You looked at a jpeg version of a Digital negative - raw file. A good explanation of this
is, you don't see all the qualities on a RAW file in jpeg format. It's a little like viewing
a 32 bit image at 16 bit. What occurs is loss of colour or detail in the latter. What occurs in the former is loss of detail, loss of tonal range. That is the power of raw. The image was sharp on my monitor with tone before I converted to jpeg. In the conversion, the negative (if untouched i.e. with curves etc) loses detail. In case of colour, instead of getting several shades of pink from very pale to deep, you may only get one or two and in 16 bit, the program decides which direction it want's to take that pink. Anaemic or Rosy all over and maybe no happy medium. Apply that to raw (loss of detail and tonality) when converting it straight from it's raw state to a small jpeg.
Secondly, our process (taught) is to rank images in Bridge after backing them up. Grading is 1-5. When all images are graded, we delete the grade 1's and the grade 2's. Grade 3's are more or less shots that have potentia which could mean quite a bit of work. Grade 4's and 5's are good if they're creative to start with as there is very little to do to them except clean up, curves, hue/color correction, little sharpening and vignette's. With grade 5's you can wor through them quite quickly. What we have to do presently is make a pdf contact sheet of all the grade 3's, 4's and 5's. I number them in order of my progression through a shoot.
For example, when doing that shoot I realised quickly that full sun on the face was not good as it has already burnt out areas on the sides of a face, clothing etc, no matter what exposure you use or manual settings. I quickly therefore moved to getting the model to face out of the sun, metred for the background only and then lit the subject with fill flash. As it was an outdoors shoot with a large animal, couldnt really use my reflector as such. Animals are a lot less patient than kids on that score. I took approx 60 images in that whole shoot. I had about x2 grade threes on my process (contact sheet) to show my lecturer my process and images. He looked at all of the images and chose one of my grade 3's. I work what I'm told to work and when I had completed working it I could literally see what he meant with 3D quality and totally agree with him on that score. The others were better, but not conceptually and a little flat due to fill flash. Also I had them behind a 5 bar gate and she was leaning on it, he felt she looked too relaxed and laid back. Bearing in mind she is an advertising agent and it's meant to be an advert.
Look at photographic adverts in magazines (which is an area of photography I enjoy and would like to head). The images you see right now in magazines are photoshopped, sometimes requiring several images not one done in camera. In actual fact we are encouraged to actually work with bad photo's in order to learn the process of recovering from a bad shoot. For example if you have a bad shoot on someone's wedding day, you can't ask for a reshoot and for what it's worth, yes I can turn a bad image good and that's not a bad thing. It is a plus in the industry I'm heading to because let's face it, when your doing it as a hobby or an interest, it doesn't matter if a particular shot turns out badly. You can re do it again with no pressure. In the "real" world however, in professional photography, it pay's to know photoshop and dng's inside out and be able to recover a bad image. So yes - it is photography. In fact, people who churn out work all done in camera on my course are getting bad grades because there is no creativity coming into play. Clients want creativity. If they wanted an amateur working on their images, they would only pay them amateur work. I have
learned everything there is t know "in camera" in the first year of my degree. Everything. The second and third year is all about pushing the envelope and turning out highly creative and conceptual imagery that will lead to you being a better photographer and digital artist. Something that is a lot more highly sought after by clients, than standard photography all in camera.
On the digital enhancement front, there are a few tricks that can be done in photoshop after the image is taken, which can also be done in the dark room. Our lecturers don't beat us around the head when we turn bad images out, they teach us how to work around things when your in business and it's all that you've got from a shoot that is impossible to go back to. If after that you go do everything in camera, your just another photographer - one of many who do the same thing time and time over. I have a $60'000 loan at the end of the course...
I want to learn how to be the best, not a normal photographer. One that is prepared to go the extra mile and make images a little more than what everyone uploads to flcker or forums like this. I'm not saying they arn't good... I'm saying they have no purpose except to teach you that you can do this or that. Been there and done that.
Lastly, on a final note, I am not the worlds best photographer no. I have been specialising in it for 1.5 yrs only of my entire degree. But what I am learning is essential for when I have more time to spend in camera when wishing to make my then potentially good images look mint. During my degree 60% of my time has been spent in photoshop. 20% in camera, 20% learning techniques. The pace is very fast. We learn every aspect of photography in a short space of time and don't get long to spend frollicking around or tweaking techniqeus as an amateur would or someone doing this as a hobby.
No I do not have good lenses. I bought my camera when I was fairly ignorant about cameras (DSLR's) and my lens's and they are not fast, and not detailed as a prime lens or two may be. At this point in time, I do not particularly feel like spending more money on more Pentax lenses to be honest, as I am considering purchase of another make camera body. So no point throwing good money after bad - I'd rather hang on, watch what cmes out in the next year or so and make a very educated decision on that. I do not like my Pentax and despite what folks have said on this forum (surprise surprise it's a Pentax forum so understandably a fair amount of bashing is going to go on when folks post on here raving about other cameras) I have photography contacts (MANY being on the course I am on) whose images are much sharper, much better taken with similar range cameras. I think I am well able to determine that it is not my skills with camera. I have BORROWED the other cameras from college and friends and took them for a ride so know it IS my camera.
I think that will be about my last post here and no I DO NOT APOLOGISE FOR WHAT WAS POSTED. All I can say is, some people find it very difficult to put their mouths in gear before they say thing's and your comment was an absolute insult to my abilities as a photographer and digital artist. No apology offered and in fact I actually think it was called for. You started the thread, and you and numerous other's dominate it for some reason. In my study I research a lot and we are taught to always be open minded and look at the motives behind why people say and do various things. I suspect your motives are evidential right here. Pentax forum user, using the Pentax logo and in Pentax colours and probably paid for by Pentax for all I know or anyone else here, and no it doesn't look good when folks talk about or are disappointed with their Pentax cameras does it? Very easy to flick us off as trolls, but I am sure if you read your own badly worded comments about my work, you and many others will see that you make a damn good troll. They're pretty good at insulting people's intelligence levels without looking like they did anything wrong.
All the best with your thread. It obviously is the "highlight" of your lives and I really couldnt care less if this post sees me with another infringement as I won't be coming back to it. Havn't read any of your comments as I can more or less imagine what they are. You all seem a pretty clique group of people - a hierarchy has already been established - thick as pea soup and not worth the effort to break in. Nothing I read would therefore be of use - I would rather put my energies from this point forward into continuing what I'm doing. The more people around under the impression photography is what you do around in camera thinking to earn a crust from it, the better from my perspective when I go into business.