Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-26-2010, 05:47 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
I think it is just human nature to want to have the ability to improve our images, both by our own shooting abilities and then by whatever processing help will improve our efforts. It is basically why we buy new bodies or lenses....to gain an edge we think we don't have currently. I see this as quite natural and in no way a betrayal of the art. I hope a K5 will help me gain better low light shots.......some want FF to gain better DOF or less noise.......nothing wrong with taking advantage of what is available for our needs.
Regards!

08-26-2010, 06:40 PM   #32
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by jwiles Quote
Do you prefer to "get it right the first time" by honing your skills in the field and producing great photos from the start or rely heavily on software (i.e. Photoshop) to produce your desired product. For reference, take a look at the OP article on line at Max Out Your DSLR Sensor - Outdoor Photographer | OutdoorPhotographer.com
So, When you take a photo, to get it right in camera, you've left everything at natural. No boosting of sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc. No adjustments of WB, no digital filters. Correct? Because if you are not, then make no mistake about it, you are post processing. The only difference would be the tool you are using to do it. Quite honestly, if I'm going to show/print a photo, I want to see what it looks like As I am preparing to do so, on more than a shitty 3 inch screen where the results of doing so can actually be seen. There is No lack of 'craftsmanship' in doing so.

The people who don't shoot RAW or RAW+ because they don't like the results of the RAW file, don't seem to be aware of what RAW even is. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a digital camera that did not shoot RAW in some form. The difference is whether or not it gets saved.

So you can mark me down for software. If that makes me less of a photographer than others here, so be it.

08-27-2010, 12:45 AM   #33
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,263
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
It's like asking, "What is your preferred way of making pancakes, mixing the batter or cooking them?" It's both. It's a two step process, and it's never meant to be all one or all the other.
Great simile! But it's more of a 3-step: prepare; shoot; process. This is especially obvious in some involved studio work, where the setup may take hours or days, the snapping of the shutter may be done by an assistant, and much darkroom effort ensues. "Getting it right in the camera" is an amateur, dilettantish attitude fostered by fantasists who never had to satisfy a client. Consider it a game -- or a Game (political-religious-economic-athletic-artistic), which I define as a system for structuring and occupying one's time when not doing anything productive.

QuoteOriginally posted by Urkeldaedalus Quote
Usually I would say I use software, but in the last few weeks I have enjoyed used the K-7's developing tools to create images from my RAW files. I like the fact that you can still play with your images, but the number of options you can use is significantly reduced, so it still gives you the challenge of having to capture the image in camera.
You captured the image when you pushed the shutter. Everything else you do in-camera is PP, executed on a tiny computer more powerful than the PC-AT's of a generation ago. A digital camera is a computer with a lens, that's all. You have fewer editing options with your digicam mainly because of small LCD screen size and inadequate interface. Some image editors have versions that can run from a memory stick, whether SD/XD/MS or USB; there's no theoretical reason why GIMP can't be tailored to run on any particular camera. It would just be a bit slow with current hardware. But give Moore's Law a chance. We'll see uber-editing warez on cams Real Soon Now.
08-27-2010, 02:10 AM   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
We'll see uber-editing warez on cams Real Soon Now.
we already have photoshop on Iphones.

I'll present another extreme. Sometimes it is impossible to produce an image in camera. the DR is too great and the subject moving too fast in dim light to make a coherent representation of it. The truth of it all is that as soon as you press the shutter you are editing, so the question of whether you have used photo shop or not becomes rather pointless.

The following image is a complete lie:




"All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.”-Ritchard Avendon


08-27-2010, 05:21 AM   #35
Junior Member
jwiles's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Photos: Albums
Posts: 45
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by raider Quote
interesting thread.

personally i will aim to get the right pictures the first time using the camera. If i dont get it right the first few tries, i try and try again. If all else fails, and i really want to retain that photo, i will do a simple PP but i am not thrilled by my achievement.

I am much more satisfied when i can tell myself that those great shots are done on the field. I am okay with fine tuning of the exposure using PP, however.
Although I've done some extensive PP, I 'm with you for two reasons. 1. As you said, "I am much more satisfied when i can tell myself that those great shots are done on the field." 2. I stare at my computer 4 - 6 hours a day for my FT job. The last thing I want to do after that is stare at for another 4 hours. Kind of a dilemma because I know the importance of a properly processed or "developed" picture. In addition to that, although I used to work in a darkroom for several years, and loved it, I don't get that excited about PP software.
08-27-2010, 05:22 AM - 1 Like   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
You can't pigeon hole photography like this, it really depends on a particular photographer's style to which he / she can use some or all of both methods. For example, if your work is exclusively HDR, how on earth can you "get it right first time"?! All the work is PP.

For my own personal technique, I try to get it right first time but PP is equally important. I can sum it up as follows:

Getting it right first time:

- ensuring that the focus is spot on
- ensuring that my exposure is as accurate as possible
- ensuring the correct ISO, aperture etc. is as required
- ensuring that the composition is what i want / need to minimise cropping
- ensure that the 7D is level using the inbuilt spirit level so that the horizon isn't squint preventing rotation and crop in PP

PP work:

- correcting for chromatic abberation
- noise reduction (Noise Ninja)
- sharpening
- curves adjustments
- vibrance / saturation adjustment
- white balance adjustment
- crop if required (sometimes a square crop is lovely)

This PP has no bearing on my skill as a photographer; if i've taken a rubbish shot to start with (ropey composition, badly exposed, out of focus, camera shake) then there is no PP in the world that will make it look better.

Both are important.

Last edited by Big G; 08-27-2010 at 06:41 AM.
08-27-2010, 06:26 AM   #37
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
we already have photoshop on Iphones.

I'll present another extreme. Sometimes it is impossible to produce an image in camera. the DR is too great and the subject moving too fast in dim light to make a coherent representation of it. The truth of it all is that as soon as you press the shutter you are editing, so the question of whether you have used photo shop or not becomes rather pointless.

The following image is a complete lie:




"All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.”-Ritchard Avendon


I'm not budging on PP......the best shooters in the world use extensive processing....there is just no getting around it. What some of you are saying makes as much sense as saying you want your wife or girlfriend "all natural". You get yourself a good early morning look and then come back and tell me about it.......

But that is not what I replied for....the Moonshot......I am no fan of moonshots, and in fact somewhat detest them because they are boring and very uninteresting. But......yours is one that I do find to be interesting and different...very nice!
Best Regards!

Mrs Rupert- 64 years old last month....Hair white as snow, hide like an old leather jacket left out in the sun, eyes like shriveled olives in a week old Martini........but a little make-up, and some PP.......who would guess? I rest my case!

The "COOL" is sign language...she teaches the Deaf.


08-27-2010, 07:07 AM   #38
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I'm not budging on PP......the best shooters in the world use extensive processing....there is just no getting around it.
I think you completely missed th point of my post...I suggest you pay attention.I'm not saying they never used PP or darkroom skills to improve their images, I'm saying that getting the image right in camera and using PP to enhance the message you're trying to get across in your image is important. But there are no PP techniques that can make up for poor technique. If you want to work at a professional level, you need the camera skills and the post processing skills in order to express your vision.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
What some of you are saying makes as much sense as saying you want your wife or girlfriend "all natural". You get yourself a good early morning look and then come back and tell me about it.......
You never know, I might prefer my women to be natural. I would prefer my girlfriend to be happy with her body instead of enduring painful and expensive treatments to embody some artificially imposed cookie-cutter Ideal of feminine beauty.

However,lets keep the discussion on photography.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
But that is not what I replied for....the Moonshot......I am no fan of moonshots, and in fact somewhat detest them because they are boring and very uninteresting. But......yours is one that I do find to be interesting and different...very nice!
Best Regards!
explain,why do you find it interesting and different?


QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Mrs Rupert- 64 years old last month....Hair white as snow, hide like an old leather jacket left out in the sun, eyes like shriveled olives in a week old Martini........but a little make-up, and some PP.......who would guess? I rest my case!
whatever floats your boat mate.

Last edited by Digitalis; 08-27-2010 at 07:34 AM.
08-27-2010, 07:46 AM   #39
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,543
My aim is to get it perfect in the camera. Since that is a rare event, modern editing software saves my butt.

Seriously, one of the things I notice is that different lenses need some adjustments to camera settings to be "just right". My 35-70 tends to underexpose. Some lenses need the contrast higher. I don't always have the time to do this. PP saves the day.
08-27-2010, 07:55 AM   #40
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
I think you completely missed th point of my post...I suggest you pay attention.I'm not saying they never used PP or darkroom skills to improve their images, I'm saying that getting the image right in camera and using PP to enhance the message you're trying to get across in your image is important. But there are no PP techniques that can make up for poor technique. If you want to work at a professional level, you need the camera skills and the post processing skills in order to express your vision.



You never know, I might prefer my women to be natural. I would prefer my girlfriend to be happy with her body instead of enduring painful and expensive treatments to embody some artificially imposed cookie-cutter Ideal of feminine beauty.

However,lets keep the discussion on photography.




explain,why do you find it interesting and different?




whatever floats your boat mate.

WOW! I think you are a little on the edge sir. My statement was not in reference to you, it should have been obvious since I was in agreement with what you said...had you read it.....but instead, in disagreement with those that disparage any PP procedures. Chill out a little, this is not a life or death discussion.....and I like my women pretty, how they get there is not my concern...and it is the same with those that view photos...processed or not. That is the real world, where I live.
Regards!
08-27-2010, 08:32 AM   #41
Forum Member
LucyGoosey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Jersey
Photos: Albums
Posts: 86
I guess I'm more partial to getting it right in camera first b/c of my photographing needs. I love capturing memories to have and share with others. For example, when I travel I want to capture that perfect scene of a snowcapped mountain the way it was through my eyes. I'm not a fan of too much retouching, like using pp to remove a tree that was in the frame. For portaiture and other paid work, that's a different story...you do what you can to make the client happy.
08-27-2010, 08:54 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,685
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
But there are no PP techniques that can make up for poor technique.
And similarly, there are no shooting techniques that can allow one to get the same control over the image one gets using PP techniques. If you *truly* wish to control the appearance of images - and that includes the desire get it as close to your impression of how it looked in real life as possible - then you will *necessarily* need both techniques.
08-27-2010, 09:07 AM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
And similarly, there are no shooting techniques that can allow one to get the same control over the image one gets using PP techniques. If you *truly* wish to control the appearance of images - and that includes the desire get it as close to your impression of how it looked in real life as possible - then you will *necessarily* need both techniques.

Exactly. As Ansel Adams said "the negative is the score; the print is the performance" and in the digital age that equally applies to RAW files. However,as a Professional musician I can personally tell you that you that there isn't much worse than a bad score.

That image of the moon and stars is impossible to achieve in a single frame. The moon was shot with a canon 1D MKIIN with a 400mm f/2.8L IS with a 2X teleconverter. The Stars were photographed with a Pentax 50mm f/1.2 and the clouds were computer generated Using volumetric textures applied to particles using Lightwave 9.5 and it was all put together in Photoshop.
08-27-2010, 10:53 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 581
I don't class that moon as a photograph, it's digital art.
08-27-2010, 11:33 AM   #45
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Big G Quote
I don't class that moon as a photograph, it's digital art.
May be in fact "digital art" but it is more interesting and eye catching than most moon shots...by a wide margin IMHO. Why limit ourselves with all the great tools at our disposal? I love to see a wide spectrum of styles and processing procedures....don't care for every one, but they are interesting and often outstanding as well. I do "natural" all the time.......I've got more Squirrels than I can count, it is fun to see something different.
Best Regards!
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!
camera, photography, software
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Social Group - Camera vs Software jwiles Travel, Events, and Groups 1 08-24-2010 08:38 AM
Poll - Format of Preference cwfossil Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 16 02-13-2010 04:32 AM
Pentax camera software philippe Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 05-09-2009 11:16 AM
Do you have a preference? simonkit Post Your Photos! 7 04-20-2009 11:22 AM
Used Camera no software Firedawg Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 2 12-03-2007 06:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 PM. | 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