To post-process or not to post-process

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, Erato said:

A serious retouching process won't make you an artist but the content.

If you're contracted to makie a series of perfect memory to employer, then, do the professional post-process for a good pay check. And if you're loyal to yourself or your imaginary muse, then you might choose to leave it as it is if the recorded image(DNG/RAW) is highly satisfied.

The difference is quite obvious indeed, you're either become a toss(or a well-done, toasted) post process expert or a real photographer with a linear improvement alone with times go by.

Only if you take Daguerreotypes...

BTW, DNG is not an image format and cannot be displayed; any image you display or print has been processed either by the nerd who wrote  your firmware or passively by you, by downloading it and accepting the default processing values written into your software by the nerd who made it. In other words: you give away all control over your image to an unknown person who has not the foggiest idea about the photograph you are attempting to take. You are better off using an AI photo-generating program. At least you can tell it what you want it to do. 

[skahde]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Only if you take Daguerreotypes...

And even with daguerreotypes.... Daguerre put considerable work into the process until he got to the greyscale we see today in the pictures made by his method. With respect to tone and greyscale, if you follow his published and patented process one is essentially replicating Daguerre's editing. 

[mpw]

Even producing the negative from the film itself is a process, making a print is a process. It seems in digital we get a raw/print file when taking the picture. The only process left is post-processing using software. But a lot times when the original jpeg + raw are fine then we don't need post-processing. Film is analog as jpeg+raw are digital so the processes are different