As a hobbyist dabbling with only personal pieces, I personally believe if the volume of postprocessing served to adversely derails viewing attention from the point of focus or somehow unsettlingly detaches it from reality, then it becomes a bummer. As to how far fetch or when to draw the line, your mileage may vary.
Some see art in the shots ( just look at how processed the shots in say OP magazine are ), some cry foul on very same shots.
For me PP is a mutual part of photography. Sometimes it is not necessary, but sometimes it is. Composition is still core business in a way whatever I PP must be right in the first place, and PP is never for salvaging of shots ( it is way too noneconomical in terms of time, and i hardly have time for my hobby ). And yes, deliberation, composition and clicking the shutter gives me the greater part of joy
hahaha. choosing film is PP
PP means POST processing:sweatsm: unless you want to change it to PRE processing :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
In a way.. if u want more saturated colors for ur landscape u can use films like Velvia
which is akin in a way to changing ur saturation / modes on ur DSLR
now a days.. too many PHOTOSHOPGRAPHERS.: :sticktong
I kinda agree that with digital media, digital manipulation is much more easily performed. For some new DSLR users, PP especially HDR / exposure blending seems to take precedence over compositon ( when it shld be much the other way round )
Professional photographer usually do nothing or little using PP.
Look at some of the industrial big names like Darryl Benson, Gallen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Marc Adamus, Annie Leibovitz to name a pinch. Really little . no PP ?
If not, why do we still need a 1ds3 or d3s ?
Actually people buy them for their other functions such as higer resolution / fps / weather sealing etc. I am not sure if they got better postprocessing processor in them that does better than the lower end bodies.
beautifully said!