To process or not to process ... that is the question

Here's a processed shot I took in the Fisher Theatre, Detroit MI:

    
Recently I watched a very popular match-making variety show (Fei Cheng Wu Rao) produced in China. During the show one of the male contestant mentioned that he is a keen photographer and his "principle" for taking photos is that there will be no post processing done on any of the photos he has taken. This is more commonly referred to as SOOC (straight out of camera) shots. Much to my surprise, the host of the variety show expressed his own thoughts about post processing and alluded that while "over-processing" would be frowned upon but at times subtle tweaks (level, curve, cropping etc) are required to bring out the best in a photo. Then, the host introduced a female contestant who is a part-time professional photographer. The host then went on to show a few shots taken by the female contestant (which has obviously been digitally altered). The work of the female contestant was complimented by a series of "wow" and "ooohhh" from the audience. The host then turned to the audience and asked whether they think the photos are good - the audience was unanimous in their response and gave a resounding "YES".

These days, post processing are sometimes frowned upon by photographers - what was interesting for me to observe is that the overwhelming majority who has expressed a distaste for post processing is almost always "newbie" photographers or people who do not take much photos. I have never once heard a professional or well-reputed photographer says he/she is against post processing - you know why? It is because they all do post processing - all the time. 

The most criticized form of post-processing that has been under constant fire is HDR (stands for "High Dynamic Range") photography. "It makes the photo looks artificial..." said one "it looks fake" another responded. For me, I agree that over-processing is "no no" but post processing is still necessary to bring out the best of a captured shot. 

In my years of taking photos, I have seen how too much HDR actually destroys the photo rather than improving it. This is a common problem amongst people who has just started experimenting with HDR photography. There is a learning curve that all of us would go through whether we do HDR photography or not. I remember that when I started fiddling with Photomatrix (a HDR processing software) - I have created some really awful results (which I thought looked awesome back then - weird huh? sounds familiar?). As time goes by, I realized that under tweaking the photo is better than over tweaking it - sometimes less is more. In fact, more recently I have almost stopped doing HDR with a preference to process photos using Camera Raw instead of pure HDR - however, HDR or not, I still continue to post process my photos. Really, there are gradients to everything and one should learn while one does. I see many people taking reasonably good photographs that with a few minor tweaks could be improved considerably. 

Here's why I think post-processing is an acceptable part of digital photography:

1. In the days of film photography, post-processing was also performed - this was commonly known as dark room techniques. Today, dark room techniques have merely taken a different (and less expensive) form with the digital age - this is now called Photoshop or Lightroom.
2. Most digital cameras have limitations and are not programmed to give you a faithful representation of the actual scene. It is a well known fact that the human eyes has a far wider dynamic range compared to a digital camera - this is why the human eyes is the best optical tool in the world. To suggest that SOOC shots gives the most faithful representation of the actual scene is simply ignorance.
3. Anyway. what's wrong with altering the actual scene in the photo to project a mood or theme that the photographer wants to convey in the photo? The Masters (I’m talking about painters of old), would use a myriad of tools to help them with their art and they don't always stick with the most faithful representation of the actual scene - otherwise, there will be no such thing as Impressionism. So, if the Masters can use tools like this it is OK for you to do the same.
4. It's not ok to perform post processing tweaks in Photoshop but ok for you to change the exposure, brightness, sharpness and contrast settings in your camera? Really? Isn't that double standard?

In the end, for me there is only one simple rule - the question is whether I like the photo or not? If I like it, then it doesn't matter that the photographer has done a bunch of post processing jobs on the photo. Wouldn't it be the same for the rest of us? The next time when you hear a comment like ... "oh, I don't perform any post-processing on my photos" you'll know that's a newbie talking!