Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-15-2014, 09:37 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote
My own take on it is this.


In the days of film, you take a camera and put in it a film that gave a good image with saturated colours good colour balance good dynamic range, - as long as the image was focussed and exposed correctly.
only if you are discussing slides. For prints the developer would do a lot during the print process to correct errors in exposure, no differently than what we have today with RAW and people recovering trash. also note that when whole rolls were incorrectly exposed, many times, if you knew in advance, you could get the film "pushed "

QuoteQuote:
Then you put a lens on it, the lens would give a sharp image and the coatings on the lens would give good contrast.


You finished up in camera with a good sharp image that is contrasty and well exposed.




Then long came digital


The limitations of the digital sensor forced manufacturers to artificially blur whatever image the lens could resolve. This is the infamous anti aliasing filter, it makes every image soft and blurry.
actually not so much at the onset of digital because of the pixel size.
QuoteQuote:

The sensor also suffers problems with dynamic range and this forces adjustments to the image that often result in poor exposure, as has been stated on earlier posts.
not really any different than slide film, it had pretty limited dynamic range
QuoteQuote:


Without needlessly exploring this in depth here and now I think you can see that digital images are:-


1 Blurry


2 Poorly exposed (often)




Because of these issues, every digital image must be post processed to sharpen them and adjust exposure.
no really because every one looks at them now with a 22 inch or larger screen from less than 1 foot away. Have you ever looked at most manually focused film shots blown up to the same ratio? They are not as good as you think
QuoteQuote:
In film days, every image had to be post processed with an enlarger so nothing has changed.


You must post process.
There is no disagreement that post processing either with an enlarger/darkroom or on a computer needs to be done to some level. The question is, how much, when and how. I elect to shoot JPEG most of the time, and only do minor crops. My editor can also use the in camera JPEG settings as the raw import starting point. So if I want to do it myself, I start with where I had the camera set.

That saves a lot of time, but if you ultimately default to use the JPEG settings, you get to a point of only shooting RAW when make a decision to

04-15-2014, 11:01 AM   #32
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
So what your saying Lowell, when you pulled my post apart on several salient points amounts to:-


1 The developer lab did all the processing.


2 Anti aliasing filters were not used and therefor blurring due to this issue did not happen.


3 The dynamic range of a digital sensor is as broad as film


4 Film images were no sharper than digital images.


Is it still April 1st because all those points are totally wrong.


Photographers processed film and prints themselves - fact


Anti aliasing filters were fitted to almost all digital camera sensors - fact


The dynamic range of film exceeds that of a digital sensor - fact


Properly focussed images on film are sharper than properly focussed images on a sensor, in almost every case. - fact


These points are not open to conjecture or discussion, they are facts.


If you want we can talk about when I processed film and made prints both from negatives and cibachrome from slide, we can talk about anti aliasing filters and why photographers have been demanding theyr got rid of for 15 years, we can talk about dynamic range and the lack of it on sensors compared to film, and we can talk about photosite densities and why the most line pairs per mm you can get on a sensor is 130. and on film you can get 200.


The fact is you have to post process a digital image or you have a poor image on several levels.


Don't give the impression that there are no valid reasons to post process when there patently are.
04-16-2014, 01:32 AM   #33
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 16
I shot film for many years before switching to DSLR -- I learned on film and learned how to get it right in camera, and how to be conservative about shots and I still do that. However, I'm very thrilled with the tools that I can use in post-processing with digital. I mostly shoot portraits now and mostly of children. There are often times where a head-swap is necessary in a family portrait, or where some other distracting elements are necessary to take out. Here's an example of what some photoshopping can accomplish:

This baby couldn't sit up on his own very well without falling over. also the grass was wet so we put him on a blanket, but I found it distracting in the photo.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K200D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K200D  Photo 
04-16-2014, 05:41 AM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Homesick Canadian in New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
I use varying degrees of PP, depending on why I took the photos and how I plan to use them. For example, with street photography / street portraits (a lot of my work), I try to "get it right" in the camera and usually do minimal PP mostly in LR.

But I also volunteer as a photographer for an animal shelter, and I'm often dealing with difficult light (mid-day glare or mixed, bad light in the shelter), cluttered backgrounds, leashes, eye goobers, etc. My goal is to make these animals look appealing to prospective adopters. While I don't edit out permanent blemishes, etc on the dogs, I do clone out things like goobers, leashes, drool, cigarette butts on the ground, etc. And since I don't have a lot of control over the lighting, I often need to do more work on that as well. Three hours spent on PP for every hour of photography is worth every second as far as I'm concerned if it helps these dogs and cats get adopted.

I'm also planning to take a couple of creative landscape imagery courses this summer and I'm looking forward to playing with PP for those images.

04-16-2014, 06:59 AM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hoek van Holland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,245
for me it is very simple, the camera is just a part of the tools I have to create the picture I want. As is the computer (with software) as is the type of paper I print on.
They call work together to create the picture I visualized when I pressed the shutter.
04-16-2014, 07:59 AM - 1 Like   #36
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Homesick Canadian in New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
QuoteOriginally posted by AshleytheIslander Quote
I shot film for many years before switching to DSLR -- I learned on film and learned how to get it right in camera, and how to be conservative about shots and I still do that. However, I'm very thrilled with the tools that I can use in post-processing with digital. I mostly shoot portraits now and mostly of children. There are often times where a head-swap is necessary in a family portrait, or where some other distracting elements are necessary to take out. Here's an example of what some photoshopping can accomplish:

This baby couldn't sit up on his own very well without falling over. also the grass was wet so we put him on a blanket, but I found it distracting in the photo.
Adorable photo and great use of PS.
04-16-2014, 08:21 AM - 1 Like   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,417
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Well, out-of-camera images often have flat colors, noise, low contrast, incorrect white balance, incorrect exposure, etc. Post-processing is used to correct those flaws and make the best possible image based on the original data that the camera captured. More advanced users may also remove distortions, fix aberrations and vignetting, and clone out distracting details, just to name a few things.
All of the above and this thought: Why Post Process? Because first and foremost, Photography is Art!

Those of us who post process, do so because we want to create a mood, elicit an emotion, recreate a sensory experience for the view or convey an moment in time.
We post process to make the pixels and bits and bytes come alive as a personal form of expression. Post processing has always been part of the workflow when creating
a photograph because a flat 2 dimensional image needs a little help when introduced into the 5 senses, 3d world of humanity.

However, technique in focus, composition and exposure can't be overcome by post processing. Post processing can't make a bad photograph good, but it can make a very good photograph special.

And I feel sorry for those who have been brainwashed by the cult of "Post Processing is Evil". Their misguided fervor that if an image isn't straight out of the camera and untouched by human hands, it's an abomination, miss out on the challenge and reward of taking a scene and making it a personal expression. Do some people get carried away? Yes they do, but then again, I've seen some Photoshop masters take an ordinary scene and transform it into something magical through compositing and layers.

Maybe it's even simpler; we post process because we can! lol
04-16-2014, 12:10 PM   #38
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 16
yes! photography is art! the camera is just one tool -- the editing software is another. It all comes together to help us create our vision.

When I used to do darkroom photography I certainly spend way more time in the darkroom than behind the lens. I think of digital editing the same way -- part of the process.

04-17-2014, 11:33 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote

The fact is you have to post process a digital image or you have a poor image on several levels.
Don't give the impression that there are no valid reasons to post process when there patently are.
I am not against post processing, and I do recognize that there are times when it is necessary, but a with any generalization, the points you are arguing can be made for some specific cases but are also not 100% applicable.

I have also spent my share of time in a dark room, and while there are specific fine grain films that outresolve the current DSLRs (I am not so sure about a sensor like the Q which has 10 times the pixel density) and there are also films with very very wide exposure lattitude, others with excellent color saturation , different color temperatures, etc....... You made those decisions beforehand, not in post processing.

There were also different developers which produced different grain sizes , (from memory, because i haven't done any darkroom form20+years) but again these are all decisions made during the process,

Digital does not as a broad brush statement necessitate post processing. You can adjust in many cases the parameters in body to produce excellent images. If you simply leave the default neutral settings, I agree every image is not optimum. I elect to spend the time to get the settings as good as possible in camera, regardless of shooting raw or JPEG, because my raw tools can default on import to the JPEG settings , leaving me with only minor tweets, if any, to get the result I want.

Too often, we see comments here that the imported image into the raw processor is flat, not sharp, etc....... That is likely the result of either limitations in the software, poor selection of default JPEG settings (if the processor uses them) or poor default settings by the user, to bring the images closer to the final version at importing.

In my opinion these are process and work flow faults, not a 100% requirement to post process.
04-17-2014, 12:25 PM   #40
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote
So what your saying Lowell, when you pulled my post apart on several salient points amounts to:-


1 The developer lab did all the processing.


2 Anti aliasing filters were not used and therefor blurring due to this issue did not happen.


3 The dynamic range of a digital sensor is as broad as film


4 Film images were no sharper than digital images.


Is it still April 1st because all those points are totally wrong.


Photographers processed film and prints themselves - fact


Anti aliasing filters were fitted to almost all digital camera sensors - fact


The dynamic range of film exceeds that of a digital sensor - fact


Properly focussed images on film are sharper than properly focussed images on a sensor, in almost every case. - fact


These points are not open to conjecture or discussion, they are facts.


If you want we can talk about when I processed film and made prints both from negatives and cibachrome from slide, we can talk about anti aliasing filters and why photographers have been demanding theyr got rid of for 15 years, we can talk about dynamic range and the lack of it on sensors compared to film, and we can talk about photosite densities and why the most line pairs per mm you can get on a sensor is 130. and on film you can get 200.


The fact is you have to post process a digital image or you have a poor image on several levels.


Don't give the impression that there are no valid reasons to post process when there patently are.
Well then, you shouldn't have any trouble providing some reputable references.... I'm particularly interested in Dynamic Range and image sharpness... sensors have pixels, but film had grain... so what was more a cause of lack of sharpness, grain or an AA filter? There was definitely no free ride in that department, so I'm actually quite interested in comparisons between the 12 to 13 EV of most modern cameras to whatever could be measured from film. After all this time, I don't think I've even seen such an estimate.

Here's one answer...

QuoteQuote:
Film is rated in a scale called EV - Exposure Value. Different film, different EV #'s.. A scale of 5 to 8 is said to be common but films actually go higher and some lower. Some as high as 10 or 12 stops between all black and all white. What this EV means is how many stops over and under, from a center metered position can the film still see. From a child in the sun to a child over in the shade, both in the same picture and both seen with ease. These numbers equal f/stops left and right of the picked exposure.
From this source... https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101011081330AAhPwru

I don't know how credible the sources is, but it would seem that even the best film didn't match the DR of a k-5 or K-3 (13 EV) and cheap film was as low as 4 EV. Maybe you have a better source?

Last edited by normhead; 04-17-2014 at 12:34 PM.
04-17-2014, 12:42 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
Norm, as someone who actually took the time to measure the dynamic range of my *istD, and I will admit, I have not done the same test with film, the very first pentax camera had the following, about 5 stops in the middle range form 25 grey scale through 225 greyscale, almost equally spaced at 45 greyscale increments for a full stop. Minimum contrast reduced this to 40!greyscale between stops and maximum contrast made it 50.

Below 25 and above 230 the next stop was 17 greyscale change, the next was 7 greyscale, and the last was 3 greyscale with the final stop being one greyscale.

The sweet spot in the middle range was 4-6 depending on contrast setting. Above and below this was highly compressed the further you moved away, but still measurable. So there was, to some degree between 10 and 12 stops of dynamic range in total. Useable was really about 9

That was 10 years ago and the *istD.

Just though I would put that out there.
04-17-2014, 01:15 PM   #42
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 153
QuoteOriginally posted by Sigmund Quote
I assume that the point of serious work is to correct errors and improve the image. The question arises as to what in technical terms a good image is and what post-processing techniques are commonly used to help achieve one. These are of course big questions but I wonder if Pentaxians can point me in the direction of some introductions on the web. So far I've done a speed read of Bampton's quickstart guide to Lightroom as a copy of that is in the mail.
Have a look here Anthony Morganti Tutorials on LR

Anthony Morganti - YouTube
Tom G
04-17-2014, 03:54 PM   #43
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 451
The photograph happens when you press the button. Usually you hear a sound.

After that, different choices present themselves.

If it is film, you can choose your developer, your fixer, your paper, the company who processes the film, the frame you put the print in, the colour of your projection screen.

If it is digital you can choose your jpeg settings, jpeg or RAW, your pop software, etc, etc, the list is endless.

They are all part of the so-called post-processing, so why are we still discussing it? After decades, maybe even a century of similar discussion. Deciding when to stop pp is simply a personal choice as to when you are happy with the results given by the limitations imposed upon you by the media you have chosen.

Perhaps if you are a total purist you shouldn't record the image at all, just stand in place and look at the original?
04-17-2014, 08:05 PM   #44
Pentaxian
wildman's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,313
QuoteOriginally posted by Bagga_Txips Quote
so why are we still discussing it?
Perhaps because there are people who labor under the illusion that there are objective empirical answers to everything in life?

Last edited by wildman; 04-18-2014 at 06:37 AM.
04-17-2014, 08:58 PM   #45
dms
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: New York, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
A commentary about dynamic range of film vs digital. Simply from experience shooting slide and digital under sunlit cityscapes--one of the tougher tests.

As a general statement digital DR (as measured) is generally slightly wider than negative film and considerably wider than positive film--but nevertheless I find film (and in particular positive color film) far more pleasing in the way it handles over and especially underexposure--so saying digital has wider DR is not the whole story. (And BTW for my theater photography I think digital is 500% better than film, and for outdoors the positive aspects of digital generally outweigh the negatives--no pun intended.) This is nothing new but it bears repeating in all the above discussion about DR.

A very good slide film (Ektachrome T160--tungsten iso 160) had as I recall about 6.5~7 stops DR (by my tests), and (it) was the widest DR slide film I found/tested. But even my Q has more DR from DXOmark tests [I don't have numbers handy but I think it was about 9 stops); but in actual usage I got pleasing cityscapes results with a bright blue sky and sunlit and shaded streets; and it is at best marginal for the Q; and slightly less marginal (but still marginal) with my k-x. Of course a K5 would do a little better--but my point is DR is not the whole story. The results are very different and are not well reflected in the numbers.
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!
adams, beginners, bit, camera, colour, curve, dont, duncan, effect, fb, film, image, ken, pentax help, photo, photography, pm, post, post-processing, process, processing, responses, result, shot, slide, slides, wb
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to post-process photos? kcobain1992 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 7 11-30-2012 08:05 PM
People A post-process dilemma mikolotko Photo Critique 3 08-08-2012 01:56 PM
how to post process trevorgrout Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 08-10-2010 04:56 AM
Cityscape Post Process on a photo miss_alexx Photo Critique 6 12-18-2009 03:48 PM
how not to post-process mattdm Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 43 10-28-2007 05:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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