View Poll Results: Do you make your images in camera, on on the PC?
I never do post processing.
0
0%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll
Post processing.
Former Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Originally Posted by RED MX5,Jan 30 2009, 02:30 PM
Hahaha, there is a mistake in the poll questions. The word "because" should be followed by three periods "...", because I'd like to see some elaboration. Just pretend the two extra periods are there. 
OK, I think post processing on a regular basis is for those who can't get their image right in-camera, or in some cases, when we're trying to produce high quailty prints. I believe that any decent photographer can make great images without the need to fix up his images later on, while others here feel that post processing is the mark of a good photographer. Since I see it as exactly the opposite, maybe I'm not worth my salt (something a guy who depends on post processing to get good images has implied in another thread). Here's the kind of image anyone worth their salt should be able to get easily, in camera, without any post processing.
Cropping, maybe, but other than cropping and resizing, what would be gained. The above images were shot for the Web and are exactly what I wanted, so I guess I'm an idiot and not worth my salt.
How many others are in the same boat.
OK, I think post processing on a regular basis is for those who can't get their image right in-camera, or in some cases, when we're trying to produce high quailty prints. I believe that any decent photographer can make great images without the need to fix up his images later on, while others here feel that post processing is the mark of a good photographer. Since I see it as exactly the opposite, maybe I'm not worth my salt (something a guy who depends on post processing to get good images has implied in another thread). Here's the kind of image anyone worth their salt should be able to get easily, in camera, without any post processing.
Cropping, maybe, but other than cropping and resizing, what would be gained. The above images were shot for the Web and are exactly what I wanted, so I guess I'm an idiot and not worth my salt.
How many others are in the same boat.
ALL IMAGES CAPTURED IN RAW FORMAT MUST BE POST PROCESSED.
Now, the amount, well, that's up to the user, but they must ALL have basic prossessing done. All the images you posted need post processing. It has nothing to do with getting it right in camera. I am not talking about cloning hotspots, etc etc. I am talking about capture sharpness, proper saturation, color balance, etc.
I also think you need to read about how the RAW format actually works. You CAN'T just save to jpeg and call it a day.
Former Moderator
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 18,852
Likes: 1
From: New York
Originally Posted by RED MX5,Jan 31 2009, 09:24 PM
It may be because I'm an old film guy, or becaue I'm just an old-fart, but I consider turning an image into something completely different to fall under the catagory of "experimental photography." I admire the people who can get intersting results that way, and sometimes do my own little "experiments," but I really prefer "straight photography." LOL, not entirely though, becaue I have no problem throwing out all the rules if it helps me get images that I like (or that the client likes).
JeffBox seems to think that someone implied that post processing was "cheating," but apparently I missed something. Who said it was cheating? Even if you do all your work in camera (as you most certainly will when shooting transparencies), you do all sorts of things to manipulate the images. Using the Zone system this carries through to the film processing and of course the printing, and if it's cheating, then all the greats are cheaters. Just because some people like to shoot natural looking images doesn't mean that other goals and approaches are in any way wrong. If anyone get's it wrong, it's the arrogant know it all's who are too inexperienced to realize that none of the rules are poured in concrete, and that many great (and famous) images don't follow any of the traditional rules, including composition, exposure, color temp or saturation, or anything else. I personaly think that it's important to learn to do things in the "accepted way," because it's the easiest way to produce images that others will like, but ultimately it all becomes "formula photography" and is pretty much deviod of individual creativity. I hate the attitude of the people that tout the rules while making photos that look just like every other photo contest entry ever produced, not becuase they're making bad photos, but because they are totally deviod of any cerativity even at the shallowest levels, and use the rules as a crutch, and a way to try to put down more creative artists. It's actually that way in all the arts, but it thends to be more common in photography because it's so easy to follow the rules and produce prints that win at the exhibiitons. The guys I admire are the humble guys, that break all the rules, and still produce stunning photos.
Post processing is a big part of the process sometimes, and has no place at other times. I am actually in total agreement with JeffBox, and think his short post really says most of what is worth saying about the topic. Just about every decision is a funciton of the desired end product.
JeffBox seems to think that someone implied that post processing was "cheating," but apparently I missed something. Who said it was cheating? Even if you do all your work in camera (as you most certainly will when shooting transparencies), you do all sorts of things to manipulate the images. Using the Zone system this carries through to the film processing and of course the printing, and if it's cheating, then all the greats are cheaters. Just because some people like to shoot natural looking images doesn't mean that other goals and approaches are in any way wrong. If anyone get's it wrong, it's the arrogant know it all's who are too inexperienced to realize that none of the rules are poured in concrete, and that many great (and famous) images don't follow any of the traditional rules, including composition, exposure, color temp or saturation, or anything else. I personaly think that it's important to learn to do things in the "accepted way," because it's the easiest way to produce images that others will like, but ultimately it all becomes "formula photography" and is pretty much deviod of individual creativity. I hate the attitude of the people that tout the rules while making photos that look just like every other photo contest entry ever produced, not becuase they're making bad photos, but because they are totally deviod of any cerativity even at the shallowest levels, and use the rules as a crutch, and a way to try to put down more creative artists. It's actually that way in all the arts, but it thends to be more common in photography because it's so easy to follow the rules and produce prints that win at the exhibiitons. The guys I admire are the humble guys, that break all the rules, and still produce stunning photos.
Post processing is a big part of the process sometimes, and has no place at other times. I am actually in total agreement with JeffBox, and think his short post really says most of what is worth saying about the topic. Just about every decision is a funciton of the desired end product.
Registered User
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
From: Cheshire
Being a newbie to the DSLR scene and revisitnig photography as a hobby after around 20 years away from an SLR, I end up post processing just about everything I shoot that I want to keep (or show people) ... because I have to while I relearn what I'm doing behind the camera.
Because I'm a lazy sod I hope to get to the stage where I'm happy with what I've shot and only post process when I want to, rather than when I have to.
Because I'm a lazy sod I hope to get to the stage where I'm happy with what I've shot and only post process when I want to, rather than when I have to.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,586
Likes: 4
From: San Diego, CA
^^no offense man...but i have trouble reading your posts when they start exceeding 2 full paragraphs 
I think you're drawing too many conclusions about NYC's assumptions based on your responses. I personally think your images need alot more attention. NYC said they need PP attention based on their current condition...not because he assumed that you didn't PP them. Whether they were PP'ed or not doesn't change the fact that they need MORE PP'ing.
Suffice it to say...I think you're a purist. Nothing wrong with that...but that's one of the extremes. Most everyone else is landing in the middle of the bell curve.
Anyway...this discussion is getting too nit picky...i'm staying out lol
I think you're drawing too many conclusions about NYC's assumptions based on your responses. I personally think your images need alot more attention. NYC said they need PP attention based on their current condition...not because he assumed that you didn't PP them. Whether they were PP'ed or not doesn't change the fact that they need MORE PP'ing.
Suffice it to say...I think you're a purist. Nothing wrong with that...but that's one of the extremes. Most everyone else is landing in the middle of the bell curve.
Anyway...this discussion is getting too nit picky...i'm staying out lol
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
What I need to do is post up a tutorial on the two basic forms of post processing. To achieve the most effective workflow it is important to understand what you can do with the in-camera post processing, and what you have to do later on the PC or Mac. Nichaigo, I did say myself that the images I posted needed work, and selecting images that needed work was no mistake. The camera and software that was used is two generations out of date, and the processing was all done based on guesses before the shutter was released. I didn't expect anyone to try to pic so many nits
, and if I had I'd have posted a tutorial first.Anyway, tutorial is coming, but I have to do some screen captures first. I thought I already had screen caps of everything I'd need, but once I started uploading them to my gallery I noticed that some of the most important ones (where you set up post processing for all formats) are missing. I'd do the captures right now, but we're waiting for our doctor to call and I may be about to leave for a few days in the hospital. LOL, if that happens, I'll post the tutoral as soon as I regain my freedom.
Here's one screen cap that will blow most of the theories about RAW being raw sensor data right out of the water (for those who understand what it specifies).
The fifth entry (not the one that is highlighted) adds processing to the sensor data before it is stored, no matter what format you use. The RAW sensor data is modified before being stored in RAW format! (With an effect similar to the toe we get with film.)
The same is true of the sixth entry. Here, the camera takes two images and does post processing before storing the RAW sensor data. You can't do the same processing on the PC later because you can't make the second image later. You can do something similar, with effort, but the results are rarely equal.
This suff isn't as simple as some of the would be experts here seem to think.
If that means what I think it does, then I agree.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by NFRs2000NYC,Feb 4 2009, 01:32 AM
Unfortunately, you would be incorrect in your thinking. Post processing has many different levels. I will say it, agree with it or not, it's industry standard....
ALL IMAGES CAPTURED IN RAW FORMAT MUST BE POST PROCESSED.
Now, the amount, well, that's up to the user, but they must ALL have basic prossessing done. All the images you posted need post processing. It has nothing to do with getting it right in camera. I am not talking about cloning hotspots, etc etc. I am talking about capture sharpness, proper saturation, color balance, etc.
I also think you need to read about how the RAW format actually works. You CAN'T just save to jpeg and call it a day.
ALL IMAGES CAPTURED IN RAW FORMAT MUST BE POST PROCESSED.
Now, the amount, well, that's up to the user, but they must ALL have basic prossessing done. All the images you posted need post processing. It has nothing to do with getting it right in camera. I am not talking about cloning hotspots, etc etc. I am talking about capture sharpness, proper saturation, color balance, etc.
I also think you need to read about how the RAW format actually works. You CAN'T just save to jpeg and call it a day.
What I'll do is post up a good tutorial covering both the primary forms of post processing we have avaiable and explain enough about RAW and other formats so that nobody will be left confused.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,586
Likes: 4
From: San Diego, CA
one thing you might want to consider is that ppl (including myself) don't want to leave any processing up to the camera. I like to wait til I get back home to my 24" HD monitor at home and can touch up with Lightroom or PS where I have much better visibility AND control.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,601
Likes: 1
From: La Habra
I have read about purists who would not physically move a twig or piece of trash in their landscape work. I find that completely bogus because you get to choose your perspective, focus, and exposure anyway. So that's just in the spectrum from image capture to print. Post processing is just a link in that chain. I suppose those purists get some spiritual value about from not moving the twig but I'm all about the image.
Ansel's trilogy (The Camera, The Negative, The Print) expresses this chain very well though it could use some updating for digital work flow.
There is a wrench thrown into the works for photojournalism. There is a need to not alter the scene for authenticity but if you take a RAW image it is conceptually unavoidable to "make no alterations" to the digital capture. Even JPEG's from most modern dSLR's have a custom curve or other RAW-to-JPG settings applied (I use a custom curve even in my lowly D70s). Nobody could argue that, for instance, cloning in an additional missile into a launch scene isn't over the line. And I'd almost say the same for removing a sign 'sticking' out of someone's head or power lines that ruin a shot. I say almost because it doesn't really change the meaning of the photo but journalists need veracity above all else.
Ansel's trilogy (The Camera, The Negative, The Print) expresses this chain very well though it could use some updating for digital work flow.
There is a wrench thrown into the works for photojournalism. There is a need to not alter the scene for authenticity but if you take a RAW image it is conceptually unavoidable to "make no alterations" to the digital capture. Even JPEG's from most modern dSLR's have a custom curve or other RAW-to-JPG settings applied (I use a custom curve even in my lowly D70s). Nobody could argue that, for instance, cloning in an additional missile into a launch scene isn't over the line. And I'd almost say the same for removing a sign 'sticking' out of someone's head or power lines that ruin a shot. I say almost because it doesn't really change the meaning of the photo but journalists need veracity above all else.
