Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 20,160
- Location
- Woburn Sand Dunes
the problem being, the preofessional photgraphers you seem to refer to dont actually exist.
Does anyone here refuse to post process?
- Thread starter ScarySquirrel
- Start date
the problem being, the preofessional photgraphers you seem to refer to dont actually exist.
I dont see that as a problem.
I also belief in peace and an end to poverty but because that doesnt exist does not mean its a problem or that i should change my beliefs.
Im sure there will be photographers out there that are still old school and dont rely on photoshop or digital imaging to bring their exposures to light.
So you've got the exposure right and your camera spits you out the default bland RAW file for developing. It is, as mentioned in this thread umpteen times, deliberately bland, to capture the largest amount of information.
How do you convert it? Using DPP? ACR? C1? All will give you different results. What colourspace do you use? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Prophoto? They'll give you different results too. What bit depth? 8? 16? Different results. What file format? TIFF? Jpeg? DNG? Yup, different.
So you've managed to do that, and god knows how you've decided what is or isn't digital imaging by this point, how are you now done? You've just got a digital file (which is, I can assure you, different to the RAW file). Are you going to print it? Upload it somewhere? Just view it on your computer screen? Send it to a digital picture frame?
You are looking at this in the narrowest possible terms. Take picture, convert to jpeg, done. It just DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. There is no possible way to get an output file from a RAW file without manipulating it in some form or another. Which means there cannot possibly be any 'good' digital photographers, because every single one of them has manipulated their image beyond the original exposure.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,777
I am so surprised you cannot see the bigger picture.
As a side note; I take it the 10-20 you use with your Sony is a true representation of what you see. Equally the 50mm 1.4 with its shallow DOF and crazy bokeh ... again a true representation?
Is it worth me asking about filters again?
Your example is completely flawed. When you play an instrument you can hear the sound output straight away. When you take a digital photograph you HAVE to extract the output from the digital file. Otherwise you don't have a photograph, you just have a file on a CF card. Or a negative/positive in a film cannister.
No, your right they are not a true representaion of what the eye sees or what is before me. I've used filters and i will continue to use them. I even use HDR and a lot of photoshop and do a lot of PP.
But, thats because im not a photographer and nor can i even claim that i am. My knowledge of photography is very very limited.
I know most will see this is contradictory but i dont see it as such. Im not a photographer and dont have any training and thus im using aids to help me.
But my belief is what i have already stated and that is that a good photographer will capture what he wants in the exposure the 1st time when he hits the shutter button.
If you extract the digital image without doing any PP then its the same is it not because your taking the image as is taken without adding or subtracting from it.
But you can't, that's what I'm trying to explain to you.
Is that all a film photographer does then? get the exposure correct and then he's done?
Maybe if he/she gives it to boots to do a 1hour job.
How many professional film 'togs do you know that use boots? They will be in the darkroom processing their images!
You seem to be blind to the difference between your average Joe Blogs on the street who goes to boots and photographers who process their images.
Shooting RAW is just like shooting film, the only difference is you process the negative on the computer rather than in a darkroom.
Panzer
"We know you dont. GET HIM OUTTA HERE!"
Sorry, just reminded me of the South Park Imagination land episode with Michael Bay
Ok, read this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
Then this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing
Then this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
Then a load on how each RAW developing program interprets the data from the RAW file using different demosaicing algorithms to give you different results, whether that be in sharpness, colour, tonal graduation, noise, whatever.
RAW developing IS a form of post production. You are manipulating data to give you a certain image.
I think with some reading up your opinion on this matter will change substantially
I think with some reading up your opinion on this matter will change substantially
I'm not sure it will.
Panzer
When I first started Photography not very long ago I was disappointed with how my pictures were coming out and thinking it was the equipment and me not being very good with it.
However on reading up lots of tutorials/websites/blogs and forums I have come to realise that the photography process does not stop at the moment the shutter button is pressed and further work is required to bring the image out and show it at its best.
I'm still learning but post processing is part of the process of developing the image as both how you want it and what you want it to convey to the viewer.
However on reading up lots of tutorials/websites/blogs and forums I have come to realise that the photography process does not stop at the moment the shutter button is pressed and further work is required to bring the image out and show it at its best.
I'm still learning but post processing is part of the process of developing the image as both how you want it and what you want it to convey to the viewer.
It wount.
Then I bid you good day sir
Likewise
Well it was a pleasant discussion where we respected each others opinions which sums up photography as its a matter of personal preference, experience and knowledge.
PS. I do post process (in PS) my images and I do HDR
That much is evident.
I don't think you even understand what photography is. You've invented some imaginary, magical technique for capturing light in your head and named it 'photography'. In this world there is such thing as the perfect exposure and if you have the god given feature of having a light meter built into your retina then you will be the world's greatest 'photographer' (whatever that means because it certainly doesn't mean picking up a camera and taking a picture). You've totally lost the plot.
Maybe I spoke too soon about having a pleasant discussion.
I didn't realise that in this world there is no such thing as a "perfect exposure" so thanks for educating me. The fact that you even say there is no such thing as perfect exposure means your views are very limited as a perfect exposure is open to interpretation, opinions, and what you consider to be perfect others may not.
I wonder what photographers use to do before the invention of light meters and photoshop -they must have been rubbish.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,316
- Location
- Bristol
I have not read this topic fully, but I will - and come back with a more rounded view.
But, I post-process everything. I learnt to shoot on an SLR without a light meter and the post-production literally starts a second after you take the film out in the dark room. Everything you do from then on - from how long you develop the negatives to how you process the prints - is "old fashioned" PP. I see taking a photo in RAW/JPEG and then editing this in Photoshop no different.
Oh and just for the record, I'm 23, not a granddad, I was just taught from the basics up.
But, I post-process everything. I learnt to shoot on an SLR without a light meter and the post-production literally starts a second after you take the film out in the dark room. Everything you do from then on - from how long you develop the negatives to how you process the prints - is "old fashioned" PP. I see taking a photo in RAW/JPEG and then editing this in Photoshop no different.
Oh and just for the record, I'm 23, not a granddad, I was just taught from the basics up.
They guessed exposure based on stuff like Sunny 16, and they worked damn hard in the darkroom to do dodge, burn, enlarge, pull, push—everything we can now do in Photoshop. They manipulated just as much, only with different technology.