Pictures straight out of the camera

Loopy

Loopy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,167
Name
Lynda
Edit My Images
Yes
I thought I'd ask a question as this was raised in an earlier thread.

I am guilty of stating whether a picture has had PP or not. Now I think that this is because I started my pursuit of photography with film, when every shot mattered and it was quite an expensive hobby.

So, when I download an image and I'm really happy with the result before I adjust anything (apart from a bit of straightening because I think I'm cock-eyed), I'll say so.

I don't mind people commenting and saying that they'd prefer it tweaked, that's personal preference and I will have a mess around with the image after.

But for me, I get a kick out of seeing an image straight from the camera and feeling that I've made a good job of selecting my settings. I've put some thought into taking the picture there and then and not had to rely on software to rescue it. I know with monochrome you could do all your dodge and burn, masking etc and manipulate an image, but as an amateur there was (is) nothing better than getting a colour film back i.e prints and having some photos that just don't need anything doing to them.

I must stress that this does not happen very often and I love being able to alter an image afterwards but I still feel good when I don't have to. Hence the reason why I get all excited and go woo look at this!

Does anyone else feel like this or do I really need to get over it.
:)
 
Processing and photo manipulation has existed long before digital photography came along despite what people might lead you to believe. I think it's personal preference. If I'm happy with the results of a shot straight from camera then it's a great feeling... but it's not going to make me feel guilty or like a cheat just because I tweak an image.

Airbrushing females on magazine covers... now that's different.
 
Straight out the camera could mean a few things - I generally stopped shooting jpg as I didn't like the internal processing. But when shooting jpg 'straight out the camera' has already been processed so I guess in that case it depends on your camera's jpg engine.

That said, sometimes you do get images that are just right with nothing done :)
 
I would like to know whether a 'photograph' has been photoshopped or not.

I have more respect for photographs that come straight out of the camera - especially on films; rather than those which are tweaked ( sometimes extensively) to turn them into images. Even if the straight-out-of-camera ones are a bit rough around the edges.

Yes, darkroom manipulations existed amongst film photographers; but definitely not as widely or extensively used as it is in the digital world. I believe HCB didn't even develop and print his photographs ( most anyways)

Just my view on the subject.
 
I'm not very experienced at this but I get the impression those versed in the art can tell pretty much straight away what's been done to an image just by looking?
 
i have to agree sooo much, i hate it when people edit pictures on photoshop, i dont mind the brightening or straightening...but some people go abit far.

but like u "I get a kick out of seeing an image straight from the camera and feeling that I've made a good job of selecting my settings."

infact i think i've posted a few threads on ere sayin the same.
 
Nawty said:
I'm not very experienced at this but I get the impression those versed in the art can tell pretty much straight away what's been done to an image just by looking?
Click to expand...

I guess you mean versed in the art of photoshopping. I believe you are right; though I wouldn't know.

That said, I would have thought one would need an image in digital format to be sure. For example, I believe most of the filter effects can be simulated in PS. I would guess that if the image is a printed one, it will be difficult to know whether the filter sat in front of the camera or in ether-space. Someone more knowledgeable can perhaps help.
 
Don't get me wrong, I am a total fan of PP. I would love to achieve the results that some people do on here.

I just wondered if anyone else got the same buzz as I do.

Does anyone else's family give them the same look of sympathy that mine do. :D
 
Personally, I don't think that there is such a thing as an absolute rule on this. There is nothing intrinsically perfect about an image straight out of a camera - that image has already been manipulated by the quality of the camera and/or the glass, the internal processing power and/or programming of the camera or in ye olden dayes the type of and/or properties of the film used and/or printing process/paper etc etc etc.
 
Cannot get bothered about it one way or t'other.

Used to shoot B&W film and do my own D&P. Plenty image manipulation took place.
 
Seems we have a new 'purist' sect emerging, where 'proper' photographs have to be unprocessed to be worthy...

What a load of utter shi'ite...
 
Personally I tend to prefer landscapes in particular as natural as possible and it definitely gives me a buzz when I get one of those shots which is pretty much as I was hoping straight from the camera...

having said that I'd also like to be able to use software much more effectively to make the most of shots that otherwise end up in the delete bin !!

Processing is very much personal taste, especially HDR, some love it & some hate it..I'm a bit caught between the two :shrug:


Simon
 
If somone is happy to post a straight out the camera picture then that's fine. My issue comes when somone gets the hump because their straight out the camera shot is lacking in contrast or sharpness etc and you say so.

On a personal note, I will always tweak my pics before I post, because I want to post something that I believe is as good as I can make it, both in camera and by PP. My tweaks are always the same, levels, curves, contrast, saturation and sharpening - I don't feel that is altering the image or producing something that I never took.

When I look at my RAW pics, with a neutral setting in camera (so no adjustments are added) they just look washed out and lacking in punch. Perhaps those that get good straight out of camera images have their in camera settings to a picture style that does give a little sharpen, boost and tweaks some colours.

Just my 2p worth.
 
Arkady said:
Seems we have a new 'purist' sect emerging, where 'proper' photographs have to be unprocessed to be worthy...

What a load of utter shi'ite...
Click to expand...

Could you please stop beating around the bush and say what you really think mate..........:lol:
 
Arkady said:
Seems we have a new 'purist' sect emerging, where 'proper' photographs have to be unprocessed to be worthy...

What a load of utter shi'ite...
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol:

A very long time ago a well regarded snapper said that with photographs, the negative was like the score and the print like the performance. That to get perfection you had to use both and more than that, write your score with the performance in mind.

With digital things are very similar. I suppose a corresponding analogy would be that the RAW file would be ingredients and the processing is the cooking. Taking that a tad further, camera jpegs would be ready meals (where some are great and very tasty) and a processed RAW is like a cooked meal.
 
Loopy said:
Don't get me wrong, I am a total fan of PP. I would love to achieve the results that some people do on here.

I just wondered if anyone else got the same buzz as I do.

Does anyone else's family give them the same look of sympathy that mine do. :D
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with your view here - I do try and do as little PP as I can and if I have to do none then I'm delighted. But if I have to work an image with fancy software to get the best out of it I do so and don't have a problem at all with PP as one part of the whole photographic process.
 
In the 'good old days' of 125 box Brownies, Black and white photography, Butlins, and seaside holidays in Britain, we used to take our films to the local chemist and get back small contact prints.

Nobody thought that pictures were manipulated. What went in, came out.

The cogniscenti, rich amateurs and pros knew better. Since photography began photographs have been manipulated for various reasons or no reason, the Cottingley fairies for example. Now with digital photography we all not only know that photographs can be manipulated but can do it ourselves, and consequently we realize the extent to which we may have been 'duped' in the past.

As a reaction to this there is a sort of moral backlash to manipulation which rather perversely seems to suggest as in one of the posts above that even the perfectly legitimate corrections required for a digital image should be eschewed which rather oddly could mean that digital images would be always inferior to film images....
....and so it goes on.

I have a book with a fairly famous picture of a returning Vietnam war veteran 'running' to his wife and children having just descended from an aeroplane bringing him home.
A very touching scene. However it was considered that the soldier's crutch, lying on the ground, didn't convey quite the right message so it was conveniently cropped out.

It all depends on your persepective and the story you want to tell.
 
I think one should try their best to get photos right at the point of taking the photo including using various filters or lighting to get the best result.

However, PP is part of photography and I always tweak my photos from minor curve corrections to full on HDR's.

I guess what matters at the end of the day is:

Are you happy with the final shot?
 
I'm with Aberal on this one. Some tweaking can be very useful: to get rid of clutter that can't be avoided; to put in a sky that just wasn't there when the shot was taken; or to crop out vignetting that your gear just insists you have.

The ideal, of course, is to get the shot as perfect as it can be at the time, and as an individual's techniqe develops then less and less editing is needed.

I know it can take an age faffing about with software but I would hate it if I was told I couldn't use it any more!

Andy.
 
When I compose a shot I'm actually thinking about what ratio crop I will use when I get the picture in photoshop! I'm used to cropping all the time as I only have 200mm in my bag plus I mostly prefer a 6x4 ratio, or sometimes a 5x7, which my camera doesn't quite give.

Getting it right straight from the camera is great in theory, but I don't think it's any better or worse than PP'ing afterwards. Horses for courses I guess!!

PP has existed since darkrooms were invented!!
 
I shoot in raw and as such the process for me isn't finished in camera, even if exposure and composition are all how I want them. My photos can be improved with adjustments such as levels and they all require sharpening. I don't really see this as post processing but merely part of the process of digital photography.
 
Frankly I can't see anything wrong with PP to produce a better IMAGE (as opposed to a straightforward record).

After all this has been going on far longer than digital photography has existed.

Many years ago when I was a wedding photographer a particular problem was the exteme contrasts produced on a sunny day, between the Bride's dress and the groom's dark or black suit for example.

My solution, which worked amazingly well, was to use tri-x pan (400 ASA) overexpose it either 2x or 4x and cut the developing time by 1/2.

This gave photos which had excellent detail everywhere.

As for "airbrushing" models - how do you think the term came about?

An airbrush was exactly that - a tiny paint sprayer with a small compressor which could be used to paint areas on the photograph.

Personally I am extremely grateful that I can now indulge my hobby while sitting at a computer and using the myriad of tools and programs and kit available that we couldn't even have dreamed of in the days of darkrooms, chemicals, enlargers and all the expense associated with taking a picture.

These days no matter what the cost of a camera etc, the shots taken are virtually FREE - and for me that is the really incredible part about digital photography.
 
factis that developing in different media for different times and concentrations, then exposing on different papers with dodging and burning means the image is not like what you see. photoshop can be taken too far but fact with digital is if you don't PP with RAW your image is dull flatless and unsharp. then you have filters as well.
 
Whether it's straight from the camera or processed to hell, surely the whole point is that the image must be worth posting in the first place. I could take a picture of a dog turd and expose it correctly but it's still a dog turd - unless dog turd photos are you thing ;)

Digital photography works hand-in-hand with digital software and processing techniques. Let's not think that it's something else - it's part of digital photography and up tot he user to apply its use in the manner they see fit to please the viewer.
 
Arkady said:
Seems we have a new 'purist' sect emerging, where 'proper' photographs have to be unprocessed to be worthy...

What a load of utter shi'ite...
Click to expand...

No offense meant, but why does such a view have to be shi'te?

The view about photography is personal. Its not about right or wrong, its about individual preference, isn't it?

I hold what you are calling a 'purist view'; but I do respect you for having just the opposite. To each of us, our own.
 
I'm a beginner trying to learn but my knowledge of photo tweaking is limited using Gimp, i try to "get what you see out there" in the words of Joe Cornish, not that i could get anywhere near what he does. Some of you guys on here can tweak a photo until it looks almost cartoon/computer graphic like and there's some beauty there, but there is no law or rules saying you can't. Bending a few curves adding saturation and sharpening i think is perfectly allowable to liven up an otherwise ordinary photograph without going too far ?
 
Graham00 said:
...Bending a few curves adding saturation and sharpening i think is perfectly allowable to liven up an otherwise ordinary photograph...
Click to expand...
I think this probably where the issue arises, this idea of creating a silk purse from a sow's ear. For me that's not what processing is about, it's about finishing the image. Sure, some people apply Photoshop techniques to the extreme and that's down to personal taste.
 
I think some of it depends on the subject too.

With landscapes you have time on your side, you can plonk the camera on a tripod and faff about with filters till your heart is content.

On a fashion shoot you can move your model, introduce lighting and generally conduct the shoot.

At a wedding very often you can't control things, the ceremony is the ceremony and if the vicar is in the way, tough. I had one recently where the bride had a room divider sprouting from her head and I did not have an alternative shooting position so, of course I removed it in PP.

I will quite happily pull a sky about using curves, I will remove unwanted signage at venues and I'm very grateful that I can because it gives my clients better images.
 
A question for you purists who despise all photoshopping. When you use film,, do you pick one suited for the purpose you intend, or to you use a flat, low contrast and low saturation colour film for everything you do?
I don't see how giving my digital landscapes a bit of a tweak is any different to putting in a roll of Velvia 50
 
apart from trannys most film shots are PP'd
ansel adams a good example
means end the the justifies...rearrange
i dont believe digital imagery can have 100% integrity with the seen image
what you see is what you dont get
what the photographer really meant etc..
hence PP
it has added a world of freedom in terms of cropping adjusting and image control
remember those two bodies
you can have colour and black to white in the same one
PP does it and without any prejudice to the 'negative'
 
I think most people try to get the result as close as possible on camera, but to tweak and process an image afterward, why not? I think to throw away an image just because it's not perfect straight out the camera would be foolish.
 
Montymint said:
As a beginner I like to try to get the shot to as close as I want it to be out of the camera, just so I know i'm doing something right.
Click to expand...

so do we all..but cloning being the digital miracle can get rid of things you cant
composition sometimes is not always possible so that cropping is necessary
but i really wish you well with a hard rod for your back, but highly commendable learning the fundamentals are more important than mouse clicked masterpieces
cheers
 
Thanks for all the posts. It's made really interested reading and I really didn't intend to open the whole debate of whether a photo lacks integrity if it has been processed.

If an image gives the viewer pleasure then it shouldn't matter what has been done to it.

Like I've said, I love being able to alter an image be it slightly or to the point where it's unrecognisable from the original.

Re. My original post. Thanks for the therapy session – I will ‘get over it’. :D
 
Loopy said:
Like I've said, I love being able to alter an image be it slightly or to the point where it's unrecognisable from the original.
:D
Click to expand...

psst....just dont let your friends see the original...they will never know the difference
:D
cheers
 
if i'm bein honest if i had an unlimited supply of money. Somethin tells me i wouldn't need to worry about how my pictures would turn out...infact i doubt i'd ever would touch photoshop at all.
 
jackbauer said:
if i'm bein honest if i had an unlimited supply of money. Somethin tells me i wouldn't need to worry about how my pictures would turn out...infact i doubt i'd ever would touch photoshop at all.
Click to expand...

why do we take photos and then adjust them..isnt that creativity..which money cant buy..:)
 
ok here we go then...

straight out the camera



a bit of straightening wont do much, in raw, this image needs a lot of tweaking, its a tiny bit underexposed but otherwise levels are ok...but its crap.


S curve, horizon leveled, and the vignette darkened. bit of sharpening.

Too much processing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top