[HeavyCorPhotography]

I used to do a lot point and shoot photography, since I didn't realize how affordable getting into DSLR photography was. I was always convinced that all those great shots we were seeing were straight from the camera, and that the better camera was the reason for the awesome shots. However, I was not to be deterred. I messed with all the manual settings my little Samsung could muster, and did the best I could. It was mostly for product photography for things for my Etsy store, but I was very proud.
Just a quick example.

Then I finally got my first DSLR and... I realized that I wasn't getting much better photos than I was with my p&s. What could have gone wrong? So I asked around. I know some professional photographers, amateurs, hobbyists, etc... I asked them how many of them, if any, actually do post processing. I was shocked that every person I asked said they do it to at least some extent. Usually just small adjustments, but sometimes they would get heavy into post effects. I was taken back that all these years I had solely been trying to take the best shot with whatever I had on hand, and not realizing that post processing could have improved my end results greatly. Immediately after it occurred to me how this was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. Instead of messing around and fixing/cropping everything I had shot, I was focusing greatly on the composition and settings of my camera, and doing everything I could to take the best shot possible. Because of this I learned quite a bit about taking a good shot. I have since started to learn post processing and it has done nothing but improve upon all the hard work I've put into learning how to take a great shot.

What I'm getting at is, it's great to try and take awesome shots with whatever camera you have. Whether it's a 5D Mark III or a Kodak Easyshare. Do the best with what you have and learn how to take great shots. But people should never knock on post processing, because when good photography is combined with good processing it can help you can go from taking good photos to great photos and great photos to amazing photos.

My hat is off to all those who have managed to take amazing photos without the post processing, though. You have a skill many of us dream of.

[normhead]

I read this whole thread and I don't remember it being confirmed nor denied, so I'll ask...
Norm, are you're fish-eye examples on this thread at all de-fished in PP?

None of my images are de-fished in PP, ever. For whatever reason, I think the eye responds better to a fisheye than to a de-fished image. There must be a certain amount of distortion correction when the brain interprets images from our eyes, that makes it able to compensate for a degree of fisheye distortion. That being said, there are some images that just don't work with a fisheye, and some images you can't even tell a fisheye was used. Sometimes as in my 10mm fisheye image, the geometry of the surroundings look more natural with a fisheye, so you get the best of both worlds. No correction distortion, and very natural looking settings.

[wtlwdwgn]

SOOC is just doing the PP in camera. I wonder what their images would look like if the jpeg settings were set to zero?

The great thing about the digital darkroom is your finger nails don't turn brown after hours of processing prints!

[MadMathMind]

The great thing about the digital darkroom is your finger nails don't turn brown after hours of processing prints!

I'd put that just under avoiding working with chemicals that probably cause cancer.

[normhead]

I'd put that just under avoiding working with chemicals that probably cause cancer.

I don't know about cancer but I know a couple of guys who gave up their businesses because of allergies to photo chemicals.

[sherrvonne]

I used to do a lot point and shoot photography, since I didn't realize how affordable getting into DSLR photography was. I was always convinced that all those great shots we were seeing were straight from the camera, and that the better camera was the reason for the awesome shots. However, I was not to be deterred. I messed with all the manual settings my little Samsung could muster, and did the best I could. It was mostly for product photography for things for my Etsy store, but I was very proud.
Just a quick example.

Then I finally got my first DSLR and... I realized that I wasn't getting much better photos than I was with my p&s. What could have gone wrong? So I asked around. I know some professional photographers, amateurs, hobbyists, etc... I asked them how many of them, if any, actually do post processing. I was shocked that every person I asked said they do it to at least some extent. Usually just small adjustments, but sometimes they would get heavy into post effects. I was taken back that all these years I had solely been trying to take the best shot with whatever I had on hand, and not realizing that post processing could have improved my end results greatly. Immediately after it occurred to me how this was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. Instead of messing around and fixing/cropping everything I had shot, I was focusing greatly on the composition and settings of my camera, and doing everything I could to take the best shot possible. Because of this I learned quite a bit about taking a good shot. I have since started to learn post processing and it has done nothing but improve upon all the hard work I've put into learning how to take a great shot.

What I'm getting at is, it's great to try and take awesome shots with whatever camera you have. Whether it's a 5D Mark III or a Kodak Easyshare. Do the best with what you have and learn how to take great shots. But people should never knock on post processing, because when good photography is combined with good processing it can help you can go from taking good photos to great photos and great photos to amazing photos.

My hat is off to all those who have managed to take amazing photos without the post processing, though. You have a skill many of us dream of.

Funny you mention the Kodak Easy Share, the first time I tried using one I had the worst time, I took, and I mean as in me personally, the worst photos ever. I came back from a party with few good pics and 95% mistakes etc. I thought since I could use the Olympus p and s in automatic mode that it would be as easy.... Pffft, ugh no because I hadn't read the manual and had a preconceived idea that I would hate it. Lol, what I hated was my photo failure for the day.

[stevebrot]

Interesting shot Steve. You used a fisheye lens you say? Which one was it? Where did you post process you raw?
I am also using filters (a Lee set) with my wideangle shots. Would you get vignetting with a fisheye?

KMZ MC Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye on my Ricoh XR-2s film camera exposed onto Rollei Retro 100 film. The image was scanned using a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED scanner with some PP done in Lightroom. The image has not been de-fished. If the Zen has vignette, it is subtle enough that I never noticed.

For a sampling of Zenitar fisheye shots, both on APS-C and film:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=28796087%40N02&sort=date-taken-desc&t...eye&view_all=1

Only one of the images in the link have been de-fished. Some are more fishy than others. Fishiness depends on camera angle and the orientation of straight lines relative to the lens axis. In nature, straight lines are relatively rare and the eye forgives much when doing landscape stuff even with the horizon is bent.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-06-2015 at 11:02 AM.

[stevebrot]

None of my images are de-fished in PP, ever. For whatever reason, I think the eye responds better to a fisheye than to a de-fished image.

I agree heartily. The human eye is not rectilinear, though to be fair, it does project on to a curved surface. My vision might be aberrant, but at the periphery of what I see, straight lines are not.


Steve

[stevebrot]

The great thing about the digital darkroom is your finger nails don't turn brown after hours of processing prints!

I remember bringing up contrast in various parts of the print using fingertip heat. Oh, the horrors! Now days, I would wear gloves.


Steve

[reeftool]

I do no correction at all with my DA 10-17. I own that lens because I like view of the world it gives.l have a DA 15 for when I want rectilinear wide shots. I don't think the photographer that the OP talked to was spouting off Canikon snobery but just talking from experience. You really can't correct a fisheye lens. Anyone who has been around photography for a while knows that and they won't buy a fisheye unless they intend to use it the way it's made to be used.

[mcgregni]

In my experience, most ' get it right straight from the camera ' type comments are born of misunderstanding of what exactly constitutes image processing. Often the person will equate processing to manipulation and major surgery types of editing, compositing and adding or removing elements.



Often also they do not understand that camera produced jpegs are processed as well, just by the tiny computer brain in their camera rather than a vastly more powerful PC or Mac.

It's more a reflection of inexperience rather than anything else, but yes, I agree that gear snobbery plays a part, if the person assumes that their ' superior' brand and model can do so much more itself and that other ' inferior' types are those that require PP ' fixing'.

Who cares ... Lets just be reassured that our cameras are great tools for recording all the essential digital data to be extracted and transformed into great quality photographic images!

[normhead]

In my experience, most ' get it right straight from the camera ' type comments are born of misunderstanding of what exactly constitutes image processing. Often the person will equate processing to manipulation and major surgery types of editing, compositing and adding or removing elements.



Often also they do not understand that camera produced jpegs are processed as well, just by the tiny computer brain in their camera rather than a vastly more powerful PC or Mac.

It's more a reflection of inexperience rather than anything else, but yes, I agree that gear snobbery plays a part, if the person assumes that their ' superior' brand and model can do so much more itself and that other ' inferior' types are those that require PP ' fixing'.

Who cares ... Lets just be reassured that our cameras are great tools for recording all the essential digital data to be extracted and transformed into great quality photographic images!

If you go to the thread on no post processing images, you'll discover that there are those who understand that post processing happens in the camera, and their goal is to shoot jpegs and to set the jpeg processing features correctly before taking the image. So really post processing using the camera rather than using external software. They can't do what I can do, but for everyday snapshot images with good light, they can do surprisingly well.

[wildman]

Should I take this as a personal insult to my skills as a photographer or a general statement that her Canon 5DIII needs no correction and automatically enables her to be more creative than we mere Pentaxians?

Why necessarily limit this to only these two possibilities?
Perhaps it was just an honest statement about how she likes to work with no dark motives implied.

[MadMathMind]

I don't know about cancer but I know a couple of guys who gave up their businesses because of allergies to photo chemicals.

I don't think anyone has ever thought "Man, working with chemicals is so good for my health!"

[mcgregni]

In response to normhead just above, I agree that if someone chooses to shoot jpegs then the best results will be had when carefully controlling custom settings, in order to 'optimise' the in-camera processing .