have their own editors create them.
• When I shoot to market directly to the public … it's a different story; there is no predicting which image will sell in a week, and, which one will sit on my web site … literally forever … with lookers but not takers. So, I try to shoot what I think are "popular" subjects, but, process them in a way to make what otherwise might border on a cliche, to a fresh appearance. In this case, the birds in my article.
Thanks for asking … I love to discuss not just photographs … but photography, aesthetics, iconography and even philosophy (on the latter … regarding lots of subjects).
I am an amateur photographer, as well as a couple others I know here. I use some of my stuff as background art like the one below. I've been using RAWTherapee 5.2 for my post. The picture below is all technique & camera, however.
Prayer for Rain Clematis - photographed in Langenau, Germany, June 2014
Please share your work regularly with us!