[fstopfanatic]

I agree DJ, to much reddish hue added in my experiment. At least I'm learning to not be afraid to try something new.

[honey bo bo]

I didn't realize that jpeg's were edited by my camera. I'm beginning to think differently already. I took a few RAW photos yesterday and edited them in my camera. I'm assuming that the in camera editing is very limited, but it does allow me to experiment a bit. The first photo is a jpeg from the camera. The second is a RAW image I experimented with. Am I headed in the right direction?

The jpeg has a slower shutter speed(1/250) and the white balance is on auto which would make a more natural colour and brighter scene . The Raw is 1/350 and white balance is on manual. Shows how well the camera auto settings can tweak a pic for you.

[fromunderthebridge]

Can we please cut the clever semantics? We all know what "unprocessed" really means in day to day terms - the JPEG image that the camera writes to the card on factory settings, as when turned on and fitted with a lens straight out of the box.



This is the sort of thing I can use post for without admitting to the fact. AFAIAC, anything more than that requires a formal admission of guilt disclosure.

I am hoping that the K-1, when I eventually get it, will nail P-TTL flash pics a lot better than the K-5. Then I can go back to shooting JPEGs. Shooting RAW on the K-1 is going to make Seagate and/or Western Digital very, very rich.

Eh... I'm more of the opinion that all photos should be taken as an expression of the photog's 'artistic' intent, whether knowingly or not. As such all photos are edited unless some -very- specific claims are made about 'unprocessed' nature of the picture.

Editing has existed since the time of darkroom and I think we should put the much touted 'truthiness' factor of photography to bed. Even photo journalism boils down to trust for the 'depicting reality' part. Even cropping (or framing) without any other editing can change everything.

Everything is an editorial decision from the beginning to the end. It's just between you and the 'editor' if you agree on what's ok and what's not.

Competitions etc. are actually not that different. The only difference is that the 'agreement' is spelled out by competition rules and participants are expected to respect the terms. If no explicit agreement exists, you cannot expect people to magically agree with your definition of 'ok'.

Sorry if that came out a bit strong. I'm frankly just bored out of my skull by the endless wailing and teeth gnashing related to "bu-bu-bu-but photography is about documenting objective realities!".

EDIT:
A tangential, but related anecdote came to mind. I went to a trip with a friend of mine and took a landscape photo from a scenic spot. I later edited it to match my tastes (and converted to black and white). My friend commented: "It wasn't quite that dramatic!" Maybe, however, the 'dramatic' image manages to evoke the same feelings of awe in me years later as the actual scene did when I was there in person (the unedited image does not, mind you).

[PDL]

Yes, every image is edited, in the common sense of the word.
We frame, focus, manipulate aperture/ISO/shutter speed, print on glossy/luster/mat paper, use differing emulsions for transparencies (slide film), black and white and with digital images we swing sliders from side to side. All this is done to get the image "we" want. Does the image reflect reality? It reflects someone's reality.

In the old days when we shot film, if you did not use have a darkroom you sent them off to the "store". Either the store's employees or their machine decided on image adjustments of the final prints. When I shot slides, I chose the emulsion I wanted for the "look" I wanted - believe me, Ecktachrome IR did not reflect anyone's reality except those whose brains were on bad acid. I shot Panatomic X film pushed to ASA 400 to get the grain I wanted using POTA developer (grain bigger than normal but not as "abrasive" as Tri-X)

If you shoot digital with JPEG out of the camera, the camera is processing the image for you - just like the store did/does with film prints. Shooting RAW is closer to shooting slide film in that you get what the sensor "sees". However, the software evaluating the RAW image you see on the screen is processing the image using the assumptions of the engineers who wrote the software. Each company (Adobe, Phase One, Corel, Apple, Microsoft etc you get the idea) runs the RAW data through algorithms that demosaic the image and "create" what you see on the screen. The beauty of RAW, as I see it, is that you have the ability to make subtle and not so subtle changes which modify how the images look.

JPEG is close to slide film in that you set up the parameters for your image processing and you live with what you get. With RAW you have the ability of just taking what you get or working here and there to bring out more of how you want the image to appear. Digital imaging is all about data, RAW gives you the most data to work with.

As for the perspective, choice, assumptions about "reality", let me tell you a short story. Just after graduating from High School, a buddy and I took a one week trip to Yellowstone National Park. I had two camera bodies as did he. I worked at a store that sold film/processing so I supplied the film for both of us to use (Fujichrome, Ecktachrome and Kodachrome). I took purposely took pictures with the fewest number of people possible, he took pictures showing the crowds. For the most part we stood next to each other. Now, which end-of-trip slide show was "real"? My 200+ images with almost no people in them or my friends 200+ images with people dominating.. Same overall scenes but two very distinct points of view, same reality? (I wish I had the ability to do that trip using digital, the ability to edit slide film was always a dream)

[pathdoc]

We frame, focus, manipulate aperture/ISO/shutter speed, print on glossy/luster/mat paper, use differing emulsions for transparencies (slide film), black and white and with digital images we swing sliders from side to side. All this is done to get the image "we" want. Does the image reflect reality? It reflects someone's reality. In the old days when we shot film, if you did not use have a darkroom you sent them off to the "store". Either the store's employees or their machine decided on image adjustments of the final prints.

The difference is that out-of-camera factory settings are a reasonably well defined standard that one can point to, and which ought to be reproducible - the algorithm is the same for everyone using that camera with that firmware and that particular setting, as opposed to a dozen different photo labs, all of which might have had a slightly different chemical mix and different settings on the machines at any one time. And manipulation of aperture, shutter speed and (to a certain extent) ISO are decisions which are taken BEFORE the shutter opens; they are part of the image capture process, NOT the post-capture image manipulation process (whether digital or chemically latent).

[PDL]

I can modify, in post, ISO (exposure slider), focus (sharpening, clarity, gaussian blur) but I have a hard time with shutter speed. I can change the exposure on different elements (local adjustments and in film dodging and burning). I can change colors (Color editor in Capture One is very, very good at this) and I can be very consistent with light balance based on the sensor I own.

As with all things, there is variation in manufacturing and sensors will respond differently (although not by much) depending on their manufacture date - which is why with film, I used to purchase multiple rolls of film all with the same emulsion number, but film did/does vary with every batch).

The standards that you speak of do vary quite a bit by manufacturer both in software and hardware. If this was not the case, why all the fuss about the K1 when we knew the sensor from the Nikon's using the same model? All you have to do is look around here and you will see how different copies of the same Pentax model have different responses to similar light sources. And different manufacturers of software do not use the same RAW demosaic algorithms, just compare a Capture One image as opposed to a Lightroom (ACR) opposed to Corel etc. The images look different because the software makes different choices during its post capture processing. Even the capture process is different between different copies of the same model of camera. Nikon standard is different that Canon standard which is different than Pentax standard. If there were no differences and standard was really standard, then we would all be shooting a single brand. I do not handle my K20D images the same as either my *istDs or my K10D. I use the latest version of ACR with Lightroom, although I can change it, I use the current version of Capture One's engine although I can change that too.

With digital I have the flexibility to change a wide variety of parameters within the image. Yes, some are more difficult than others, but most parameters can be changed in post processing. I see DSU, Lightroom (and other Adobe products), Capture One, Corel stuff etc as different labs. By updating the software engine, I can re-process a given RAW image with the latest algorithms that manufacturer has come up with - according to their standard. Once you have baked the image into a JPEG, you have lost data that you can not recover or re-process using a different algorithm because those data are not there. Gone to the giant bit bucket in the sky.

[fromunderthebridge]

The difference is that out-of-camera factory settings are a reasonably well defined standard that one can point to, and which ought to be reproducible - the algorithm is the same for everyone using that camera with that firmware and that particular setting, as opposed to a dozen different photo labs, all of which might have had a slightly different chemical mix and different settings on the machines at any one time. And manipulation of aperture, shutter speed and (to a certain extent) ISO are decisions which are taken BEFORE the shutter opens; they are part of the image capture process, NOT the post-capture image manipulation process (whether digital or chemically latent).

That sounds a bit like as if you are implying that with the advent of digital, we finally have a 'standard' which frees us from the subjective processes of image making.

It also sounds like in your view there are two phases of creating an image: 1) Image capture (that is photography), which is reproducible if parameters are known 2) Image manipulation (some people used to call developing), which is subjective and unreproducible tampering of the image. Also seems to me that you are implying that 2 is worth less than 1, you are free to do so of course and others are free to disagree.

Problem is that image capture tools (fisheye and other speciality lenses) and techniques (freelensing, using prisms and other tools to manipulate the light) can produce both reproducible and unreproducible effects that do not reflect anyone's reality. Likewise contrast, white balance adjust, exposure and other things done in post can actually make the image appear more true to life than the camera original and are quite reproducible if parameters and software are openly discussed. The line between the 'two steps' is then actually more blurred than one would like to think.

For the record, I don't even see the worth of reproducibility outside of documentary photography perhaps.

I guess all this boils down to the reasons why we take and make photographs. Documentary or expression?

[clackers]

.

I guess all this boils down to the reasons why we take and make photographs. Documentary or expression?

I love Lange and Frank, but we all agree 'documentary' is full of artifice, right? (Wink).

[fromunderthebridge]

I love Lange and Frank, but we all agree 'documentary' is full of artifice, right? (Wink).

I never claimed otherwise. As said it's a matter of trust between you and the documentarist.

[Rondec]

Can we please cut the clever semantics? We all know what "unprocessed" really means in day to day terms - the JPEG image that the camera writes to the card on factory settings, as when turned on and fitted with a lens straight out of the box.



This is the sort of thing I can use post for without admitting to the fact. AFAIAC, anything more than that requires a formal admission of guilt disclosure.

I am hoping that the K-1, when I eventually get it, will nail P-TTL flash pics a lot better than the K-5. Then I can go back to shooting JPEGs. Shooting RAW on the K-1 is going to make Seagate and/or Western Digital very, very rich.

The K-1 has options with regard to jpeg shooting: shadow correction, highlight correction, lens corrections, clarity, skin tone and whatever preset you use (I usually use natural) and any adjustments you make to that preset -- bumping fine sharpening, or whatever.

At this point, a camera is post processing machine. You can bump your shadows a bunch in camera and a lot of other stuff too. I just think if you are going to shoot jpeg, then you need to make sure you are the one in control of the settings and that it isn't a situation where you just put it on Auto everything.

[wizofoz]

I shoot all my photos in jpeg and never edit them

So what do you do when you are confronted by a scene which is beyond the dynamic range of the camera's sensor? You either live with part of the image being too bright/overexposed or too dark/underexposed or both. The only option to reflect the natural scene that you saw when you took the shot is to blend multiple images together in PP.

Personally I always shoot raw+ Jpeg and use the JPEG only as a backup if something happens to the RAW files. Raw on one card, jpeg on the other.

I am of the personal opinion that my images are not completed until I have run them through whatever process takes my fancy on my PC. This may be anything from simply accepting default RAW conversion from whatever RAW converter I'm using and exporting to JPEG or Tiff or whatever, to complex multiple layer files using advanced PS techniques. I am not a photojournalist, so my images can go wherever my taste and imagination take them.

Edited to add - I would expect that the vast majority of 'photo's' are snapshots taken on portable devices, and that the vast majority of them would not be further manipulated in any way. So the raw answer to your question is 'No', the majority of pics are not PP'd

[clackers]

As said it's a matter of trust between you and the documentarist.

Yep. ☺

[pathdoc]

That sounds a bit like as if you are implying that with the advent of digital, we finally have a 'standard' which frees us from the subjective processes of image making.

No. What we do have is a set of standards by which we can communicate to others exactly what happened to the strings of ones and zeroes between the time when the sensor dumped them into the processor and when the resultant JPEG appeared on the back LCD or the computer screen. FWIW I have a K-5, current firmware, "Bright" preset with all the sliders on default, and when I say "straight out of camera", that's the processing it's gone through.

The standards that you speak of do vary quite a bit by manufacturer both in software and hardware.

True, but see my point above. If I specify what camera I use, what firmware I use, what presets I use within camera... then at least we can all agree on what has happened to that image. The fact that my K-5 does not treat things in the same way as my neighbour's D500 or their neighbour's Olympus M4/3, or even the fact that a given version of Raw Therapee probably doesn't do particular things the same way as the current version of Lightroom, is irrelevant so long as I can say what I did and with what tools.

It's a given that if I were to take a JPEG picture with a newly out-of-the-box K-1 mounted on a tripod and bearing (for example) my 55mm Rikenon wide open (f/1.2), and then gave that lens to the proud new owner of the latest Sony mirrorless FF wonder to put on his beast on the same tripod with a K adapter at the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO, that we would get somewhat different pictures. I understand that completely. But it doesn't take away from the fact that I can specify how that image was auto-processed in camera, and particularly specify what (if anything) extra I did to it before showing it to the world.

[fromunderthebridge]

pathdoc, your point?

E.g. how to reproduce my snapshot of my grandfather:

FA77mm ltd @ f/2
ISO 1600 1/250s

K-1, DNG, adobergb colorspace
Adobe Camera RAW 9.1.1
Process: 2012
WB: 4600K tint +10
Sharpening: default (amount 25, radius 1.0 detail 25)
NR: default (color 25, color detail 50)
Camera profile: Embedded
Sliders left to neutral

-- That is, if you specify everything anyway, the results are reproducible. "But, camera!" Sounds kind of silly. Anyone can do "disclosure", it's a question is when, how and why.

Heck I think you can even export the settings to a separate file for fetishists.

[PDL]

FA77mm ltd @ f/2
ISO 1600 1/250s

K-1, DNG, adobergb colorspace
Adobe Camera RAW 9.1.1
Process: 2012
WB: 4600K tint +10
Sharpening: default (amount 25, radius 1.0 detail 25)
NR: default (color 25, color detail 50)
Camera profile: Embedded

And when ACR is updated to 9.2.x the "standard" is changed.

That is the beauty of RAW - you can re-process an image and get subtle differences. The version engines can do better jobs of recognizing/controlling noise, variations is color channels, even increasing Dynamic Range. Using RAW, you have the ability to use Pentax Lab, Lightroom, Photoshop (ACR), Capture One, Corel, the Gimp and other processes engines to change how you make the image appear. Shoot JPEG and what you get is the camera manufacturers cooked process. You can not get the lost data back.

As for your two step process.

1. Capture - that is not all there is to photography either in film nor digital. In film there is no potential image until you process the film, using slide film you still have to develop it to get a usable image. Now you could argue that the image on the LCD is "useful", but in the images that I produce the image preview is turned off, so I do not see the images unless I explicitly look. I only look to check the histogram and the blinkies for exposure. I also have the LCD JPEG parameters set to zero.

2. Post processing - Yup I post process every image I shoot. I load them onto my machine and process the GPS coordinates, Lens information out of Makers Notes, add Copyright and location information into the RAW file. I then import the file into the RAW converter of my choice and get to work editing the images.

Now I do take some, not much, offense in your use of the word tampering. I assume that you are not trying to provoke a negative response but a better word could have been used. To provide a little background, I have 50+ years of experience in photography. My first college degree was in Anthropology where I shot images of cultural artifacts for lab/analytical use and publication - I do not tamper with images. My current volunteer work includes shooting artistic performances "chamber groups, piano performances, dance (masterclasses/free matinees) and chorale concerts. If setting the white balance, straitening out images and cropping equal "tampering" in your mind then letting the JPEG processor in you camera do what it thinks is best is tampering without responsibility.