I will put it out there – is the difference between a good photographer and a great photographer the time spent sitting in front of the computer after the photograph is taken?
This springs to mind based on a few US photographers I have followed over the past few months. There is a particular photographer in the US who has a huge forum following. If they post a series of shots it is not unusual to get over 5,000 views (I have seen as high as 20,000). These shots are highly edited photographs, sometimes changing the colour of the background, hair and even introducing skylines / objects not in the original shot. The final result is outstanding, but I in some cases I have seen the unprocessed images and the difference is chalk and cheese.
The above is just one example – but if I was in this to make money (which I am not), should time be invested in the art of photography, or the art of post processing?
What are your thoughts on this?