-
It's not how the scene actually looked. Often, we might see some picturesque landscape and decide that we want to take a photo of it. How many times have you come home from either vacation or some event, reviewed your photos, and thought that the photos you took didn't look at all like what you experienced? I know I have. A lot. Sometimes, it's because of the limitation of the film or the digital camera's sensor that you're using that prevents you from capturing the actual scene as your naked eye saw it. A common example? Try taking a picture of a sunset with a dSLR camera and an iPhone. I'm not knocking phone cameras at all, but there's definitely a difference. Post processing allows a little leeway in correcting mistakes made during the photo's capture. I didn't say a lot of leeway, but some. Despite the ease and low-cost of shooting digital these days, I still allow myself time to slow down, compose the shot I want, and check settings before I press the shutter button. If that fails, post-processing makes what started out as a good image better. I strongly believe it cannot and should not make a subpar image good.
-
It's not the final vision of the image that I had in mind. #2 is actually a more important point for me as to why I do post processing. As a photographer, I often find that before I press the shutter button, I ask myself why I'm taking the photo in the first place. What about the scene compels me to even lift the camera to my face? What visual story am I trying to tell by taking this photo? In the scene below, I wanted the pillars to have their own story and I wanted the stars/sky to have their own story. Out of camera, I felt that the pillars were a little too close in color to the sky. I also felt that the sky was not dark enough to showcase the stars. So I tweaked the photo a bit to better fit my vision in the after version.
Questions or comments? Feel free to leave them below!
-
BEFORE AFTER