Ultimate Output Quality versus Good Enough for Government Work

[xpatUSA]

Which side of the fence do you sit and by how much and why? Lets say plus 90 degrees is "ultimate" implying lots of effort going from raw with PS, GIMP, ImageMagick, RawTherapee, et al. By the opposite token, minus 90 degrees is OOC JPEG with no post-processing at all. Which puts "the fence" at zero degrees. (I like angular measure, LOL.)

I sit at around plus 40 because noise doesn't bother me much and neither do area contrasts where others might dodge or burn ad nauseam. Neither does stuff like power poles which others might clone out.

However I do sit in the positive half - mainly due to being a bit obsessive about detail.

Comments welcomed, of course!

[dem]

About -30. I can clone an occasional pole from a JPEG. Raw is for tricky lighting and an insurance for when I underexposed JPEG too much. My lenses are sharper than they need to be and the colours don't bother me much. Some like them warmer some like them cooler. Auto WB everything. Life's too short. I don't think I ever spent more than 15 minutes on editing a photographic image?

[DanK]

I don't think of this in terms of hours. I think of it in terms of quality and detail. Some photos can be brought up to a very high level in a short time. Others--because of lighting, stray elements, whatever--require hours to bring them to the same level of quality.

I'm not clear where 0 lies on your scale, but I suspect I'm always in the positive range. Making a photo look good is a big part of the pleasure of photography for me. The things that don't bother you do bother me.

My angular measurement depends on use. I never shoot JPEG, except on the rare occasions when someone asks for a snapshot just to document something. I would guess that this is something like 0.1% of what I shoot. For some things that I post online, I am often only moderately positive. The same is true of many of my candids of kids because the people who want them rarely notice when I increase the angular measurement past a fairly low level. But if I am going to print the image or send the electronic image to people who will critique it seriously, I usually up the ante. If I'm going to try to exhibit it, I take however long it takes.

So maybe I sit in the range of +45-85 degrees.

[xpatUSA]

I'm not clear where 0 lies on your scale

0 lies exactly half-way between the two extremes of "ultimate" and "good enough", Dan. For example, plus 90 degrees from "ultimate" has you "sitting on the fence"; neither the one nor the other.

Thanks Dem and Dan!

[DanK]

0 lies exactly half-way between the two extremes of "ultimate" and "good enough", Dan. For example, plus 90 degrees from "ultimate" has you "sitting on the fence"; neither the one nor the other.

Thanks Dem and Dan!

Yup, I understand mathematically, but I don't understand in terms of actual behavior.

[xpatUSA]

Yup, I understand mathematically, but I don't understand in terms of actual behavior.

I hadn't thought about it that deeply. Perhaps I was thinking of the amount of complex work - where zero equals moderate - the perfectionist sitting firmly at lots and lots and the "I couldn't care less" sitting at none.

[rpcrowe]

My answer is "IT ALL DEPENDS" it depends first on the use I will be making of the image... Some images are more important to me than other images...

As an example, I am less likely to devote a lot of PP to image destined for an item to be sold on eBay than a portrait - simply since I want the eBay image to look like it really is - rather than glorified in PP... I fact, I will often shoot eBay tems using JPEG rather than RAW...

Secondly, the amount of PP dedicated to an image depends on how much control that I have over the image while capturing it... As an example I will usually need less PP with a portrait that I have shot under studio conditions where the light and background is under my control than a portrait I have shot outdoors AND (this is a big AND) where I have not any control over lighting except for possibly adding some fill flash...

Finally - While it is always my aim to capture the best image possible, I enjoy PP and do not consider it a burden. Since I am not shooting for profit, PP doesn't enter into my bottom line profit. As an example shooting an event like El Dia De Los Muertos is for my enjoyment and PP is part of that enjoyment...

https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Dia-de-l...19/i-3Rf9CXT/A


However, if I were shooting a wedding for profit, any PP time would eat into my bottom line profit...

[DanK]

The problem is that the amount of time isn't all that highly correlated with perfectionism.

I have some images that I haven't gotten right to my satisfaction after a long time and a lot of work. Some, however, don't need much. So, for example, here's an image I just posted on the nature forum:



It's not the world's greatest image--not very original--but the processing is pretty much done to the standards I would need to print. It just didn't take much. This global adjustments were texture, vibrance, midtone contrast, and high-pass sharpening. The local adjustments were some dodging and burning--not very much--and turning the background black. That and a quick crop and I was done--probably not much more than 5 minutes. In contrast, I posted an architectural shot a few months ago that I think isn't ready to print even though I have spent at least an hour on a half on it, probably more, during at least 3 editing sessions.

[xpatUSA]

The problem is that the amount of time isn't all that highly correlated with perfectionism.

While you were typing I solved "the problem" by editing the OP. The time factor has gone.

[pschlute]

An interesting question Ted

I am very ruthless in editing my pictures. I delete over 90% of what I capture. I have two approaches to pictures I deem worthy of keeping (I exclusively shoot raw):

1. An image which is a record of somewhere I have been, or people who I have been with, but carries no particular artistic merit. This will be processed through a raw converter using a pre-set in my converter I have established over the years. I will generally crop the image and do any spotting required. I will convert it straight to resized jpeg. Takes a minute or two per picture.

2. Images that are what I set out to produce. These I will adjust WB/contrast/exposure/gamma/colour/orientation and maybe a few others before creating a TIFF. The TIFF will then be worked on in Photoshop where selective dodging/burning ; cropping ; spotting...image removal/replacing will be done. Image finally converted to required profile and resized to requirements before output sharpening (maybe selective) is applied according to requirements. This may take anything from 15 minutes to most of the day (if the image is worth it).

My knowledge has increased hugely in the 16 years I have been doing digital photography. It has taken me a long while to get to this stage.

[Manfred M]

Like Richard, I belong to the "it depends" category.

When I post images on social media, often there is no or virtually no work done on an image. Straight out of camera JPEG images are good enough, so I sit at 0 degrees for those.

If I am planning to exhibit, enter images in a competition or work on a large print, I get as close to 90 as I can and time is not a consideration.