[Dewman]

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?

[Unregistered User 8]

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

[drypenn]

There's an overproduction of test charts, and there are a lot more brick walls in the world since 2004, as compared to 1964.

[tduell]

With digital you often have some image noise, which if removed does result in an improved image but at some cost to the sharpness...hence the need to do a little sharpening.
Post processing digital images shot in RAW is essential. If you want to avoid doing that shoot JPEG and hope the camera can do all the necessary processing for you.

Cheers,
Terry

[a5m]

I also completely agree with Dewman. Granted I am an amateur photographer at best who shoots as a hobby. For those who shoot for a living I can understand the need for post processing, but I feel with having digital now a lot of the work is being done by software. I often think when I'm reading reviews of lenses how many of those images are straight out of the camera or post processed, and I'm sure 9/10 have some work done to them. But who am I to talk - I can see myself heavily post processing my images once I see what software is capable of.

I'm a car guy so I see it like the way new cars today have automatic transmissions and traction/stability control. Older cars lack those features and demand more skill from the driver, and some car enthusiasts still prefer that. That's why older cars that are lacking a lot of the newer technology still hold value, or in some cases, cost more than the new ones because they don't do most of the work for the driver.

[noelpolar]

No digital image can exist in any meaniful way without processing. Simple.

The rest is just a matter of degrees. You choose...... the camera manufacture with some input from you, or (in the case of Raw etc), you, your skills and the software you've chosen....etc.

Whatever you decide..... no right or wrong....just choice!

As far as shooting skills etc go...... nothing changed their either I reckon..... even if you use the best software to process an image...... garbage in.....garbage out.... still rings true I reckon.

[simon_199]

No digital image can exist in any meaniful way without processing. Simple.

Exactly ! The raw data from the sensor need to be "interpreted" in terms of a visible image by some sort of processing, you can let the camera carry the full responsibility for the whole transformation (i.e. , shoot jpeg), or carry the bare minimum ( i.e. , shoot RAW). If you choose the second option you have the freedom to apply essentially no further processing after the necessary demosaicing and conversion to the image format of your choice.

So it is indeed possible to obtain images with almost no post-processing, besides what is necessary to convert some raw analog signals into a matrix of RGB pixels. But i think the result would be pretty dull (and with otherworldly colours if white balance is also switched off ), no matter how expensive your lens and sensor are.

Of course i agree with the OP that to rely on the power of post-processing to compensate for "bad technique" is not a good practice, that maybe has become more widespread with the advent of digital imaging. However not every shot can be carefully planned and mistakes or adverse conditions can always happen, and the larger error margin we have thanks to heavy post-processing can help to salvage some shots from the trash...

---

Last edited by simon_199; 01-29-2016 at 03:16 AM.

[Rondec]

I think the whole point is that you have to make decisions. You can decide to shoot in green mode and cede control of all of the decisions to the camera. You can shoot in camera jpeg, but fiddle with the jpeg settings. You can shoot RAW and develop presets that work well for different situations.

In the end, the goal is to have the shot match whatever your internal vision for the shot is. Sometimes that is easy, sometimes not so easy, but you use the tools necessary to get your there.

I will say that if you take a photo into Lightroom, shot with an excellent lens and in focus and just export it, as is, the jpeg created from that shot will tend to look pretty flat. It would be better to shoot straight out of camera jpegs than to do that. Clearly, if you missed your focus completely, there is no amount of sharpening that will recover the image. The tough ones are images shot in poor lighting and really high iso -- those ones may be sharp, but at iso 6400, noise reduction may steal quite a bit of that sharpness away.

[NZ_Ross]

I think part of the issue is monitors and zooming in to a high level of detail verses the older process of developing a negative and printing.

Images can look worse at the on-screen pixel peeping stage, so that can drive some of the post processing behaviour. Unless you owned a darkroom, and were developing and printing you own film (I wasn't back in the day) then you had much less involvement in the post processing process.

[beachgardener]

bring the slider back to where you can’t see the sharpen do anything and that degree of sharpening is usually enough

[noelpolar]

For what it's worth...... you can stuff up completely and still have something memorable.....I completely missed focus on this Pelican as a case in point.

[PJ1]

I am a complete novice but I will stick my oar in the water anyway. I don't think you can sharpen an out-of-focus image in any meaningful way. But I think all digital (well, all of mine anyway) can benefit from a bit of tweaking. When I apply some "clarity" in Photoshop Elements (usually about 15) and compare it with an out-of-camera jpeg, it is as if a light veil has been lifted off the image. I believe that is because it gives a little extra contrast on the edges. But I don't over cook it.

[Dewman]

I think you've missed my point.... or perhaps I didn't make my point clear. 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.

[jonlg]

The way I look at it is that David Bailey, Sam Haskins, Richard Avedon etc all post processed their work even in the film era. Why wouldn't I want to do the same to maximise contrast, saturation, mood, impact etc? (note that I am referring to dodging, burning, sharpening etc - not digitally fabricating stuff that wasn't there in the first place which I think isn't really photography)
Jonlg

[beachgardener]

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