True or false:

>>3086688

No fucking shit Sherlock.

File: 1393665353450.png (65KB, 285x276px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 285x276px

>>3086688
>>3086692
Then why get better at shooting? Why not get better at shooping?

>>3086710

I shoot RAW so everything has to be edited anyway using Lightroom. Show me a perfect photo shot in RAW format.

>>3086710

Because shooping is only surface level. Truly great photos are shooped to death AND have something to say.

Sadly, a photo of Jessica Simpson can never be great.

>>3086712
sports events on the olympic level are.
there is zero time to edit any photos, they are straight out of the camera and directly to the publisher live during the event. whenever we shoot a segment, we have to send through wifi directly to the publishing team to throw up online so they can give near real-time coverage. there is zero time to post-process. what you get is what you get. and if you don't get it, well... lol

natgeo is also as close to the unaltered form of the photo you'll ever get. natgeo enforces strict guidelines on submissions by their official photographers.

1. There's a limit to how much you can improve a photo
2. The worse the photo is to begin with, the more time you need to invest to improve it. Instead of sitting in front of the computer for several hours, you could take 2 more minutes shooting and changing something.
3. you can't fix fundamental issues like having an uninteresting subject/no subject, shitty composition or half of your image being completely overexposed. A snapshit will still be a snapshit, no matter how much you polish it


In the end, you should master shooting and your camera as well as all kinds of post processing methods, programs, and tools. Consider these an integral part of your process, just as the various camera settings (shutter speed, exposure,...), observing a subject from different angles, researching spots, doing test shots, waiting for good weather and so on are all part of it.
The better you know all of these, the better you can choose the most effective method to get your vision onto paper/screen.
Ideally, the general plan on what you do in post should already be in your head when you press the shutter on your camera.

>>3086833
Thank Jason

>>3086750
i thought sports photographers generally liked shooting jpg for this exact reason

>>3086750

And all those photos are shot in JPG, maybe then you have to get it perfect. Shooting RAW you will never get the perfect photo out of camera.

Natgeo actually allows RAW photos to be post processed.

>>3086890

Exactly. Seems Mr know it all doesn't know much at all.

>>3086890
>>3086961

>Exactly. Seems Mr know it all doesn't know much at all.

I think that's what anon was saying.
>there is zero time to edit any photos,
>what you get is what you get. and if you don't get it, well... lol
And what idiot would consider sending a bunch of raws over wifi

>>3087047

Quite a few on here haven't found that setting yet.

File: 1496212913820b.jpg (1MB, 1419x1845px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1419x1845px

>>3086688
>into an otherwise exceptionally good photo.
Nope. You can make it passable. But it will always have that manipulated look.

File: FE2A07AD-23AB-476A-A5E9-2F66B39C6A69-2038-00000227A7DF8ACF.jpg (590KB, 1261x1639px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1261x1639px

>>3086884
Can't believe you mistook that for the genuine article.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.17.150426759
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	1261
Image Height	1639
Scene Capture Type	Standard