Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-29-2015, 08:51 AM   #61
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 48
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It is really tough to do what you are attempting. Certainly you have a vision of a scene that you have seen. You still have choices about white balance, sharpening, whether or not to burn highlights or dodge shadow areas.

It feels to me as though you are reacting against over processing and saying that no processing is better, but in the digital age, there is no such thing as no processing. You are just choosing neutral settings, but there is still some sort of processing going on.

As I said before, you are a photographer and your vision is real. As long as you are meeting that vision -- either with or without post processing -- then you don't need to worry about what others think. I guess I would just say that, whatever settings you have chosen on your camera, those are your post processing. They are what turn your RAW image into a jpeg that is viewable.
Thanks.

I just wondered if there was any consensus regarding the the possibility of composing an image on the spot that captures what is present, in that moment, and having a satisfying result without post. Now I realize I was asking a question that was mistaken to begin with, at least within the context of this forum.

I imagine the camera to be like a mirror. I try to employe it in that way. I look at what's in front of me, I look at the screen, make adjustments until I get the best match that I can. Maybe I'm on a fool's errand. It wouldn't be the first time.

06-29-2015, 09:48 AM   #62
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
QuoteOriginally posted by ghostdog Quote
Thanks.

I just wondered if there was any consensus regarding the the possibility of composing an image on the spot that captures what is present, in that moment, and having a satisfying result without post. Now I realize I was asking a question that was mistaken to begin with, at least within the context of this forum.

I imagine the camera to be like a mirror. I try to employe it in that way. I look at what's in front of me, I look at the screen, make adjustments until I get the best match that I can. Maybe I'm on a fool's errand. It wouldn't be the first time.

A camera is not a mirror to reality, it is merely a somewhat limited sensing device. It cannot (without some additional steps) come close to replicating the scene which was observed by the human eyes and brain. A flat RAW image requires some processing, period. A jpg processed in camera is a processed final image and may or may not approximate what you think you saw, depending on your own personal standards. Flat, bland SOOC photos may make one feel they produced something more "pure" or "honest", but likely won't garner any further attention, if that is what is being sought. Nevertheless, if that is what satisfies you, then you have achieved your goal.
06-29-2015, 11:53 AM - 2 Likes   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,558
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I would just say that, whatever settings you have chosen on your camera, those are your post processing. They are what turn your RAW image into a jpeg that is viewable.
I view all my raw photos in a hex editor. No need to post process. It's sometimes a little tedious to judge if they're any good or not from just looking at the bytes, but it's worth the effort to see the unprocessed files.

Also, I can see the matrix.
06-29-2015, 12:09 PM - 2 Likes   #64
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,705
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Also, I can see the matrix.
...and dead people.

06-29-2015, 12:29 PM   #65
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,856
QuoteOriginally posted by mikeSF Quote
A camera is not a mirror to reality, it is merely a somewhat limited sensing device. It cannot (without some additional steps) come close to replicating the scene which was observed by the human eyes and brain. A flat RAW image requires some processing, period. A jpg processed in camera is a processed final image and may or may not approximate what you think you saw, depending on your own personal standards. Flat, bland SOOC photos may make one feel they produced something more "pure" or "honest", but likely won't garner any further attention, if that is what is being sought. Nevertheless, if that is what satisfies you, then you have achieved your goal.
Exactly... there are no bonus marks for posting unfinished work, and there's no penalty for using software to approximate what you think you saw. In most cases, nature far outshines anything your camera can reproduce, in every aspect. A photographic image is a pale representation of what is real. The question here is, is it your interpretation, or the interpretation the camera manufacturer built into the camera. What's real and what's not has noting to do with it.

Post processing software gives you the ability to make it your interpretation. You can use it or not, but not using it doesn't make your work , more real, or more honest, it just makes it RIcoh's camera engineers' interpretations.
06-29-2015, 01:42 PM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,461
QuoteOriginally posted by ghostdog Quote
Thanks.

I just wondered if there was any consensus regarding the the possibility of composing an image on the spot that captures what is present, in that moment, and having a satisfying result without post. Now I realize I was asking a question that was mistaken to begin with, at least within the context of this forum.

I imagine the camera to be like a mirror. I try to employe it in that way. I look at what's in front of me, I look at the screen, make adjustments until I get the best match that I can. Maybe I'm on a fool's errand. It wouldn't be the first time.
As in the quantum world, if you observe you alter. If you are trying to persuade people to observe the mundane then by taking images of 'mundane' objects you are changing their status from mundane to worthy of being looked at and this must alter your view of 'the moment' when you took it and your perception of reality.
06-30-2015, 11:51 AM   #67
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 48
Original Poster
Thanks everyone, and I do mean everyone, for your posts. There was quite a spectrum of response, from those who felt I was trying to create some sort of a dust up, to those who understood my question and tried to walk me down the path, and the usual assortment of "defenders of the faith" found within any public forum. I learned a lot about attitudes towards post production and the culture of digital photography. I may fiddle around with post just to see how it affects the quality, and "reality" of my pictures.

I don't take many pictures. I have the GR with me everywhere I go, and when something grabs my attention I bring it out and in manual try my best to capture what I've noticed. For whatever reason the GR feels like the perfect camera for the way I use it. It has an almost Zen like quality; unobtrusive, easy to use, quiet. I'm grateful to have such a well designed and inspired camera. I actually have two of them, one being the limited edition. Couldn't resist.

Cheers.

Last edited by ghostdog; 06-30-2015 at 01:17 PM.
06-30-2015, 04:39 PM   #68
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,446
QuoteOriginally posted by dms Quote
Ghostdog--It seems to me you started this discussion pretending to be somewhat naive and taking a position that you knew was too simple, in order to elicit a lot of comments. We on the other hand thought you wanted a discussion/dialog. Shame on you.
What he said. I know that sounds a bit abrupt, but as near as I can tell, the OP really did not have a question. What sounded like a typical Noob question was really phishing of a sorts. This is all cool, I guess, but would not have gotten a fraction of the participation were it not for the tone of the original post.


Steve

06-30-2015, 04:41 PM   #69
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,446
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
I view all my raw photos in a hex editor. No need to post process. It's sometimes a little tedious to judge if they're any good or not from just looking at the bytes, but it's worth the effort to see the unprocessed files.

Also, I can see the matrix.
ROFL!


Steve
06-30-2015, 04:45 PM   #70
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,446
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Exactly... there are no bonus marks for posting unfinished work
Dang! I am going to have to print this out and frame it!


Steve
06-30-2015, 04:46 PM   #71
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Dang! I am going to have to print this out and frame it!
But only after processing...
06-30-2015, 05:31 PM   #72
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 38
QuoteOriginally posted by ghostdog Quote
One shot, based on what was in front of me. It looks like what was there. In your example of PP the subject doesn't look like what was there, but I absolutely understand the advantages of PP as you clearly demonstrated, if I was looking to produce an image that lives up to a desired photographic standard, which I'm not. I'm trying to capture what was there, in that moment, as I saw it. I don't know how I could ever do that after the fact in PP.
You're absolutely wrong. What the camera captures is NOT what you saw. Your eyes see in massively high dynamic range, and cameras do not. The way cameras work is nothing like how the human eye works, which is why photographers have to work so hard to restore blown highlights and details lost in shadows.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
background, beauty, bokeh, camera, digital camera, film, filters, gr, image, images, lens, photo, photos, post, post production vs, question, question about post, ricoh gr, skill, software, thanks, time, vs actual image, wonder, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No image captured - mirror jammed? K-30 moreilly Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 09-18-2014 02:08 PM
A Q10 image and a question about sensors TedW Pentax Q 2 07-03-2014 11:23 AM
Slide Duplication: Image is tack sharp in viewfinder but captured image is not. MD Optofonik Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 15 05-12-2014 05:18 PM
Generic question about image stabilization feature frascati Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 2 03-27-2014 03:18 PM
Post production question(s) bluebronco Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 08-06-2009 11:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top