Not necessarily how you go about doing your post work, or what software and/or setting you use, but rather just before/after examples of your results.

For example:

Before.  A lot of people (including me before I really started playing with ETTR in the field and LR at home) might just discard this shot outright.  WAY overexposed and unfixable, right?

PAT15002 N420AT Spraying Before by FredMan, on Flickr

Maybe not!  Cropping, exposure reduction, levels, gradient filters, sharpening, dehaze, contrast, and noise reduction gave me this final image.

PAT15002 N420AT Spraying by FredMan, on Flickr

This was done entirely within Lightroom.

Show us your examples.

Here's another example of why overexposure, with digital photography, is much better than underexposure, as long as you're not clipping the levels.  I was using shutter-priority and matrix metering that ended up giving me an f/18 aperture, resulting in a very underexposed main subject.  I should have either gone full manual mode or used spot metering on the helicopter.

This was very hard to work with for me; trying to get the helicopters lightened and the sky darkened.  Combinations of general level changes, gradient filters, and radial filters.  I'm not 100% happy with it but I turned a throwawy into something I can live with.

This is a great example of why you should consider ETTR; for me, it's a LOT easier to pull overexposure back than push underexposure up.

PAT16055 N9677N Fueling Pair by FredMan, on Flickr

PAT16055 N9677N Fueling Pair by FredMan, on Flickr

ETA, this is also why you should ALWAYS shoot in RAW.  Look at the guy on the deck of the truck.  In the original it's all just a dark mass, but with RAW editing you can pull an amazing amount of information out of the data.

Those are some really great examples!

I've done almost zero post-processing, except for cropping of images,  but now I'll have to do some experiments.

Until they make cameras that see light the way our eyes do,  there will always be a need for image processing.

I can't wait for that day to happen.  Then maybe just once I'll get to photograph a glorious sunset and end up with a photo
that comes anywhere close to what I saw with my eyes.

Ost

If you are shooting raw files, you get lots more editing room to play with.

Here is a good external thread about what you can do, and often why you want to do it:
Article at Nikonians.org

Almost a counter-example, but this shot required very little processing to match my mind's eye memory of the moment.

OOC:
DSC_4566_ by FredMan, on Flickr

Post:
Sunset 20170221 by FredMan, on Flickr

This one was really tough for me; trying to bring down the near-blown out white of Palmer's coat without underexposing everything else.

Probably should have brought it into Photoshop for final processing but was lazy and did everything in LR.

OOC
Palmer Pose OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Post
Palmer Pose by FredMan, on Flickr

Wow.

I have a lot of learning to do with processing.  I would not have even attempted some of the examples you have posted.  You made them look good.

Nice.

I'll see what I can come up with.

Neither would I, until Zack showed me the way of ETTR.  That overexposure in my OP wasn't intentional; camera was on Manual and I didn't notice until reviewing the images.

Now, when I'm ETTRing, I usually don't push it that far, but LR and raw format gives you a lot of room to work.

I shoot raw all the time.  I am not sure what ETTR is.  I dont have LR.  I use Nikon NX-D and Sony IDC.

I have been there.  Take some shots and have that "OH SHIT" moment when you realize the dial is not where it should have been.  

ETTR is Expose To The Right, meaning go for +1 - +2 EV.

There's a thread about it somewhere.

lulz

Not the best OOC/post example, but thought I'd try for some milky way last night becasue the atmosphere was so clear.

Unfortunately the moon was also big and bright, and washed out most of the detail.  But still, there's stuff there if you work at it.

OOC

Moon-washed Milky Way by FredMan, on Flickr

Post

Moon-washed Milky Way by FredMan, on Flickr

Wow

I've been waiting to see what you might toss out!

But that's not really a OOC/Post, right?  Left frame is a shot of you taking the shot?

ETA but it sure does show us the scene you started with.

Not a very dramatic pre-/post-processing, but...

SOOC
Attached File


Processed
Attached File

No major edits, just Adobe RAW tweaks, noise reduction, and a high pass filter.  Although since I wasn't editing it for anywhere but this thread, I didn't pay too much attention to details like the green contrast noise in top right.

Attached File
Attached File

True. It's a shot of me, taking the shot. But I thought it gave a good example of the conditions that day and of me setting up the shot, verses the end result.

Here's maybe a better example.....

RAW



FINAL IMAGE

I really like your standard treatments; very nice work.

Here's one I just dug out of the spray archive.
Ware Spraying-OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Ware Spraying by FredMan, on Flickr

What programs are you using for editing? I see Adobe doesn't sell just Photoshop anymore, you have to pay for a subscription.

You can still get Photoshop CS6 (no longer updated) and they just put out an update to Photoshop Elements as well. Both are just bought.

i just pay $10 a month for the subscription reall. Get Photoshop, Lightroom, Bridge, a website, etc.

Thanks.

Nice shots!

Did this an hour ago. Friend brought over a new puppy so I put up a couple of speedlights to see if I could get something interesting real quick. I think its decent example of being able to make something out of not much in post.

Out of the camera:



After maybe ten minutes in PS and LR.



In a normal situation I would work on doing much better in the camera. I try to have a light touch in post with most images. Its like nails on a chalk board when I see stuff where a guy just cranked on the clarity slider and called it good. Best advice I have heard about post work of any kind is go too far then come back where you think it looks good and then usually take just a little off that. I found it to be a fair rule of thumb.

Nice work.

Composition on this is great.

Camera was in manual exposure from some a set up I had done previously. I literally just grabbed the body and saw that I had was something I could work with and hit the shutter.

Its far from the right way and not how I usually shoot but I thought it served as an example of what post can save.

These were all done via LR on my phone. I don’t have any examples from my other photos.

Attached File

Attached File

Attached File

Thanks.

Nothing too dramatic here.  This was shot in aperture priority, at f/11, with exposure compensation set to +2/3 EV.

Post work was mainly cropping, some highlight/shadow sliders, some sharpening, some vibrance, and adding a linear gradient filter.

N9785C Outbound Underbelly OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

N9785C Outbound Underbelly by FredMan, on Flickr

Hm.

I'll say, the first dog picture retouch is visually stunning.

But I come from film, and there is a certain pride in getting all done in the box. I spent some time in the darkroom 'fixing' problems, and occasionally for artsy purposes.

But I never shoot in raw/nef, you do all that tweaking to your camera, like seasoning a steak, then you throw it all out so you can wizard it later in Ps/Lr.  I dunno, not being preachy/argumentative, and looking at some of the things here, I may need to revisit my stance.

I can't see shooting a wedding or spot news event like that, though. I have learned to never, ever, ever trust the window on the back of the camera, but you can kinda see that you've got saleable images. I'd worry that everything was too far in one of the gutters to rescue.

And, I take an opposite tack. In film, highlights mean no emulsion left. It's *exceptionally* hard to fix slide film highlights. I've also rarely had luck with digital imagers trying to find detail in the white end of the pool (and, believe me, I crack that curve like its a whip!!). On the other hand, I have a lot of luck rescuing people's underexposed images. Might wind up grainy, but imagers (I thought, anyway) typically sacrifice highlights in the dynamic range to increase the number of levels of dark available.

Maybe it's different with professional rigs?

I guess, after hovering over the post button a second, this may be the difference between many of you and I. A medium jpeg has served me well for around twenty years. I just.... just don't know what to do with 24MP. And I don't relish the idea of spending 30 minutes a photo (I *especially* wouldn't trust batching) getting things tweaked.

As it is, my workflow is camera > card (Usually, I can remote control and pull images via USB)>folder on the desktop>cull with whatever stock image sorter win ten came with (hate it, really. New laptop. Did use ACDSee)>run selected images through CS6 (I don't have the internet for a cloud subscription, and ain't paying monthly), tweak exposure, light sharpen occasionally, some cropping, and that's about it.

Maybe I need to get out of my comfort zone a little bit. I DEFINATELY need more trigger time on this body. Bought it new and I'm only at around 7-8k clicks. (I spend a lot of time fighting the controls. Wasn't that way with my D80).

Oh well, my thoughts. I'll try to shoot something I can share that I've tweaked. Lately it's been disappearing nasal cannulas and zits and making faux depth of field blurring... lol

I shoot thousands of pics a week, I cannot afford the disk space to store raw image files on everything. Nor do I need them, get the shots right to begin with, its no big deal.

There is some stuff I shoot where I do shoot raw+jpg, but to say that raw is mandatory is silly.

I tried that overexposure thing with a shoot this summer and everything looked like crap. I guess I need some better idea of how to achieve the results like are in this thread.

Kind of a strong response there, right, Zack?

Couple of points, and I'll defer...

'get it right in camera' isn't a fallacy. There are plenty of credible photographers who get what they want, the first time. It's a choice. Some people seem to want to get an image, then do things to it post. Some don't.

'any image ... room for improvement' Also disagree. There's been several times in my life I've pulled one into Ps, and after looking at it on the big monitor, said... nah. I like it. Some people feel the need to tweak everything. Some don't. It's all different ways, and if you ever were paid to produce results in a short turn around, you may feel differently about the concept of extended work flows. I personally have appreciated sending stuff to newspapers and magazines without having to spend an hour trying to get it where I wanted it to begin with. Or, in a couple of books. Doesn't matter what you do, the print to paper kills the picture.

On the other hand, I've spent over an hour on one frame recently, of a terminally ill person, that I want to erase some of the ravages of disease, and present her in a more positive light. (shrugs)  different strokes, all I can say.

Sorry, I missed your response.

I always need to get out and shoot more.

Making a false equivalency of saying that if you don't use raw, you should get a P&S is mighty bold, sir. Maybe you could explain how that's the 'power' of a DSLR, it might help. For me, the main power of a DSLR is that I don't have to wait for the negatives to come out of the soup to see if I have what I need or not. That's it. I still use the same lenses, flashes and modifiers I was using in 1982, for the most part.

I'm not certain I can even agree that leaving a camera on auto (green) is a completely Bad Thing. The more creative you want to be, the more restrictive it is. But if you need that shot uploaded in five minutes, it can be a good safety net if you get in the weeds. I've even heard the P (program) mode being called 'professional' mode. lol (I still shoot a lot of manual, especially with multiflash).

Dunno. I am weak from the point that I don't have enough depth in raw. I'll commit to trying it. But, you're making a lot of assertions I'm not sure you have the background to defend. I will accept that I need to read more on your overexposing technique, and I'll revisit raw. But, you're off base saying that it's raw or nothing. A thousand people getting paid to take pictures every day somehow manage without raw, for a fact.

Adobe RAW is a powerful tool so long as you shoot in RAW.  It is 99% of my editing these days to be blunt.  So long as you shoot RAW you can do all sorts of tweaks to detail, light, contrast, etc with just a few clicks.

Attached File

Attached File

I shoot manual and raw almost 100%, myself, but there are scenarios where JPEG and in-camera results are adequate - and perhaps necessary.  I've talked to a couple sports and editorial guys who have deadlines that do not allow the luxury of Lr/Ps, for example.  

See, that's where you're wrong.  The only tweaking I do in-camera is the same tweaking you do with film.  Shutter, aperture, ISO, and focal length.

All the tweaking you may be doing with jpg settings IN your camera, the rest of us are doing with our raw images OUTSIDE the camera in LR/PS or equivalent.

Raw gives you so much opportunity for better final images, and we're not talking photochopping or edits that add things that aren't there.

I get the idea of "getting it right in the camera", but a lot of times the limitations of any gear prevent the camera from reproducing what I see in my mind's eye.  And that's what I'm aiming for with processing.

Is that side of the business really that time sensitive?

99% of my LR work is done in under 2-3 minutes.  I rarely bring anything into PS.

For a sports shoot, for a given set of images, I'd imagine a quick process could be done and then copied over to the rest of the keepers.  I mean, they have to spend a few minutes culling shots, don't they?

Nothing too dramatic here...

Evening Airliner OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Evening Airliner by FredMan, on Flickr

MUCH more dramatic.  Whites are still legitimately blown out (clipped for sure) but there's some data you can work with.

Sun Pass OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Sun Pass by FredMan, on Flickr

This one started with a better base image.

Sun Pass OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Sun Pass by FredMan, on Flickr

But...  how do you know you have anything to work with? (honestly) ESPECIALLY if you're intentionally overexposing a couple of stops. Then, you have the shy model and she wants to see some of the initial poses. You can't show anyone a raw; they look like shit. Say you're shooting a really nice home exterior at sunset. You go paint the house; how would you know the exposure is where you need it?

I dunno, I've thought about this all day today. I do like your analogy, though.

I'm just the messenger.  :)

My point is that "raw vs JPEG" is like "9mm vs .308". They both do the job, but some jobs fit better with certain options. Saying "everybody should shoot [pick your favorite]" is a fairly extreme argument.

...and let me repeat: I shoot raw and manual almost exclusively.

You would show her the capture either on the camera or on the tethered computer. The raw file includes a JPEG version of the same shot that serves as the preview (plus all the raw data used to crunch the JPEG in camera), so you'll see the same image on the camera screen as you would with pure JPEG. Same with the architecture shot: Pull up the shot on the camera and review the histogram to see if it's what you want it to be (which will vary based on the composition). You could do everything you do now and simply switch to "RAW" or "RAW+JPEG" and get the same results with the advantage of having all the raw data should you want to wring even more out of the photo at a later point in time.

The only real change some have suggested to your normal flow is the ETTR method. ETTR is somewhat akin to a different shooting grip or stance. As long as you're putting rounds on target (or getting your desired photo results), then there really isn't anything wrong with your current technique, but trying a different technique may offer some improvement. Maybe. That said, the science behind ETTR is quite sound. The only downside is it requires post processing to gain its advantages.

I'd reply that raw vs jpg is like powder-puff 9mm wadcutters vs. +P+ 9mm Gold Dots for carry.

Lots of people shoot wadcutters, some even carry with them.  But no serious shooter is going to carry his G19 with anything other than some flavor of high powered hollowpoints.

And as long as we're talking about guns...

Diamondback Rollmark OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Diamondback Rollmark by FredMan, on Flickr

Minor tweaking on last night's sunset.

Sunset 20171204 OOC by FredMan, on Flickr

Sunset 20171204 by FredMan, on Flickr