Is it bad to rely on PP?

boliston said:
I'd be happy to shoot jpeg if I could find any advantage that jpeg has over raw other than file size.
Click to expand...

But the way your shooting I'd say RAW doesn't offer you any advantage..... I shoot RAW but get far more than the basic settings from them. What are you gaining by shooting RAW?
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
I did say I was generalising, there are always exceptions. To clarify, If I take a shot where, for whatever reason, the exposure is completely out of whack then I will take another one having corrected for that error. When I then have the shot I want, I delete the one I don't. If it is a sports shot, the I may not have the opportunity to retake so in that case I would have no choice but to keep the shot and make the best of it.
Click to expand...

Yes fair point - some say the difference between an amateur and a pro is measured by what they delete lol so you'd be quite high up in the ranking there. I really should delete more :)

fabs said:
Never had a corrupt card in over 6 years. ;)
Click to expand...

Me nither :)
 
Last edited:
Alan Clogwyn said:
All how you interpret it, but I'd be inclined to class JPEGs on default camera settings as not PP'd, as you have done nothing to them other than pressed the shutter. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Which default settings? Auto mode? Can you use manual settings, creative settings in-camera? An iPhone is a camera and can have photoshop-type apps installed directly on it - can I do editing in that and count it as "in-camera defaults"? How about if i make all my editing in photoshop / whatever from a few presets?

Point is, RAW is unprocessed, unlike almost anything else. But more importantly, why does it matter? I can't help thinking that the people who say "I don't change anything in software afterwards" do it simply because they don't know how to do it well - but rather than admit that, they'd much rather say that they're taking a moral highground and that post processing is "the easy way".

Ultimately, what is a photo for? In some cases you want to capture the scene exactly, maybe for criminal evidence for example. In most cases though, we want photos because they look good, or remind us of something. I, frankly, don't care at all how someone makes a photo look good, as long as the end result is good. Reminds me of the people who say "oh i don't like that music because the band didn't write the song" - absolutely legitimate comment... if you are judging their song-writing ability. But if you just want a song that's good to listen to - or a photo that's good to look at - then it matters not one bit about what processing has been done on it.

David
 
yes get the photo as good as you can before PP

salmoally said:
Im finding myself more reliant on my PP software to give my photographs the look I want. It isnt over the top PP, just a dailing a few knobs here and there maybe a bit of cropping.

Should I concentrate on making the best Photographs I can before getting too dependent on PP, or is it just the norm now?
Click to expand...
 
boliston said:
I might not be gaining anything but I'm not loosing anything either. ;)
Click to expand...

But by shooting jpg you would not be losing anything either.... The jpg may be slightly compressed but that would be indistinguishable from a RAW with the same settings.

I'm an advocate of shooting RAW but you are doing so for the wrong reasons (imo)
 
mercmanuk said:
that would be like showing somone how to steer a car better, but letting them drive round in 3rd gear all the time, or are they shooting Auto:)

because i could have my camera in M and it set to iso 1600 @ 1/500 f/2 on a sunny day and :shrug:

the basics first and PS comes right after click for some

Merc
Click to expand...

I don't get what you're saying......

I've not told these guys NOT to think about processing, it's just we have a department within work that deals with pre-press adjustments and these are done to suit the printing set-up more than anything. I don't think it's right to leave processing of an image you've taken to someone else but that's how our company (and probably many others within the media) is run.

What I'm saying in my previous post is that for all the theorising, it should be the result of pressing the shutter that brings the enjoyment; what you do after that is then up to the person who wishes to present the image. It's not essential to be aware of every processing technique to take a good shot but if you feel extra tweaks are needed then each to their own....

I said to myself I wouldn't contribute to the whole file type/camera settings debate, but here's my two-penneth;

Yes, raw brings together a mass of information that will ultimately allow anyone skillfull enough to do so, to bring out a high amount of detail and tonal range in software, and help create an image as rich in depth as the photographer can imagine.

However, I just can't understand the massive problem some people have with JPEGs, with their camera-applied contrast, saturation, sharpness and other attributes. It's almost like it's a ruination of something precious, something that shouldn't be meddled with.

I shoot some raw in tricky lighting situations where I want to give myself more of a chance in terms of getting tonal range right, but for the majority of my work, it's done in JPEG when I know I'm nailing the shot; look on my Flickr page and truthfully tell me how much of a difference shooting raw would have made because (call me shortsighted on this) I really don't see as big a case as is being put forward by some..... :)
 
Last edited:
So are all your images on flickr shot in jpg?
 
And so it goes on. The only pictures I ever shot that had Zero adjustment were slides and even these were kinda processed by lens coatings/filters etc. All others are processed whether it be in the darkroom, processing lab, on getting the images off your digital camera.
PS doesn't allow you to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, it just gives you a load more options to achieve the final effect that you want, be it surreal to a semi unprocessed image.
Just think of it as a darkoom + a bag of filters on your desk.
 
EOS_JD said:
So are all your images on flickr shot in jpg?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, the majority are, particularly those shot over the last 12 months. There are exceptions, such as the guy with the smoothhound and a few of the early 365 ones like the candle on the floor.
 
boyfalldown said:
:shrug: every image is PP'd. Doesn't matter if your converting to JPEG in camera or using LR/PS to do more. Its still PP'd

The only people who make statements like that are people who don't understand processing
Click to expand...

:agree:

paleblue said:
I think it is absolutely necessary to post-process digital pictures. Digital images are often quite flat in contrast and often the colour balance isn't quite right, and somehow lack character. Of course it is possible to alter these aspects IN camera, but why would you want to? I would trust skills in photoshop over in-camera presets any day, and I actually found that the original lack of character from digital shots a good thing, because it allowed me to build up on adjustment layers to create the picture I wanted.

Nowadays I shoot mainly film so don't PP at all, but still use PS to edit my snapshots with my P+S using gradient maps and curves to bring them to life. I think, if you have the ability and have actually bought the software, then why not use it?
Click to expand...

Totally :agree:


here's my take on it....

A shot that you thought was rubbish or not worth doing anything with, because it was a "test" shot or something like that, could be turned into a fantastic pic, once put through Photoshop or Lightroom, give it a go, you could be surprised

:)
 
Rob 80386 said:
:agree:



Totally :agree:


here's my take on it....

A shot that you thought was rubbish or not worth doing anything with, because it was a "test" shot or something like that, could be turned into a fantastic pic, once put through Photoshop or Lightroom, give it a go, you could be surprised

:)
Click to expand...

absolutely, it doesn't even need to be a test shot, provided the underlying composition is ok (with a little cropping maybe) then what could be quite flat/lifeless because of the weather/lighting conditions, can (in some circumstances!!!) be brought to life quite dramatically. You have to be prepared to push the boundaries sometimes, I'm not saying it can always be done, but, if you don't try, you will never know.
as photographers, we are trying to produce a final product that most people would find pleasing to look at, I wouldn't think many would particularly care how it was produced.
To produce the best possible image 'in camera' should always be a starting point, but not necessarily the final one........
 
or as I see it I can't take very good pictures so I create them in photoshop and use some poncy verble diarrhea to make it sound good :lol:

Digifrog said:
To quote Joel Tintjejaar...

"I'm not interested in the world as it is, I'm not interested in what the camera can record, I'm just interested in what I see. Once you have visualized the image you have in your head and convey it to the world, then I think it becomes art."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjintjelaar/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Anyone who hasn't used PP is missing a hole lot of fun. Yes we all like to see a great picture coming straight from the camera but if people never use PP I'd ask them if they use filters or use "in camera" adjustments. They all have an effect on the final image. Using PP is no different. By using RAW it's almost inevitable that PP will be needed.
 
Doog said:
Anyone who hasn't used PP is missing a hole lot of fun. Yes we all like to see a great picture coming straight from the camera but if people never use PP I'd ask them if they use filters or use "in camera" adjustments. They all have an effect on the final image. Using PP is no different. By using RAW it's almost inevitable that PP will be needed.
Click to expand...

io think people are missing the point here. I don't the the op is saying no PP just not using it as a way to make a bad pic good. if you shoot raw you have to apply contrast
saturation and sharpening but to spend 10 mins raping it in PS to try and make it better is silly. get the light right at the time then tidy up in potatoshop.
 
boyfalldown said:
nope, no sense at all I'm, afraid - you've also chosen which settings, or processing the camera will apply. Thats active d-lighting, sharpening settings, saturation options etc etc...........(or used the defaults but even defaults will apply default settings to these sort of parameters) these are the sort of things that are still processing and essential to get a good image.

Just because you've chosen to apply those settings as one size fits all rather than have the choice of applying them on an image by image basis doesn't mean its not happening

The simple answer to is it PP'd in that case is is it exactly as it came off the sensor, and it in no way is
Click to expand...

In waht way is that different to choosing say Kodachrome over Previa or even HP5 on film? That's just the digital equivalent.

In my book it's not Post production until you've loaded it into an image editor, up until then it's still as shot.
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
In waht way is that different to choosing say Kodachrome over Previa or even HP5 on film? That's just the digital equivalent.

In my book it's not Post production until you've loaded it into an image editor, up until then it's still as shot.
Click to expand...


You developed film though, and the skill or otherwise of the developer had a very large influence on the final print.


- its post processing the moment any settings are applied to develop or change what the sensor has captured. Because its moved on, and got argueably easier (or doesn't involve lots of smelly chemicals as much anymore) doesn't make it a bad thing.
 
Do what you want...and who cares what anyone thinks. People use neutral density filters, circular polarizers, colored gels and so forth to capture images that are "better than natural." Portraits are manipulated to remove unsightly blemishes, stray strands of hair and wrinkles. Whether these sorts of things happen in-camera, afterwards or both is purely a personal decision, certainly not an ethical, moral or legal one.
 
boyfalldown said:
You developed film though, and the skill or otherwise of the developer had a very large influence on the final print.


- its post processing the moment any settings are applied to develop or change what the sensor has captured. Because its moved on, and got argueably easier (or doesn't involve lots of smelly chemicals as much anymore) doesn't make it a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just debating what people are classing as Post Production, as I said earlier my view is if it happens at capture, be that through a filter on the lens or having the saturation set at +1 in the cameras settings, it's not post processed.

Hell if wanted to be really pedantic I could say that PP would only apply to say editing out blemishes, smoothing skin etc rather than just a quick tone curve change or noise reduction.

I don't have a preference either way, I keep some images as shot and some get put through the mill. I don't believe PP is a total necessity, likewise I wouldn't want to just rely on my out of camera JPEGs.
 
salmoally said:
Im finding myself more reliant on my PP software to give my photographs the look I want. It isnt over the top PP, just a dailing a few knobs here and there maybe a bit of cropping.

Should I concentrate on making the best Photographs I can before getting too dependent on PP, or is it just the norm now?
Click to expand...

I think we have moved away somewhat from the initial post above.
I would say 'yes' concentrate on getting as much right in camera, then apply whatever PP you 'think' you need.
PP means (to me) after the shot, if you shoot RAW you HAVE to do some PP.
Producing ooc jpg's just limits the amount of PP you can apply afterwards (compared to RAW), but if you are happy/satisfied with the results there isn't a problem - it's your choice after all.
Trouble is, we (well some of us) don't always get it right in camera. At this point you have two choices, throw it away and put it down to experience(or lack of!) or have ago and see what you can ressurect.
As you have seen PP or no PP, JPG or RAW etc etc seems to bring out the ' you should be doing it this way' brigade on droves.
Hopefully, once you filter out the crap, you can make an informed decision based on the experiences of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top