Argument for NO post processing.

Started Jan 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
ZorSy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,481
Re: Argument for NO post processing.

BobT wrote:

So, first I need to invest in a quality monitor? I currently have a $400 HP computer (with monitor). Not even sure that my cheapo monitor can be calibrated. Then I need to find a good printing service with which I can calibrate a monitor to match results?

What I failed to include in my opening thread.......I work part/time in a one-hour photo lab. So I do have more control over my printing results than the regular one-hour customer has. But I'm concerned about what happens after I no longer work there. If/when I were to become a regular customer, I'm sure I'd quickly become a much dreaded who requires do over after do over before being satisfied.

So basically, one gets what one pays for. If I can afford a quality monitor $$, then calibrate it $$, then utilize a custom lab to make prints $$, then, and only then, I might be OK. Unfortunately, I don't have even the first $$. So, like I said, I guess I'm getting what I CAN pay for.

By the way, to an earlier responder, I fully understand that the cameras LCD is NOT suitable for critical image quality analysis. But basically for composition. I get that.

Thanks to all for your truthful yet (financially) depressing solutions. It's pretty much as expected.


I'd argue a need for high quality monitor - though I do have an IPS panel on my main computer, I can do editing on my cheap laptop. BUT, they are calibrated. If on the budget, you can try running visual calibration; plenty of tools available online. Most graphics cards today come with some sort of calibration aids, at least to get the brightness and contrast right. Of course, calibrated monitor is just a start.  On the other hand, if you take your files to the kiosk and edit there, their system SHOULD be calibrated so WYSIWYG should be in full (or to a good extend of it). And this option, if on tight budget, should suit you the best.

I print at home and have more money spent on that part than on the actual camera  that takes the pictures. If really lazy, I'd run a prints almost as OOC, yet printing usually requires heavy sharpening (at least on dye-subs I use), even with correct colour managed workflow, which technically, if the shoot is right, wouldn't call for any other  tweaking in PP. Printing is not cheap by any mean - that explains why many people never print these days. I  do agree that excessive PP leads to messing the pictures in uncontrolled environment - under this I mean non-0colour managed workflow, which would involve both screen and printer calibration. It is very easy to push image outside the possible printer gamut. With high contrast and high brightness screens today (regardless being IPS or not - both can handle values no paper can) one really must understand the existence of completely separate PP workflows for printing (CMYK) and displaying (RGB).

Please don't take this situation "depressing", despite being financially much harder than commonly thought. I dare to say people who have PRINT on their mind when taking photos  actually think differently than people who have electronics viewing on their mind at time of the capture. I know that as I'm writing this looking at the monitor that actually look drab (dim and fairly low contrast) Yet my prints are to the last bit what they appear in the front of me (because I'm lazy to push the button and revert to ka-pow! settings).

Alternatively, just drop the standards and stop compring the screen and the prints, makes life much easier...

 ZorSy's gear list:ZorSy's gear list
Nikon D80 Nikon D7100
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow