The 'I don't use software' brigade
Feb 18, 2017 17:20:24 #
lngroller wrote:
I understand what you are saying but have a differ... (show quote)
Good slides and good JPEGs are quite challenging to make. They force you to be precise and disciplined at the camera. When you switch to raw and post-processing, that pays off in spades.
Feb 18, 2017 17:26:00 #
I use software. Even if I were able to get perfect shots every time SOOC, I would use software.
I use Lightroom. Even if my photos need no adjustment whatever I use Lightroom. Lightroom mitigates my aging memory. When I have a photo I want to keep (which appears to be something like 10% of the photos I take), I put tags on it in Lightroom. I tag people, places, events, and most of the time locations. My memory is good for maybe a month or three, so when I want a photo of something or somewhere Lightroom will show me photos that I have forgotten I took.
Of course there are other reasons, e.g. I don't print anything. So I'm not locked into standardized aspect ratios and I can crop my photos to a good composition rather than depending of the native aspect ratio coming out of the camera. I could do that with simpler software than Lightroom, but I really have to put my photos through LR if I ever want to see them again.
I use Lightroom. Even if my photos need no adjustment whatever I use Lightroom. Lightroom mitigates my aging memory. When I have a photo I want to keep (which appears to be something like 10% of the photos I take), I put tags on it in Lightroom. I tag people, places, events, and most of the time locations. My memory is good for maybe a month or three, so when I want a photo of something or somewhere Lightroom will show me photos that I have forgotten I took.
Of course there are other reasons, e.g. I don't print anything. So I'm not locked into standardized aspect ratios and I can crop my photos to a good composition rather than depending of the native aspect ratio coming out of the camera. I could do that with simpler software than Lightroom, but I really have to put my photos through LR if I ever want to see them again.
Feb 18, 2017 17:32:10 #
jrbissell wrote:
Maybe you and your friends did, but if you include everyone in this discussion, then "we" did not. As I've noted several times already, those of us who shot Kodachrome did zero PP.When we shot with film we did post processing-leaving the photo in the chemicals made them darker I believe-more contrast etc. you could push the dynamic range before immersing the photo in the fixer as I recall-Ansel Adams was an expert at it with his Black and White photos.
jrbissell wrote:
This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the subject. Some of the lenses I use have an aperture ring mechanically connected to the actual aperture. Carefully setting aperture is one of many things I do during the thirty minutes of a "five minute photo stop" to make the picture I take to be the photo I want.Even changing aperture changes the photo etc.
Feb 18, 2017 17:55:05 #
Feb 18, 2017 17:58:34 #
You are exactly on the money, Digital photography is a two sided coin, the camera and getting the picture is one side of the coin and Post processing is the other side of the coin. While it is true that there is no law that says you must learn PP. But if you don't you won't get the best out of your photos.
G Brown wrote:
I do not believe in fairies! br br Digital photog... (show quote)
Feb 18, 2017 20:36:21 #
G Brown wrote:
I do not believe in fairies! br br Digital photog... (show quote)
If your point (other than a disbelief in fairies) is that I use SOME software related to my photography, you're right of course, but that software consists of Windows, email, cloud backup, and printer drivers (and the software in the camera). Another point seems to be that everyone must learn to use post-processing tools like PS and LR. I don't agree. I don't own such tools. I care nothing about "basic photography software," yet I seem to do quite well at capturing, posting, and printing my work with no problem. Sure, I'm a purist, but it's not a religion, just a choice, like many decisions we make about our individual photography. I would never presume to tell a novice that my way (or any way) is the right way, but anyone else's judgment about my preferences is wrong-headed.
And one more thing: angry comments like "get off your self delusional bandwagon!!!" are just plain rude and not helpful to anyone. You seem like you're old enough to grasp the concept of basic politeness and respect for others. But I could be wrong. >Alan
Feb 19, 2017 01:04:11 #
ballsafire
Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana
aellman wrote:
If your point (other than a disbelief in fairies) ... (show quote)
My sentiments--exactly!
Feb 19, 2017 11:13:09 #
Feb 19, 2017 11:25:47 #
Toment wrote:
When you alter something, it's not the same as it was. Just sayin'
Does the camera always yield what you actually saw?
Feb 19, 2017 11:40:42 #
jpintn wrote:
Part of my learning to use it properly is making that as true as possible - and closer than I could ever come from memory.Does the camera always yield what you actually saw?
Feb 19, 2017 11:57:36 #
rehess wrote:
Part of my learning to use it properly is making that as true as possible - and closer than I could ever come from memory.
Feb 19, 2017 12:03:23 #
jpintn wrote:
Does the camera always yield what you actually saw?
Rarely, about a dozen a year....
Feb 19, 2017 17:43:41 #
aellman wrote:
If your point (other than a disbelief in fairies) ... (show quote)
Alan, You are quite right. Your preferences are as valid as anyone else's. You also suggest that you would never presume to tell a novice that any way is right. (which was my point...sadly there are those that seem to take the high moral ground at any opportunity.)
I wrote a rant having just had two people, in a very short replies, suggest that the information I was giving a novice was wrong. Now, normally I would take that with a pinch of salt. However they both then admitted to minor alterations to their pictures...There was no further explanation. No suggestion that one way was any better or worse than another by example or explanation. Just that simply I was wrong.
Since then several people, like yourself, have said they aspire to get in camera the effects they want. Not necessarily to be 'better than' but because this suits their workload or simply 'that' is their pleasure. I have politely written to them and expressed my surprise in one case and admiration in several others.
Like you I am of the opinion that photography is the sum of its individuals. That there is no definition of right, wrong,better or worse. There should only be honesty and advice given that reflects ones beliefs in a balanced and helpful manner.
I was rude...it was intentional to those that I was aiming at. I apologise if you felt included in that.
As you will have noticed by reading this post, there have been several agreeing in principle with what I was saying. More importantly, like yourself, there have been people explaining why they rely less on post processing. Not from any morality, but simply as a choice or perhaps as an ongoing personal challenge.
That in itself may have given people confidence in what they are doing plus an insight as to where they might want to aspire.
Thank you for your reply. Again my apology for any upset I caused you.
Yes I am big enough and old enough to know better.
George
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.