Do all photos, without exception, need some form of adjustment?

[Venger]

I know this is a very, very, subjective topic but do all photos, without exception, need some form of adjustment in post-production?

I mean if a photo straight out of the camera looks good to your own eyes in terms of ‘exposure’, colour balance, sharpness etc. would you still put it through some sort of post-production?

I’m only shooting in JPEG, I don’t have the means to currently process RAW files and for the first time recently I experimented with post production on a photo using Gimp. Although the changes I made to colour and sharpness were very subtle, I was really pleased with the results, to the extent I had some cards printed using the image.

Looking at the colour level adjustment tools in Gimp has kind of led me down the rabbit-hole of histograms and as I’m now thinking of putting some of my better photos from 2025 into a small album which I’d like to get printed (just for me, nothing commercial) I’m starting to look more closely at what the histogram is telling me on specific photos.

Now I know there is no one catch all for a histogram, there is no ‘perfect histogram’ as such, I think I understand what it can tell me (more or less) and having watched a few tutorials, I know the histogram shape of a small mountain/hill is often talked about but picking one of my photos and now looking more closely at its histogram levels, I’m kinda thinking do I really need to do anything to it? There’s no clipping, it’s the classic mountain shape and when I look at the photo, I think the colour balance is good, I can’t really see a lot wrong with the image overall.

I’ve started creating the album design using Vistaprint’s layout wizard and one thing I’ve noticed is that when I drop the image into the design, the auto filter settings on the VP website (which I turn off) automatically lightens the photo, another photo gets darkened, leading me to think, hmm, are the colour or contrast levels actually ok after all?

I appreciate that the VP layout wizard is hardly the last word in photo enhancement but it has got me wondering about whether I should put every photo I intend to use through Gimp although, as I mention above, if it all looks ok to my eyes, what is there to change?

 

[tclune]

One huge virtue of processing each image is that it pretty much forces you to cull. One of the things that bothers me most about many JPEG shooters is that they dump a gazillion images in your lap, most of which are really bad (as are anyone's.) If they'd actually looked at their work, they presumably would have gotten rid of the dross before showing you their work. I know it is possible to cull SOOC JPEGs, but it is depressingly common for folks who don't process their work to show you, say, 10 virtually identical photos because they didn't bother choosing one, followed by a raft of poorly-exposed and out-of-focus images that would have just been deleted if the photographer had bothered thinking about what he was asking you to admire, capped off with an endless stream of photos whose only virtue is that the camera settings were more or less right.

All photos need to be evaluated before being foisted off on others, whether or not that leads to making any adjustments to the image itself. Or so ISTM.

 

[yardcoyote]

Of course not. Sometimes you get a lucky one. The most common changes I make to my jpegs (I shoot jpeg only to avoid the rabbit hole) are straightening and cropping, followed by sharpening, since I keep my in camera sharpening to a minimum, and adjustments to contrast, highlights, and saturation. Rarely, I lift a shadow, I very seldom adjust the entire exposure, using gamma, but it does happen. I never look at my histogram at all. That way lies madness.

My goal is not to produce an idea photograph as a photograph, but to make a picture of something I saw.

 

[RetCapt]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I have used PSE since my start in digital photography in 2009. Back then , reading here on DPR, I saw that mnay others opined that any image could be improved by post-processing.

I still follow that line of thought. So anything I am going to print (my only photographic product) I always first post process using PSE. There is no doubt in my mind, looking at my prints on the walls, that PSE improves my final images (perhaps that is why it has sold so well for so long).

The recent necessity of a new computer necessitated an update of PSE. Fortunately my timing was ideal. I got the last stand-alone iteration, rather than being forced to buy a subscription.

Over the years PSE has made improvements in usability. I can now compare, side by side, the current image with a range of possibe changes. The end result my be the same but it is quicker and easier to get there.

That has been my experience. I realize there are some here who are very staunch and opinionated advocates of SOOC.

There is, in my mind, no inherent nobility to SOOC, the same as there is no inherent nobility to always using all manual control of the camera, despite the capability of the camera.

Go with whatever nets you the best images you and your camera are capable of producing.

 

[Venger]

One huge virtue of processing each image is that it pretty much forces you to cull. One of the things that bothers me most about many JPEG shooters is that they dump a gazillion images in your lap, most of which are really bad (as are anyone's.) If they'd actually looked at their work, they presumably would have gotten rid of the dross before showing you their work. I know it is possible to cull SOOC JPEGs, but it is depressingly common for folks who don't process their work to show you, say, 10 virtually identical photos because they didn't bother choosing one, followed by a raft of poorly-exposed and out-of-focus images that would have just been deleted if the photographer had bothered thinking about what he was asking you to admire, capped off with an endless stream of photos whose only virtue is that the camera settings were more or less right.

All photos need to be evaluated before being foisted off on others, whether or not that leads to making any adjustments to the image itself. Or so ISTM.

...erm, I'm not sure if my post has offended you, apologises if it has but you seem a little world weary when it comes to people who shoot in JPEG and yes, I'm afraid, I fall into that category, it would be pointless for me to shoot in RAW as, currently, I have no means to manipulate that file type.

I would hope I've never 'foisted off' my pictures on anyone, if someone is interested I show them and where I would agree with you is being strict with yourself when reviewing your shots and deleting anything that isn't up to scratch - and that applies to JPEG and RAW alike surely? I've been told on several occasions that '...the trouble with you Nick is you're a perfectionist...', not just with photography but with many things I do, I don't say that to brag, it's not a particularly positive trait, truth be told but it might explain why I get so bogged down in the minutiae of things like this.

 

[Ysarex]

I know this is a very, very, subjective topic but do all photos, without exception, need some form of adjustment in post-production?

Let's consider a change in terms -- would all camera output photos (JPEG), without exception, benefit from some form of adjustment in post? Absolutely yes.

You're talking about the images produced by the software in your camera. Adjust the camera's processing software, use the picture control options provided, to get the very best image the camera is capable of generating and I will never fail to do a better job. I will always beat the camera software, so why shouldn't I?

To do better than the camera's image processor I have to have a raw file. I would not attempt to try and repair the camera produced image although it can be done to advantage.

Very simple example: When I was learning this some 50 plus years ago and working in a darkroom my teacher showed my how to burn down the corners of a print as a final step under the enlarger. He said it's almost a 100% guarantee that it will improve the photo. He was right and I still do as I was taught.

I took this photo this morning on my walk. Here it is first without the corners burned down:



And again with the corner burn (I made it obvious -- maybe a little overdone but I wanted it to show).

A gentle vignette will as my teacher said almost 100% improve your photo. It keeps your eye from straying out of the image and the darker corners enhance the central image and subject. Is the option to do that one of the picture control functions in your camera? It's not in mine.

I mean if a photo straight out of the camera looks good to your own eyes in terms of ‘exposure’, colour balance, sharpness etc. would you still put it through some sort of post-production?

I’m only shooting in JPEG, I don’t have the means to currently process RAW files and for the first time recently I experimented with post production on a photo using Gimp. Although the changes I made to colour and sharpness were very subtle, I was really pleased with the results, to the extent I had some cards printed using the image.

Looking at the colour level adjustment tools in Gimp has kind of led me down the rabbit-hole of histograms and as I’m now thinking of putting some of my better photos from 2025 into a small album which I’d like to get printed (just for me, nothing commercial) I’m starting to look more closely at what the histogram is telling me on specific photos.

You're off to a good start.

Now I know there is no one catch all for a histogram, there is no ‘perfect histogram’ as such, I think I understand what it can tell me (more or less) and having watched a few tutorials, I know the histogram shape of a small mountain/hill is often talked about but picking one of my photos and now looking more closely at its histogram levels, I’m kinda thinking do I really need to do anything to it? There’s no clipping, it’s the classic mountain shape and when I look at the photo, I think the colour balance is good, I can’t really see a lot wrong with the image overall.

I’ve started creating the album design using Vistaprint’s layout wizard and one thing I’ve noticed is that when I drop the image into the design, the auto filter settings on the VP website (which I turn off) automatically lightens the photo, another photo gets darkened, leading me to think, hmm, are the colour or contrast levels actually ok after all?

I appreciate that the VP layout wizard is hardly the last word in photo enhancement but it has got me wondering about whether I should put every photo I intend to use through Gimp although, as I mention above, if it all looks ok to my eyes, what is there to change?

 

[Venger]

... (I shoot jpeg only to avoid the rabbit hole)... I never look at my histogram at all. That way lies madness...

I'm starting to feel that a bit, looking at graphs and sliders rather than the photo itself.

My goal is not to produce an idea photograph as a photograph, but to make a picture of something I saw.

Yep, well said.

 

[Venger]

There is, in my mind, no inherent nobility to SOOC, the same as there is no inherent nobility to always using all manual control of the camera, despite the capability of the camera.

Go with whatever nets you the best images you and your camera are capable of producing.

Wise words, thanks for posting.

 

[Venger]

A gentle vignette will as my teacher said almost 100% improve your photo. It keeps your eye from straying out of the image and the darker corners enhance the central image and subject. Is the option to do that one of the picture control functions in your camera? It's not in mine.

I must be honest and say I had to look at your second photo a very long time to perceive any difference from the original, bottom right corner seems to be the most obvious area for me.

Nope, not in mine either.

 

[Ysarex]

I know this is a very, very, subjective topic but do all photos, without exception, need some form of adjustment in post-production?

Let's consider a change in terms -- would all camera output photos (JPEG), without exception, benefit from some form of adjustment in post? Absolutely yes. Adjust the camera's processing software, use the picture control options provided, to get the very best image the camera is capable of generating and I will never fail to do a better job.

Let's look at more reasons for why. If you're using the image created by the camera you're accepting the results of the processing software in the camera. The engineers who designed and implemented that software are amazing and manage to do an incredible job swimming up stream against the current. They have to work under the threat that you/we will press and hold down the shutter release expecting the camera to take a sequence of rapid-fire photos. When we do that the processing software has to keep up. We have for example software technology that does an amazing job of filtering noise. If they put that software in your camera it's frame rate might drop from 7 frames per second to 1 frame every 70 seconds. They can't do that.

So in order to keep the camera able to process images at the camera's burst rate the engineers have to consider speed in every aspect of what they code. They have job X to get done. They can use algorithms A), B), or C). A) is best quality but takes six times longer than B). B) is very good quality and C) is mediocre quality but is 20 times faster than B). What ends up in your camera?

Here's a JPEG from one of my Fuji cameras: (CAVEAT, I made no effort to get a good JPEG from the camera. I only save and use raw files and the camera created images don't matter to me.)



One of the jobs the engineers have to do to create your camera's output image is demosaic the raw data. You have no control over that process, but multiple algorithms exist to get it done. What's built into your camera? Fuji with their X series cameras complicated the task by designing a unique filter array. It takes a more complex algorithm to demosaic. Fuji does a fair job of it in the cameras but they don't do the best job of it. This photo shows that difference well. Below is a 100% cutout from the upper right corner of the photo. On the left is the camera processed JPEG and on the right is my processing of the raw file using PL-8. PL-8 does a much better job rendering fine detail in the photo. Nothing can be done in the camera to coax it to do a better job.

This specific issue is unique to my Fuji cameras but the general problem, the pressure on the camera engineers for maximum speed, applies to all of our cameras and different brands show it in different ways. For example it's embarrassing to watch a Nikon camera try and noise filter a high ISO image.

I mean if a photo straight out of the camera looks good to your own eyes in terms of ‘exposure’, colour balance, sharpness etc. would you still put it through some sort of post-production?

I’m only shooting in JPEG, I don’t have the means to currently process RAW files and for the first time recently I experimented with post production on a photo using Gimp. Although the changes I made to colour and sharpness were very subtle, I was really pleased with the results, to the extent I had some cards printed using the image.

Looking at the colour level adjustment tools in Gimp has kind of led me down the rabbit-hole of histograms and as I’m now thinking of putting some of my better photos from 2025 into a small album which I’d like to get printed (just for me, nothing commercial) I’m starting to look more closely at what the histogram is telling me on specific photos.

Now I know there is no one catch all for a histogram, there is no ‘perfect histogram’ as such, I think I understand what it can tell me (more or less) and having watched a few tutorials, I know the histogram shape of a small mountain/hill is often talked about but picking one of my photos and now looking more closely at its histogram levels, I’m kinda thinking do I really need to do anything to it? There’s no clipping, it’s the classic mountain shape and when I look at the photo, I think the colour balance is good, I can’t really see a lot wrong with the image overall.

I’ve started creating the album design using Vistaprint’s layout wizard and one thing I’ve noticed is that when I drop the image into the design, the auto filter settings on the VP website (which I turn off) automatically lightens the photo, another photo gets darkened, leading me to think, hmm, are the colour or contrast levels actually ok after all?

I appreciate that the VP layout wizard is hardly the last word in photo enhancement but it has got me wondering about whether I should put every photo I intend to use through Gimp although, as I mention above, if it all looks ok to my eyes, what is there to change?

 

[Bob]

There’s always something wrong with a photo straight from the camera.

It could be a distracting element that only becomes obvious on a large monitor. Perhaps a slight cropping would make the composition work better.

That said, if it all looks good, then of course you don’t have to make any adjustments.

 

[FrancoD]

Some will always do post processing.

Others will never do any post processing .

And then there are thso that sometime do and sometime don't.

Each ot those have their own very good reasons why they do what they do.

 

[Martin_99]

I shoot in RAW, all the images I cull in editing software and do edit at the same time. I usually don't edit much, but at least some small crop or raising shadows are done. I would guess that about 1% of images I process into .jpg without edit at all.

 

[mujana]

No

 

[Venger]

...Below is a 100% cutout from the upper right corner of the photo. On the left is the camera processed JPEG and on the right is my processing of the raw file using PL-8. PL-8 does a much better job rendering fine detail in the photo. Nothing can be done in the camera to coax it to do a better job.

Interesting comparison...what's PL-8?

 

[mujana]

...Below is a 100% cutout from the upper right corner of the photo. On the left is the camera processed JPEG and on the right is my processing of the raw file using PL-8. PL-8 does a much better job rendering fine detail in the photo. Nothing can be done in the camera to coax it to do a better job.

Interesting comparison...what's PL-8?

DXO Photolab 8

 

[Venger]

Interesting comparison...what's PL-8?

DXO Photolab 8

Many thanks

 

[Dick Dastardly]

Nope. The perfect picture is a combination of camera, settings, skill and patience.

Some images are good even with flaws that cannot be repaired, like blur or missed focus.

I always shoot jpeg and edit with Corel PhotoImpact, don't like the current programs, including the free ones.

As for the editing itself, jpegs can be edited just as well as raw files, as long as you don't make too many mistakes, because raw editing has more leverage.

Just to make one thing clear, all ILC cameras made in the last decade are so good, you cannot really blame them on not getting good enough pictures.

Editing helps with creating a more dramatic look, which is what professionals have always done in order to maximize the appeal of their photos(took me 20 years to figure out this one), however as an amateur, my purpose is to capture what my eyes see as closely as possible. The editing part mainly helps with correcting my mistakes.

 

[Tony Hall]

That's like asking "does every dish, without exception, need more salt?". Taste it and find out. Either you're okay with what the camera's jpeg engine has handed you or you think something could look better.

If you're shooting jpeg, the pics can't take any dramatic changes anyways so it's already 95% there. Just do some minor tweaks as you see fit and keep comparing to the original to see if you like your adjusted version better.

You may be amazed at how much better you can get with raw though, so I'd recommend shooting jpg+raw so you can develop the raws later if/when you get into that.

 

[number_5]

+1. A few additional notes.

Nope. The perfect picture is a combination of camera, settings, skill and patience.

Some images are good even with flaws that cannot be repaired, like blur or missed focus.

I always shoot jpeg and edit with Corel PhotoImpact, don't like the current programs, including the free ones.

I use Picasa, discontinued but still can be found online. Takes about 30s to crop/straighten/fill+shadows/downsize. I do do RAW, mostly de-noise and some global exposure adjustments, but still go through Picasa as the last step.

As for the editing itself, jpegs can be edited just as well as raw files, as long as you don't make too many mistakes, because raw editing has more leverage.

Just to make one thing clear, all ILC cameras made in the last decade are so good, you cannot really blame them on not getting good enough pictures.

There are in-camera color profiles, Standard, Vivid, Natural, Mono, etc. Within each profile, you can tweak attributes, sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc.

Editing helps with creating a more dramatic look, which is what professionals have always done in order to maximize the appeal of their photos(took me 20 years to figure out this one), however as an amateur, my purpose is to capture what my eyes see as closely as possible. The editing part mainly helps with correcting my mistakes.

A lot of people I know use filters, the-1-click-look, and use mobile tools, such as Snapseed, etc. for desired look.