[wildman]

Am I Missing Something?

Yes - the fundamental difference between a analog and digital device.

A film camera creates an actual physical entity (the negative or positive) that more or less mimics an actual real world image that has intrinsic meaning like "sharpness" and luminosity or your dog Spot.

A digital camera generates only meaningless abstract data until it's interpreted by something and/or someone what that data means -PP.

With a film camera you capture an image with digital - data.

I know you probably get all that but my guess is, at least subconsciously, you are still thinking of digital photography as a analog process.

---

Last edited by wildman; 01-29-2016 at 05:18 AM.

[monochrome]

I think we need a combination of skill with the camera and skill with the software (or in the darkroom). Digital cameras have 'skill' embedded in processing algorithm. Even Costco developing labs have skill embedded in the Fujifilm developer and printer.

I once read an online argument that Ansel Adams extensively post-processed his images in the darkroom. A proof example given was a progression of prints of "Moonrise" over 20 or so years during which the image 'evolved' to the dark, eerie, empathetic version so often shown today. The article quoted an interview in which Adams said it took him twenty years to get the print of that mostly lucky shot right.

Even so, he had the skill to hurriedly climb on top of his truck with a box camera, in rapidly changing light, and expose it.

[MrB1]

All that matters is the final photographic end result, viewed on a screen or in a print. What does it matter to anyone else how that final image is produced except, of course, if the "anyone else" wishes to learn more about the techniques and/or equipment/software used to create it. What is really irritating is when some people say or imply that to be a real/serious/competent/respected photographer, you must/should or must not/should not do something in a particular way.

Cheers.
Philip

[honey bo bo]

Hi Dewman. I agree with you 100%. I think too much is being left to PP these days.

I take great pride in trying to get it right In Camera. Use Picasa to Crop, Contrast , some under exposure occassionally. Spent too many hours in my darkroom before the turn of the Century and not enough time taking pictures that didn't have to be manipulated.

[VoiceOfReason]

I generally bump the clarity and contrast a little and do auto tone, but that is it. I guess that is the difference between me, as a amateur, and a professional who spends a long time on each image. I'd say I have some of the same equipment they do, and I can get what I need in focus, but mine aren't professional. I simply take pictures of what I like.

[TER-OR]

Generally I find contrast and exposure adjustment suffice for most processing. On those longer-ranged shots where atmospheric haze or just moisture in the air start to show, then sharpening can help an image, particularly if you're cropping pretty severely. I'm not a highly skilled post-processor in that regard, though.

[timb64]

The (post)processing aspect is a part of the hobby I really enjoy. There's so much a decent package can do with RAW files it's worth spending the time with free trials of Lightroom,Phase One etc to find a programme you enjoy and works for you.

[Alex645]

I have a SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f:2.8 macro.... and if I do MY part, the image will be EXTREMELY sharp! I did not mean to imply that NO PP was necessary. I seldom have an image that I can't improve on with an editing program. Either add or subtract some contrast, a little saturation or even once in a while a little unsharpmask. But to employ 8 or 9 different steps to arrive at a viable end product? Something was wrong to begin with! Plain and simple.

On one hand, you have a valid point in terms of sharpness, but not everyone has a sharp fungus-free prime, and if they do, they may be shooting wide open, have never AF fine tuned in the menu, or at f/22 and have a lot of diffraction and aren't aware or taking the necessary steps to avoid all those elements that may soften IQ including cheap filters, high iso or what may be a blur problem with marginal shutter speeds or usage of things like IBIS/SR with a camera mounted on a tripod.

On the other hand, if we are talking about film, that always required the use of a second lens (enlarger, projector, or even the loupe). Ansel Adams, the ultimate perfectionist shooting and darkroom, employed dozens of steps, even after "getting it right". And as others have already mentioned, RAW straight out of the processor is unacceptably sharp by any measure and does require something to recover acceptable sharpness. In PS, unsharp mask is an easy and fast fix, but does create artifacts that some photographers dislike. My current favorite methodology requires the use of duplicate layer, a 3 pixel high pass filter as an overlay, that then is merged with the original layer. It's not 8 or 9 steps, but if I don't create a script or action, it's more steps than unsharp mask but doesn't create the sorts of artifacts like grain or noise I see with filters like unsharp mask or with Nik Collection adding structure.

For sure, GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), but many of us come to the forum because something less than ideal happened and we're asking medical advice for our ills. For sure, prevention is the best policy and starting with a prime and clean technique is the goal.

[Oldbayrunner]

It doesn't take 8 or 9 steps to sharpen a photo or at least it doesn't take me that many. How sharp depends on the lens you are using and your skills, however if you are using a kit lens and even if you have done your part then the photo will need a little sharpness tweaking. Plus you fail to remember even if you take that super sharp photo with your FA 50mm at an ISO 3200+ I don't give a crap how sharp it is you are going to have to do some balance between noise and sharpness, unless you like noisy pics. Don't forget a lot of people are shooting at a lot higher ISO then previously. That's the beauty of today's cameras and processing it is possible to achieve a balance. I remember doing a heck of a lot more tweaking in my days of film developing then I do today. Go grab a roll of ASA 1600 or 3200 film and see what you wind up with...LOL

[nomadkng]

I continue to read tip after tip of how to "sharpen your images" by taking then into endless editing programs, running them through dozens of different steps, yada, yada, yada. De-noise this, then take it into Topaz and do that, then use Light Room to do so and so.


Am I missing something here? One of the first things they taught me in the US Navy PH "A" School in Pensacola, Florida way back in 1964 was how to focus a lens. It seems to me, with some of the remarkable lenses that a goodly portion of us own, there should be NO NEED for all this hullabaloo!
?

8 or 9 steps in image processing?

mmm... Let me count MY pp steps:

1- Adjust WB
2-10 ACR adjust: Lens correction/Exposure/Recovery/Fill/Contrast/Brightness/Saturation/Vibrance/Clarity
11-14- ACR adjust Shadow/Darks/highlight/Lights corrections if required
15-16- ACR apply light noise reduction as needed
Export to photoshop
17- Crop as needed
18-Resizing as needed
19-22- Apply highlight/shadow/white clip/black clip balance
23-25- Curves
26- Selective dodging/burning
27-28- Clone tool/Healing brush work
29-Saturation
30- Gradient overlay(s)
31-Other misc adjustments
32-Levels RGB
33- Levels Midtones
34- Sharpening (one of 3 different methods depending on subject matter and desired "look")

I think you are 20-25 steps short of a good workflow, honestly.
If you aren't doing most of these steps regularly, I'd argue you aren't maximizing your image's potential. And this workflow is for my top 5-10% of my images ONLY. The ones that have gone through 2-4 rounds of culling and then selected as potential "Wall hangers". So yes they are in focus, exposed properly etc.

The caveat is if I am shooting events with limited turnaround time, or there are specific restrictions on pp of images being submitted. But for my artwork portfoilio, the steps listed are pretty standard.


Additionally:
-You are also comparing apples to oranges. Navy photo workflow was closer to journalistic requirements, which is minimal to no post processing allowed.
-If you are assuming sharpening or other post processing is done to correct technical flaws. That is an incorrect assumption, I think nearly everyone will agree on the concept that PP was not meant to "salvage" an image. And if you are inferring those who post process can't take technically sound images, you will really rattle some cages. Other have called post processing a "crutch". It most certainly is not.
-There are nearly as many ways to post process as image as there are ways to swing a golf club. Not every way works for every person's "style". Just because a post processing concept is presented, doesn't mean you must apply it to your images. Just like every swing tip in Golf Digest won't work for you. My dad loved trying every new swing tip he ever read and 2x a year I'd spend a week purging him of most of those "tips" because he could not physically execute them. Some like pepper and salt, some like tabasco. Doesn't mean you need to flavor with pepper, salt AND tabasco.

[kh1234567890]

But for my artwork portfoilio, the steps listed are pretty standard.

I suppose if you are trying to create 'chocolate box', 'fine art', images to sell, for punters to hang on walls to brighten up their sad lives, then that is the way.

If you are just messing about, like I do, then this is far too much effort. I am happy to give up when the image looks and feels like what the scene did when I took the shot. The middle way

[bxf]

I think we need a combination of skill with the camera and skill with the software (or in the darkroom). Digital cameras have 'skill' embedded in processing algorithm. Even Costco developing labs have skill embedded in the Fujifilm developer and printer.

I once read an online argument that Ansel Adams extensively post-processed his images in the darkroom. A proof example given was a progression of prints of "Moonrise" over 20 or so years during which the image 'evolved' to the dark, eerie, empathetic version so often shown today. The article quoted an interview in which Adams said it took him twenty years to get the print of that mostly lucky shot right.

Even so, he had the skill to hurriedly climb on top of his truck with a box camera, in rapidly changing light, and expose it.

Exactly.

I am of the opinion that many great photographs were created in the darkroom, by a combination of chemical selection, processing time, dodging/burning, choice of papers. The PP software we use now is simply the digital equivalent.

[lsimpkins]

I continue to read tip after tip of how to "sharpen your images" by taking then into endless editing programs, running them through dozens of different steps, yada, yada, yada. De-noise this, then take it into Topaz and do that, then use Light Room to do so and so.


Am I missing something here? One of the first things they taught me in the US Navy PH "A" School in Pensacola, Florida way back in 1964 was how to focus a lens. It seems to me, with some of the remarkable lenses that a goodly portion of us own, there should be NO NEED for all this hullabaloo!


I'm not talking about needing a "Limited" lens or one with the * in it's description..... heck, you can get some pin-sharp images with a $30 Pentax-M 50mm f:1.7. But.... that's just my opinion and it ain't worth much these days. 1964 was a long, long time ago. Maybe what I learned back then doesn't apply now, huh?

I will chime in on several aspects of this issue. First there is no way to fully sharpen an out of focus image, despite some software attempts to do so. Second, some people go way overboard in their attempts to sharpen images without leaving artifacts that go along with it. Finally, when shooting raw images, all of them, even those perfectly focused and taken with the best of lenses, can benefit from a little simple sharpening.

[pathdoc]

good subject with exposure good, sharp, framed. composed, the least amount of post processing can be the best thing

This is a SOOC JPEG from the K-5, 16MP and highest quality, factory settings, without any post processing. Several viewers on Flickr commented on the sharpness.



If that's the sort of commentary I'm getting on SOOC shots, post-processing is not for me. I'm going to concentrate on taking pictures and improving my camera hold, settings, composition and lighting before I spend hours in front of the computer tweaking everything. (Of course if I were doing this professionally it would be quite another matter, but I'm not.)

For me, if a shot needs post-processing it means I failed in some fashion.

[jatrax]

Am I missing something here? One of the first things they taught me in the US Navy PH "A" School in Pensacola, Florida way back in 1964 was how to focus a lens.

Yes you are missing something. Sharpening or any other post processing has NOTHING to do with being in focus. Whether you shoot film or digital, jpg or RAW the fundamentals have not changed. A well exposed, properly focused, nicely composed image of an interesting subject is the basis of any photograph. Without that all the PP in the world will not help.

But that image without being developed is not very interesting, on film it cannot even be seen. On digital it looks like a bunch of 1's and 0's on a memory card, again nothing to see.

If you shoot film, you take that image to the developer and printer and get back the best image the developer and printer can make of your image.
If you shoot jpg, then the camera will develop it, apply sharpening, white balance, contrast, noise reduction and a dozen other "adjustments" to your image.
If you shoot digital RAW then it is your responsibility to develop the image on the computer by applying all of those adjustments your camera did automatically.

Processing is not good or evil, it is just part of the workflow of any image. What you are missing is that some workflows require the film to be developed, some the camera to do the developing and some for the person at the computer to do it. Pick the workflow you feel comfortable with and don't complain about other people doing things differently.