Pictures straight out of the camera

matty said:
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?
Click to expand...

no but i like a lower horizon for sky shots or more land for land shots
i think the PP here is quite necessary...photos and all art induce emotion...not realism
 
if your not posting a raw image then your posting a processed image....if your posting stright from the camera then you are just letting the camera do the PP for you.
 
I only run an image through photoshop if I am happy with it beforehand.

Photoshop or any other processing programme will make a good image even better, not make a bad image good.

Most of my photoshopping consists of enhancing colour/contrast, cropping, removing minor imperfections and sharpening a touch.
 
Twizzel said:
I only run an image through photoshop if I am happy with it beforehand.

Photoshop or any other processing programme will make a good image even better, not make a bad image good.

Most of my photoshopping consists of enhancing colour/contrast, cropping, removing minor imperfections and sharpening a touch.
Click to expand...

im not sure that that is entirely true, you can make an average picture stand out and be eyecatching if its treated well, obviously though you cant polish a turd:p
 
matty said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not my cup of tea. Looks far too over saturated, but I can see what you're trying to say.
 
if i get a shot i think is good enough to use without editing, wayhay.
if i can tweek it to a standard i can use it at. good.
if ive messed up altogether. bad.
then again, theres so much you can do in photoshop, i sometimes produce two or three different versions of the same shot, just to see which i prefer best.
some shots are crying out fro a little creativity too.
 
At the end of the day an image is merely that, an image, how it was acheived is irrelevent as long as it serves its purpose, whatever that is. But I must disagree with anyone who compares air brushing trannies, dodging and burning/toning, cropping on prints to the multitude of actions you can currently do with PS.
 
i cant wait for the day when i can go out without a camera and come back with some brilliant pictures ( everyone of them ) do a bit of pp ,,,and have them printed onto canvas in fact why go out at all, think i'll just sit here and do it without moving my fat lardy arse . simplzzzzzz
 
I had this discussion on holiday. I like to try to get it as right as possible in the camera, because at the end of the day it save me processing time :D. I took over 2K pics on holiday.

Sometimes I have to straighten - I seem to have a 1 degree slant (or the horizon moves when I click the shutter).

Everything into lightroom, then jpg export but otherwise
Straight out of camera
115935452.jpg


but with a polariser
115936259.jpg


Just a crop
115935670.jpg
 
Post processing is a part of photography, and it has been for many years before digital.

I process all of my images, some less than others, I don't like having to over-process stuff but I don't particularly get a kick out of photos where i haven't had to process much at all.
 
Surely if you have resized the photo so its small enough to fit on here, you have manipulated it - you've chucked most of it away!

And sorry to drag up an endless argument, but don't forget that most of the manufacturers state categorically that an unsharp mask should be applied to their products output as that is what the camera is designed to have done.

So no resize and no USM and basically you might as well be showing us a photo of your 35mm negatives sat on the table :D
 
I was in Birmingham at the weekend. The fine art gallery has a large photo print of Marilyn Monroe in a crowd of photographers. She'd been lightened and the photographers darkened.

£14K for the framed print though!
 
ujjwaldey8165 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No...because it's a viewpoint founded on the erronious assumption that an image straight from the camera, by being 'unaltered' or unsullied somehow, makes it 'better' than one which the photographer has laboured to create, both by use of in-camera settings and in PP using Photoshop or similar programs.
And it's bloody wrong!

The camera will apply various processing algorithms to the electronic information recorded on the sensor according to the settings you choose. It's already been through some form of processing whether you like it or not. That image should then be imported into another program to crop and finalise the image according to the output for which it's intended. That's PP as well...even at that minimal level...

Even in the days of film, the photographer made similar decisions all along the process, from the choice of film, to the chemistry he chose to process the film, the temperature of that chemistry and the dilution and length of processing.
Then the choice of enlarger (if shooting negative film), paper and how he/she chose to print - all those processes had an impact on the final image...

By letting the camera choose the level of processing and doing nothing else, the photographer is simply choosing to leave all that decision-making to the software engineers who designed the camera you chose - the only choice you made in the image process in fact...

What is better? Taking all of the decisions and controlling your image-process from beginning to end, or let a Japanese software tech do it for you...

I call it being lazy, myself... it's the level of interaction we assign to 'camera-handlers' in the Military, as opposed to photographers who actually create something...

You want to be classed as a mere button-pusher, that's fine, but it's not photography...
 
been thinking about this
really straight out of the camera is really a stage where the image is rectified to suit camera tilt , cropping , some cloning
but the basic essentials which determine a good photograph...lighting.. are unaltered
and the sharpening is used only because of any resizing
the bells and whistles arent included as out of the camera and really fall into PP

most negatives and transparencies have to be post processed in the first place and in printing the colour balance can be adjusted in machines...emulsions not being too perfect

straight out of the camera...resized and sharpened

 
There was a post a couple of years ago I cant find it it twas funny when someone posted a pic of a cup of espresso, straight out of the camera, still cant make a brew with mine, think it had referrals to YV dont quote me on that though as I was a newbie then :lol:

sorry in advance von if its nowt to do with you it was some one who loves coffee anyone else remember it?
 
I also think we need to differentiate between 'processing' (what we termed as 'normal darkroom practice - cropping, selective dodging and burning etc) and 'manipulation' (altering, adding or deleting elements within the image to change or alter what was originally recorded)...
 
Unless you're posting RAW files, everything has been post processed...surely?!

Who cares what 'out of camera' is - you have settings for contrast, saturation, sharpness, white balance etc. in camera which is what you can do in photoshop anyway- so unless you're shooting in raw, everything is being PP regardless (if not by yourself) so lets not be hypocrites...
 
Only what is seen with the eye is unprocessed. Everything else is...
 
GateKiller said:
Only what is seen with the eye is unprocessed. Everything else is...
Click to expand...


But your camera (Like most and mine) isn't capable of recording what the eye sees anyway.... Not enough dynamic range.

So that ideas stuffed... :shrug:

Its up to the photographer to make that illusion work, part of that is not allowing themselves to be restricted by the limitations of their camera.
 
GateKiller said:
Only what is seen with the eye is unprocessed. Everything else is...
Click to expand...

Actually even thats untrue... what you "see" is processed by your brain and that wonderful "HDR effect" is due to short term memory use to create a composite image from lots and lots of images. You cannot recreate what you "see" in a single still image because "you" are not a still image camera.
 
OneTen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Arkady said:
because it's a viewpoint founded on the erronious assumption that an image straight from the camera, by being 'unaltered' or unsullied somehow, makes it 'better' than one which the photographer has laboured to create, both by use of in-camera settings and in PP using Photoshop or similar programs.
And it's bloody wrong!

The camera will apply various processing algorithms to the electronic information recorded on the sensor according to the settings you choose. It's already been through some form of processing whether you like it or not. That image should then be imported into another program to crop and finalise the image according to the output for which it's intended. That's PP as well...even at that minimal level...

Even in the days of film, the photographer made similar decisions all along the process, from the choice of film, to the chemistry he chose to process the film, the temperature of that chemistry and the dilution and length of processing.
Then the choice of enlarger (if shooting negative film), paper and how he/she chose to print - all those processes had an impact on the final image...

By letting the camera choose the level of processing and doing nothing else, the photographer is simply choosing to leave all that decision-making to the software engineers who designed the camera you chose - the only choice you made in the image process in fact...

What is better? Taking all of the decisions and controlling your image-process from beginning to end, or let a Japanese software tech do it for you...

I call it being lazy, myself... it's the level of interaction we assign to 'camera-handlers' in the Military, as opposed to photographers who actually create something...

You want to be classed as a mere button-pusher, that's fine, but it's not photography...
Click to expand...


These two posts say it all, perfectly :thumbs:

Post processing is PART OF the art of creating digital photographs not an optional extra :)
 
swag72 said:
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.

---

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.
Click to expand...

I think you would have an issue with me then. I recently submitted some pics to a local show. The rules are that digital cameras are allowed, but no processing is allowed. I am really disappointed at how washed out, non-contrasted my pictures look in comparison to the other photos in the classes. I just don't know how they manage to get their pictures like that.
 
coldpenguin said:
I think you would have an issue with me then. I recently submitted some pics to a local show. The rules are that digital cameras are allowed, but no processing is allowed. I am really disappointed at how washed out, non-contrasted my pictures look in comparison to the other photos in the classes. I just don't know how they manage to get their pictures like that.
Click to expand...

Are you sure they meant 'processing' and not manipulation...?

As we've been saying, if you shoot RAW you HAVE to process your images...
 
Reading all these comments how film shooting is supposedly more pure by producing stuff "straight from the camera" - guys, aren't you forgetting something? Film shooting is as different and versatile as RAW in digital and I don't believe it for a second that any of you film experienced can produce exactly the same prints from a single film shot. The printing process is a "post processing" so it is applicable to the film shooting.
 
Grendel said:
These two posts say it all, perfectly :thumbs:

Post processing is PART OF the art of creating digital photographs not an optional extra :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this and the two posts Grendel referenced - can't think of better putting it to words than Arkady did.
 
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...

Quite agree.

Thinking back to using film, especially B&W

1. Chose film to suit subject / lighting (digi equivalent set ISO)

2. After shooting chose developer - high or low acutance (digi equivalent in camera sharpening setting)

3. Print picture having chosen suitable grade of paper (digi equivalent - add a bit of pop PP)

4. Last of all spend hours dodging, burning, split toning, split grading, using different papers, developers and toners in the darkroom (digi equivalent - hours spent doing PP)

Tadaaaaa! Result a nice original black and white photograph. Have a read of Ansel Adams trilogy of books on the camera, film and printing.

David
 
Without rereading the entire thread, the one point I will make is when you popped your colour film into Boots, Teascos or where ever in film days they were all manipulated, the mini labs that all these places use analysed the neg before it was printed to get the exposure time and colour corrections required for each individual negative, PP if I have ever seen it. My appologies to anyone else that may have said this earlier in the thread.
 
Willid1 said:
Quite agree.

Thinking back to using film, especially B&W

1. Chose film to suit subject / lighting (digi equivalent set ISO)

2. After shooting chose developer - high or low acutance (digi equivalent in camera sharpening setting)

3. Print picture having chosen suitable grade of paper (digi equivalent - add a bit of pop PP)

4. Last of all spend hours dodging, burning, split toning, split grading, using different papers, developers and toners in the darkroom (digi equivalent - hours spent doing PP)

Tadaaaaa! Result a nice original black and white photograph. Have a read of Ansel Adams trilogy of books on the camera, film and printing.

David
Click to expand...

you nailed it old chap
and the results looked natural in the normal spectrum for the human eye
evoking emotion and making a statement
a good picture is worth...well at least $2500 for a decent dslr, lens harem, the latest software and a decent way to look at it

cheers
geof
 
coldpenguin said:
I think you would have an issue with me then. I recently submitted some pics to a local show. The rules are that digital cameras are allowed, but no processing is allowed. I am really disappointed at how washed out, non-contrasted my pictures look in comparison to the other photos in the classes. I just don't know how they manage to get their pictures like that.
Click to expand...

I am sure that I would not have issue with you! If you posted those pics and I said they looked washed out and lacking in contrast, would you get the hump?

I am sure that you would politely tell me why you had the pics in this way in the first place ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top