To process or not to process, that is the question.

[SSSnail]

I'm a noob photog, and my idea of processing is using MS Paint to crop the picture, or if I feel fancy, use Gimp to do the same thing, or to save the pic as another format. Sometimes, I even use a generic program to fix the lighting a bit and call it a day.

Which brings me to the question, should I try post processing a bit more? I have always thought that if too much processing goes into a photograph, then it dilutes the idea of it being a photograph. Yes?

Anyways, so if I really want to move beyond MS Paint, which other programs should I consider? I'm not spending money on Photoshop...

 

[sixone]

You can get Photoshop Elements pretty cheap. Get the student version at Walmart, or one of the older versions on ebay.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I see nothing wrong with sticking to gimp. It works fine for the common tools like levels, curves, cropping, sharpening, white balance, etc...

Personally, I use lightroom.

 

[CuriousMike]

Google Picasa is another alternative for basic edits ( it's my day to day organizer / editor. )

 

[Gooberlx2]

Google Picasa is another alternative for basic edits ( it's my day to day organizer / editor. )

:thumbsup:

I also think Windows Live Photo Gallery is a great library manager, which also has the basic tools.

 

[Anteaus]

Processing is kind of addictive. I have two great cameras (D7000,S95) that have no problems creating nice JPGs out of the camera, but I always seem to end up editing everything in Lightroom. Even if I didn't have raw access, I'd still end up processing my JPGs. Once you learn how things work it's really easy to make even a good image even better, let alone fixing the bad shots.

If your working with JPGs, you can get great results with free software. If you ever go RAW or want to speed up your workflow and have some money to burn, Lightroom 4 is really good. Photoshop Elements is also quite good, though it's RAW support isn't quite as good as CS6 or Lightroom.

 

[Throckmorton]

Lightroom is great for JPEGs too.

Before Lightroom I used Paint.NET for postprocessing.

 

[RobDickinson]

Process? yes certainly.

Unless you want how the camera processes by default.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

RAW is the only way to shoot IMO.

http://rawtherapee.com/ <-- Open source RAW editor. I've used it a little bit and it's pretty good.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Something simple like Picasa or iPhoto is most of what anybody needs. Color correction, white balance correction, cropping, sharpening, contrast, exposure controls. You will not be doing anything advanced, but you can make your photos look better and perhaps more life-like.

I have always thought that if too much processing goes into a photograph, then it dilutes the idea of it being a photograph. Yes?

The interesting thing is that film photography has none of the purity which most people ascribe to it. Developing film involves many decisions which can alter the final prints in much the same way that Photoshop can.... in fact, many of the tools in Photoshop were designed to mimic the real-world darkroom tools that hands-on photographers had been using for decades. Exposure adjustment, sharpening, lightening or darkening small parts of the image...