• Daniel Wretham

Landscape Photography - After The Shot

Updated: Aug 19, 2019


It seems quite a popular thing today for landscape photographers to list the contents of their back pack and share with readers what they use out in the field which I will no doubt do as well at some point but I thought why not share everything that comes after the picture for a change ?

So many people forget this part of the process and focus heavily on the taking of the picture aspect, which don't get me wrong is massively important and should absolutely be got right in camera first but you don't often hear what people use after they have got it.

For me the process of the picture being caught on camera is just the very start, the process that comes after from downloading your picture to having it hanging on a wall is equally important but far less talked about.

I have always made the comparison of the taking of the picture being a movie script and the post processing is the performance, a good performance and good script are equally important if you want a brilliant production.

The idea here isn't to say "Look at the kit I've got" but more to say, this is WHY I have this and to another degree, I got this but wished I hadn't and then had to get this......

Hopefully saving a few of you some hard earned cash in the process and giving you an idea of which things work best.

So you've been out, you've caught some cracking light and you can't wait to download your pictures on to your computer and start the second part of the process, the aftermath.


landscape photography, dorset, post processing

Computer/Monitor

For my computer I decided to go for an Apple iMac 27" 5K Retina display which was fitted out with a larger SSD drive and a lot of extra RAM and the fastest processor I could get and I have to say I'm very impressed with it.

The importance of extra RAM is something that most won't have been bothered by until they started using process heavy programs like Photoshop that require a lot of memory.

I was originally a PC man but after a long time decided to make the switch from PC to Apple in order to sync across many devices and I just felt they were better made, less prone to virus attacks etc......

I liked to process on the 27" display as it was really crystal clear and a joy to use.

The price is expensive but I do feel that its very well made and does what I want it too so therefore can be justified.

So all sounds good so far BUT would I change anything ? Well, yes I would actually and eventually I will do.

Instead of going for the IMac I would now have gone for an Apple Mac Mini simply because I would have preferred to use a different display rather than Apples own which is only capable of reproducing colour up to sRGB colour spaces, what would have been better would be a dedicated matte monitor such as those by BenQ or Eizo which are capable or reproducing 99% of the RGB colour space.

This might seem like a small thing but when you get into printing it becomes the be all end all of everything and colour reproduction is right at the top end of your priorities.

The diagram below shows the colour difference between sRGB & RGB, and further to this is "Pro Photo" colour space but that makes no sense to use to me as you don't have monitors capable of showing it so you are effectively looking at colours you can't see ? Maybe science will catch up in future but for now the most sensible profile to use is RGB.


SRGB v RGB dorset landscape photography