[dtmateojr]

And I quote: Again, long-winded but utterly baseless responses people.

Geez this guy has such an arrogant attitude.

Guys, do not feed the troll.

In case you missed it:

http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/26/why-shoot-in-raw-format/

Go to NatGeo and call the director of photography a troll.

---------- Post added 05-07-14 at 13:08 ----------

Post processing on my computer gives me more freedom and more tools to adjust the image in ways that my camera would have a very, very hard time doing so. For example, I can selectively add contrast, brightness, definition, etc to specific areas. I can tweak my white balance and adjust my color curves. If all of this and more were possible in-camera then all of us would be doing it in-camera and products like Aperture and Lightroom would have no market. Digital cameras are not perfect. They don't see what our eye sees. The raw image data is starting point and even that data goes through some processing before the embedded system in our camera creates the file. Post processing gets us a little closer. At some point we say the image is good enough and we leave it.

I completely agree with you that no amount of post processing can save a poorly composed shot that was not executed correctly. Nobody would argue with you there.

And I agree with you there. Post processing will improve a good shot. I don't think anyone here questioned that.

The keyword is improve or enhance. For beginners they are better off not touching anything. It's very easy for them to push the sliders to 11. I have been there and still do if I'm not careful (I have this tendency to simulate the Velvia look). If something doesn't look right in the LCD then adjust your shooting and/or camera. Use filters if necessary. Use flash and/or reflectors and gels. It's quite sad that instead of controlling light at shoot time people rely on photoshop to do it for them. That's ultimately the temptation that everyone should avoid.

[Sigmund]

Adams, or monochrome, is perhaps not the best touchstone as by definition you're manipulating what's come through the lens, at exposure with the film behaviour and with filters, and at developing and printing.

As the OPer who's getting into LR from a background in a dark room, I can now see the the role for PP, and accept that PP happens in the camera when a JPG is written. As a dabbler in critter pics the onus on me is to try to stay faithful to how the subject appeared - to keep the colours and form right eg - while recognising that the image may be improved - sharpening eg - and that even out there variations in light and POV mean that the real thing is going to have different appearances.

[dtmateojr]

I'm not sure what the "experts" are trying to say here. Why don't they join the "no post processing" thread and tell everyone in there that their photos suck. Right in front of everyone. In case no one has noticed, the "experts" here are telling all those photographers that their shots are garbage.

[6BQ5]

In case you missed it:

http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/26/why-shoot-in-raw-format/

Go to NatGeo and call the director of photography a troll.

---------- Post added 05-07-14 at 13:08 ----------




And I agree with you there. Post processing will improve a good shot. I don't think anyone here questioned that.

The keyword is improve or enhance. For beginners they are better off not touching anything. It's very easy for them to push the sliders to 11. I have been there and still do if I'm not careful (I have this tendency to simulate the Velvia look). If something doesn't look right in the LCD then adjust your shooting and/or camera. Use filters if necessary. Use flash and/or reflectors and gels. It's quite sad that instead of controlling light at shoot time people rely on photoshop to do it for them. That's ultimately the temptation that everyone should avoid.

When it comes to looking at the LCD I know that the image I see there could look nothing like what I will see on my monitor (which is calibrated). It's good for gross / large concept checks but that's about it. The LCD is always bright, contrasty, and saturated so that it can be viewed in bright sunlight. It's good for chimping and checking the histogram though! If my histogram is not clipped and not slid over too far then I know that my data has a good chance of being good.

I find post processing very creative and enjoyable. To me it's another step in the photographic process. By itself it's useless - just like a bad shot by itself is useless too.

Digital photography has enabled a large set of new tools that didn't exist before. Who wouldn't have wanted a LCD back in the day? Why wouldn't I use these tools unless they don't fit my style and taste?

Oh, and I know this may sound snarky but I don't intend it to be : why not play with the sliders? Move 'em to 11! See what they do. You can always move them back.

[Sigmund]

I'm not sure what the "experts" are trying to say here. Why don't they join the "no post processing" thread and tell everyone in there that their photos suck. Right in front of everyone. In case no one has noticed, the "experts" here are telling all those photographers that their shots are garbage.

Let's play the ball rather than the man (or woman).

[dtmateojr]

Think about it. Those in here who say that you can never get it right in camera are indirectly saying that every single photo in that thread is not right. There's no hiding that message. It would be interesting to know if the same "experts" posted a photo in that thread coz that would be really funny.

[6BQ5]

Think about it. Those in here who say that you can never get it right in camera are indirectly saying that every single photo in that thread is not right. There's no hiding that message. It would be interesting to know if the same "experts" posted a photo in that thread coz that would be really funny.

I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" as you call it. Everyone has a unique personal style of expression and creation. Art is subjective. Some people draw with pencils. Others with charcoal. Go further and you'll easily find painters who work solely with water colors, oils, or acrylics. Is one "right" and the rest "wrong"? If you can get what you want and what you like with the in-camera JPG engine then that's great! Enjoy! Others, like me (or maybe not) get what we want and like through post processing on a computer. We enjoy our results just like you enjoy yours. I don't think anyone is after something "right" as much as they are after something that is "theirs" and something that they consider "excellent".

[Rondec]

Not sure what all the argument is about. A bad shot is a bad shot. Probably all of us take them. If it is a snap shot of a family memory, it still maybe at least partially fixable in post -- fix white balance, crop a little, bump the exposure, even turn it to black and white. It won't make it National Geographic quality, but most of photography is about capturing memories, not making wall hangings anyway.

There is also a false choice. There is a thread on the form about straight out of camera jpegs, with no post processing. But, if you shoot jpegs, your camera is doing the post processing. My K3 has probably 15 different jpeg settings that I can choose and tweak, plus another 15 or 20 filters that can be applied after the fact. I can choose to turn up the sharpness in my camera's jpeg engine to the point that there are artifacts all over the place or, turn up the saturation.

Digital files need tweaks with regard to sharpness (even if you have no AA filter), contrast, exposure, applications of a neutral density filter, etc. Obviously you need to now what you are doing, or your photos will only get worse with post processing, but I don't get the folks that look down on those who post process.

This is a photo of a swallow. I only had a 200mm lens on the camera and couldn't get closer, so this is what I had:



After cropping and some selective sharpening, I got this:



I just think it comes down to whether or not you are willing to blindly trust your camera's judgement on everything or, if you are willing to invest some time to do more tweaking yourself. And to suggest that there was not post processing done back in the good old film days is disingenuous to say the least.

[Imageman]

Think about it. Those in here who say that you can never get it right in camera are indirectly saying that every single photo in that thread is not right. There's no hiding that message. It would be interesting to know if the same "experts" posted a photo in that thread coz that would be really funny.

Stop replying to this fool he doesn't read anyones replies or he doesn't understand them or hes just being argumentative.


Ive not seen anyone say what he claims they say. I myself have repeatedly said that if the camera creates an image you can use without changes, then use it without changes.


Yet I am vilified by him as an "expert" that burns all un-postprocessed images as herecy


Never have I seen such an intentionally misleading and argumentative contributor as this guy.


I have refused to attack his comments to date preferring to make my position clear and support it with fact and argument, but people read his drivel who want to learn, and he would have them simply accept what comes out of the camera and make no adjustments to it no matter how trivial or necessary when a few simple changes would make them more pleasing.


It is clear to me now that the guy has little or no experience of real photography, No real photographer who has had to print an image would have the stupidity to say you don't have to adjust an image after you've taken it. Its accepted that you have to calibrate printer and monitor simply to see what your printing correctly, and then you have to make adjustments to the image to get a good print.


If you send it to a print lab they send you instructions how to modify the image to suit their print engine.


Modifying an image is unavoidable in any real world use of an image. Unless your either in a hotel in dubrovnic sending an image over the wire to your daily, and then hey guess what, they change it so they can print it. OR you set your camera up to take jpeg and then take 500 images in a day, you then you don't have time to edit each image, each days work would generate 2 months of editing, so you don't edit them, you just add them to your library on disk and never look at them again. And then you claim, "I get it right in camera".


I think that's what this guy does. Im wondering how many hundreds of thousands of pale lifeless snapshots he has littering his hard drive.


The need to modify and enhance an image to alter its look for whatever reason is a fundamental need and its why editing software has flourished and its why camera manufacturers give you the software free with the camera. They know you need it.


I don't think this guy has any experience of real photography but I do, and ive used digital cameras since they were first put on sale, from 2 megapixel up. All of them needed enhancing. Focus was always poor due to the anti-aliasing filter and sharpening always had to be applied. Brightness had to be tweaked as did a few settings like contrast and saturation or the print looked flat.


Im saying this not for the benefit of the fool hes a lost cause, and no doubt will attack me in a new post, im saying it for the benefit of beginners who might read this thread and be mislead by his idiotic ramblings mis statements and general stupidity.


I will say this one more time for the benefit of any real photographer who wishes to improve and is just starting out.


set up your camera to take the best image you can


look at the image in editing software


if it looks fine and your happy with it, don't change it


if it needs a change like brightness contrast saturation, then make the change.




In other words, as I have said 3 times before:-



If you don't like the way the image looks post process it.

If you like the way the image looks don't post process it

[BrianR]

Oh, and I know this may sound snarky but I don't intend it to be : why not play with the sliders? Move 'em to 11! See what they do. You can always move them back.

Once you crank saturation (or anything else) to 11 just to see, a more sane 2 or 3 can look dull and lifeless. You start to think that 5 or 6 might be better, but they still don't have quite the 'pop' you just experienced. Maybe you'll put it to 7, just this once. Next thing you know, you have to hand out band-aids for the eyes of anyone who looks at you images.

There's probably a fancy marketing term for this effect. 'Desensitizing' may fit, as in "I've been desensitized to violence towards my friends eye balls". I'm sure not everyone is susceptible to it but I know I always have to do a major reality check after cranking a slider.

Programs should come with limiters on the sliders, unlocking them as you make achievements in photography proving you're responsible. Make it like an xbox game- "You've used mirror lock up and tripod!!! Great Combo! Unleash sharpness level 8!". (<-not a serious suggestion in case anyone is worried)

[Imageman]

Once you crank saturation (or anything else) to 11 just to see, a more sane 2 or 3 can look dull and lifeless. You start to think that 5 or 6 might be better, but they still don't have quite the 'pop' you just experienced. Maybe you'll put it to 7, just this once. Next thing you know, you have to hand out band-aids for the eyes of anyone who looks at you images.

There's probably a fancy marketing term for this effect. 'Desensitizing' may fit, as in "I've been desensitized to violence towards my friends eye balls". I'm sure not everyone is susceptible to it but I know I always have to do a major reality check after cranking a slider.

Programs should come with limiters on the sliders, unlocking them as you make achievements in photography proving you're responsible. Make it like an xbox game- "You've used mirror lock up and tripod!!! Great Combo! Unleash sharpness level 8!". (<-not a serious suggestion in case anyone is worried)

Very much on the money remarks, I see heavy handed adjustments heavy handed HDR, it all looks very false.


I prefer subtle adjustments, just enough to achieve the necessary, if you can see an adjustment has been applied its been applied too vigorously.


The modern trend for oversaturation is one such bone of contention. I hear the expression "make the image pop" well, quite often they make my eyes pop.


Pop Art images can look astounding but I don't want to be astounded every minute of the day. If the whole world were made up of Charlies Chocolate Factory landscapes I would not want to venture out of the house. To me the real Charlie is not the chocolate factory owner, its all too often the photographer responsible for garishly tweaked images.


I have seen images that are beautiful, subtle hues and delightful nuances. I have far more often seen hopeless and overworked monstrocities.


By all means experiment, but Subtle Care and Reserved, these should be the watchwords of any post process.

[BrianR]

[/COLOR]I also noticed that WB is frequently referred to as a weakness of shooting jpeg. True that's why "experts" shoot in raw so they can adjust it later in the computer. So instead of setting the WB in camera they fix it in post. Way to go experts! Way to teach beginners the proper way of shooting. Bravo!!!

Your National Geographic director cites the same benefit of raw. The main point of his argument steering beginners away from raw seemed to be to avoid relying on raw to correct sloppy shooting errors. I've never seen anyone argue otherwise. Sure many will rightfully say that raw has more leeway to fix mistakes, but I've never seen anyone advocate sloppy shooting because it can just be fixed later. As a warning for beginners, it's definitely a fair point and a trap that's easy to fall into. I may have been different but whenever I sat down to edit images I always reflected on how I could have done it better in camera so I have a better file to work with next time (I still try to give this thought).

[dtmateojr]

Stop replying to this fool he doesn't read anyones replies or he doesn't understand them or hes just being argumentative.


Ive not seen anyone say what he claims they say. I myself have repeatedly said that if the camera creates an image you can use without changes, then use it without changes.


Yet I am vilified by him as an "expert" that burns all un-postprocessed images as herecy


Never have I seen such an intentionally misleading and argumentative contributor as this guy.


I have refused to attack his comments to date preferring to make my position clear and support it with fact and argument, but people read his drivel who want to learn, and he would have them simply accept what comes out of the camera and make no adjustments to it no matter how trivial or necessary when a few simple changes would make them more pleasing.


It is clear to me now that the guy has little or no experience of real photography, No real photographer who has had to print an image would have the stupidity to say you don't have to adjust an image after you've taken it. Its accepted that you have to calibrate printer and monitor simply to see what your printing correctly, and then you have to make adjustments to the image to get a good print.


If you send it to a print lab they send you instructions how to modify the image to suit their print engine.


Modifying an image is unavoidable in any real world use of an image. Unless your either in a hotel in dubrovnic sending an image over the wire to your daily, and then hey guess what, they change it so they can print it. OR you set your camera up to take jpeg and then take 500 images in a day, you then you don't have time to edit each image, each days work would generate 2 months of editing, so you don't edit them, you just add them to your library on disk and never look at them again. And then you claim, "I get it right in camera".


I think that's what this guy does. Im wondering how many hundreds of thousands of pale lifeless snapshots he has littering his hard drive.


The need to modify and enhance an image to alter its look for whatever reason is a fundamental need and its why editing software has flourished and its why camera manufacturers give you the software free with the camera. They know you need it.


I don't think this guy has any experience of real photography but I do, and ive used digital cameras since they were first put on sale, from 2 megapixel up. All of them needed enhancing. Focus was always poor due to the anti-aliasing filter and sharpening always had to be applied. Brightness had to be tweaked as did a few settings like contrast and saturation or the print looked flat.


Im saying this not for the benefit of the fool hes a lost cause, and no doubt will attack me in a new post, im saying it for the benefit of beginners who might read this thread and be mislead by his idiotic ramblings mis statements and general stupidity.


I will say this one more time for the benefit of any real photographer who wishes to improve and is just starting out.


set up your camera to take the best image you can


look at the image in editing software


if it looks fine and your happy with it, don't change it


if it needs a change like brightness contrast saturation, then make the change.




In other words, as I have said 3 times before:-



If you don't like the way the image looks post process it.

If you like the way the image looks don't post process it

Thank you very much for calling me a fool and inexperienced. Care to show us how it is done then. Post ONE shot showing your experience.

---------- Post added 05-07-14 at 23:58 ----------

Your National Geographic director cites the same benefit of raw. The main point of his argument steering beginners away from raw seemed to be to avoid relying on raw to correct sloppy shooting errors. I've never seen anyone argue otherwise. Sure many will rightfully say that raw has more leeway to fix mistakes, but I've never seen anyone advocate sloppy shooting because it can just be fixed later. As a warning for beginners, it's definitely a fair point and a trap that's easy to fall into. I may have been different but whenever I sat down to edit images I always reflected on how I could have done it better in camera so I have a better file to work with next time (I still try to give this thought).

He also said that cameras have very good jpeg engines and beginners should shoot in jpeg. Selective blindness?

[Bagga_Txips]

To be honest, I can understand what the guy is getting at, in that he does have a valid point that people shouldn't rely on pp to mend a broken shot.

What irritates me is comments like "Listen and learn", "There is another Ken called Rockwell", "My last post in this thread", ".Post ONE shot showing your experience."

Such confrontational arrogance and condescension only reduces people's respect for his viewpoint.

[dtmateojr]

To be honest, I can understand what the guy is getting at, in that he does have a valid point that people shouldn't rely on pp to mend a broken shot.

What irritates me is comments like "Listen and learn", "There is another Ken called Rockwell", "My last post in this thread", ".Post ONE shot showing your experience."

Such confrontational arrogance and condescension only reduces people's respect for his viewpoint.

You prefer "you can never get it right in camera" better than "listen and learn"? I was quoting the director of NatGeo when I said "listen and learn". Maybe you should.