Are most posting processed pics?

Northern Soul · 12-18-2012, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by elliott

I'm surprised to see another Darktable user, we aren't very common. I only have very specific presets, so anything I've done is useless to you unless you're doing exactly the same thing. Most of the time I'm not using a preset.

Hello other darktable users

emalvick · 12-19-2012, 04:47 PM

For the OP, I think it is clear that the reason no one real talks about PP is because it has just become so common that 99% of the images are, including those who shoot JPG but do so with the care it took to set the camera right for them.

Personally, I wish I could be that person. I don't like PP that much, but I am not good enough to get close enough to what I want when shooting JPG, and I've decided for my purposes I'd rather shoot few RAWs than a lot of JPGs to make up for my lack of a skill-set.

I don't like the disparity that can exist in photography that some times looks down on those who shoot JPG only. In some ways that is what we should strive for, and looking at it from the point of view of efficiency and economics, JPG can be much more practical for professionals.

Even if you don't get things perfect, it can be a lot quicker to take a lot of jpg shots over a range of exposures and perspectives and find the one keeper than to spend more time with less images but still have to do the PP to get the shot. The choice is really a matter of style and workflow preference. Wherever we end up, we usually always end up looking at a JPG in the end, and that JPG is always different than the raw data our cameras recorded no matter how it got from start to finish. I'm not sure I've ever seen a photo that I've dismissed as bad because it used one process over another (i.e. PP Raw vs. in-camera JPG and so on). A good photo is a good photo.

bob13bob · 12-19-2012, 07:49 PM

Yes,
Show Us Your RAW Conversions, BEFORE And AFTER - Page 93 - Canon Digital Photography Forums

PP is an artform itself, with pros even starting to outsource the pp process to others. Everyone has different eyes. I prefer natural looking colors. I shoot raw and PP everything (crop, exposure, whitebalance, shadows and highlights). If you want the best pictures/minute spent, pp is mandatory imho. Others go completely outterly world with their pp and people love it.

I don't think jpeg should ever be used. RAW with no pp is better. It's very easy to see the compression, especially when looking at faces. Take a picture of your face, jpeg makes ppl look like clayface look. not accurate.

**JimJohnson** · 12-20-2012, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by bob13bob

RAW with no pp is better.

Doesn't exist. RAW in and of itself isn't displayable and is always converted by software into a displayable format on your PC. So what you are seeing prior to applying any post processing are that image viewer's default settings. Most viewers that handle RAW also allow you to change and store new default settings.

I personally don't like Pentax's factory jpeg settings. The color saturation is too high for one thing.However, at least on all current models, you don't have to stay with the factory jpeg settings. There are several optional predefined jpeg settings (sort of like there are several predefined exposure modes), or you can create your own - - and you can make whatever you decide your default.

My personal choice is to shoot RAW+ and let the camera automatically create both RAW (DNG) and jpeg versions on my SD card. That lets me decide after shooting how I want to handle the image.

elliott · 12-20-2012, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by JimJohnson

Doesn't exist. RAW in and of itself isn't displayable and is always converted by software into a displayable format on your PC. So what you are seeing prior to applying any post processing are that image viewer's default settings. Most viewers that handle RAW also allow you to change and store new default settings.

Usually, for a simple viewer, they are just showing you the JPEG that is embedded in the RAW file with the camera's default settings.

If you open up an editing program and turn off everything that is usually on by default you'll see what a plain unprocessed RAW looks like.

Here is one I was working on today, on the left is the base RAW file, on the right is a minimally processed version. Still more to do of course, but it is just a start.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Travel We are making the most of this last week.	charliezap	Post Your Photos!	9	11-04-2012 06:07 PM
Most popular threads ... the winners are:	jpzk	General Talk	8	04-06-2012 11:57 AM
Why most Maket Place's Items for sale are already sold	kfz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	02-16-2012 06:16 PM
Bill Maher : most Americans are...	riff	General Talk	29	02-01-2012 03:06 PM
Most of my low light flash pics are blurry...why?	vmax84	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	18	12-08-2009 08:57 AM

12-18-2012, 06:11 PM	#46
Northern Soul Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The North of England Photos: Albums Posts: 494	Originally posted by elliott I'm surprised to see another Darktable user, we aren't very common. I only have very specific presets, so anything I've done is useless to you unless you're doing exactly the same thing. Most of the time I'm not using a preset. Hello other darktable users

12-19-2012, 04:47 PM	#47
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	For the OP, I think it is clear that the reason no one real talks about PP is because it has just become so common that 99% of the images are, including those who shoot JPG but do so with the care it took to set the camera right for them. Personally, I wish I could be that person. I don't like PP that much, but I am not good enough to get close enough to what I want when shooting JPG, and I've decided for my purposes I'd rather shoot few RAWs than a lot of JPGs to make up for my lack of a skill-set. I don't like the disparity that can exist in photography that some times looks down on those who shoot JPG only. In some ways that is what we should strive for, and looking at it from the point of view of efficiency and economics, JPG can be much more practical for professionals. Even if you don't get things perfect, it can be a lot quicker to take a lot of jpg shots over a range of exposures and perspectives and find the one keeper than to spend more time with less images but still have to do the PP to get the shot. The choice is really a matter of style and workflow preference. Wherever we end up, we usually always end up looking at a JPG in the end, and that JPG is always different than the raw data our cameras recorded no matter how it got from start to finish. I'm not sure I've ever seen a photo that I've dismissed as bad because it used one process over another (i.e. PP Raw vs. in-camera JPG and so on). A good photo is a good photo.

12-19-2012, 07:49 PM	#48
bob13bob Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 34	Yes, Show Us Your RAW Conversions, BEFORE And AFTER - Page 93 - Canon Digital Photography Forums PP is an artform itself, with pros even starting to outsource the pp process to others. Everyone has different eyes. I prefer natural looking colors. I shoot raw and PP everything (crop, exposure, whitebalance, shadows and highlights). If you want the best pictures/minute spent, pp is mandatory imho. Others go completely outterly world with their pp and people love it. I don't think jpeg should ever be used. RAW with no pp is better. It's very easy to see the compression, especially when looking at faces. Take a picture of your face, jpeg makes ppl look like clayface look. not accurate.

12-20-2012, 11:29 AM	#49
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,774	Originally posted by bob13bob RAW with no pp is better. Doesn't exist. RAW in and of itself isn't displayable and is always converted by software into a displayable format on your PC. So what you are seeing prior to applying any post processing are that image viewer's default settings. Most viewers that handle RAW also allow you to change and store new default settings. I personally don't like Pentax's factory jpeg settings. The color saturation is too high for one thing.However, at least on all current models, you don't have to stay with the factory jpeg settings. There are several optional predefined jpeg settings (sort of like there are several predefined exposure modes), or you can create your own - - and you can make whatever you decide your default. My personal choice is to shoot RAW+ and let the camera automatically create both RAW (DNG) and jpeg versions on my SD card. That lets me decide after shooting how I want to handle the image.

12-20-2012, 01:27 PM	#50
elliott Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Albums Posts: 1,720	Originally posted by JimJohnson Doesn't exist. RAW in and of itself isn't displayable and is always converted by software into a displayable format on your PC. So what you are seeing prior to applying any post processing are that image viewer's default settings. Most viewers that handle RAW also allow you to change and store new default settings. Usually, for a simple viewer, they are just showing you the JPEG that is embedded in the RAW file with the camera's default settings. If you open up an editing program and turn off everything that is usually on by default you'll see what a plain unprocessed RAW looks like. Here is one I was working on today, on the left is the base RAW file, on the right is a minimally processed version. Still more to do of course, but it is just a start.