Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Get it right in camera?
Jan 5, 2015 19:45:57 #
BTW few days ago I posted B&W portrait http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2014/12/28/1419810408593-aaa_2334silverefexfraimed.jpg If you want I can give you full information about this picture.
wjames wrote:
hi mmc , happy new thing to you too. br no i'm no... (show quote)
Jan 5, 2015 20:21:10 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
I think you expressed it correctly when you said "among other things". My understanding of that is both sensor and firmware which would indeed lead to less PP as they evolve.
Can an improvement in firmware only result in less PP? Yes. Same for a sensor? Yes. Both? Absolutely.
Do I believe that one day we will not require any PP. Don't know, but I think technology is headed that way.
Reply is to Dman
Can an improvement in firmware only result in less PP? Yes. Same for a sensor? Yes. Both? Absolutely.
Do I believe that one day we will not require any PP. Don't know, but I think technology is headed that way.
Reply is to Dman
Jan 5, 2015 20:24:44 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
sirlensalot wrote:
I think you expressed it correctly when you said "among other things".
One of the 'other things' I was thinking of was it would have to read your mind, an impossibility.
sirlensalot wrote:
Do I believe that one day we will not require any PP. Don't know, but I think technology is headed that way.
Do I believe that one day we will not require any PP. Don't know, but I think technology is headed that way.
No, it's not.
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Jan 5, 2015 20:29:25 #
Hey Fellow HOGs ... Here's another perspective.
I'm new to PP. Less than a year. As near as I may remember, I've been snapping shutters for over 65 years. Did my first pro job about age 21. B&W of course. Couldn't afford color or the hour and a half in the dark room doing a color test strip.
(By the way, someone in this forum said darkrooms were unnecessary because of the advent of 'film canister'. Do you think he missed a few things?
Holy crap ... taking photos for over 65 years with no PP software (necessary, self taught, dark room magic of course, but really light weight compared to even Picasa).
I look at those old photos in awe. Not having much more than that over used phrase .. 'two nickles' ... we had to 'Get it right the first time' (I apologize for upsetting some of you with this comment, no matter how undeniable it is).
Then, just this past year I found PP. A new world opened to me. And I Love It ! ! !
It could make most of those great shots even better, if they were digital.
Some of you made comments that PP will 'go away' one day.
I don't think so.
The newbies coming into this arena today can hardly think of those 'dark room days', let alone appreciate the experience.
Don't get me wrong. Many will go on to greatness because there will always be a few who strive to achieve, but mostly they will 'Press' shutters and head for the PP software because they will have never experienced having to 'Get it (mostly)right the first time.'
Sadly, they will actually spend more time there than behind the camera.
Viva La 'PP'. I see it continuing to soar even as it becomes more complicated (It's really tough for an old fart to learn this stuff).
One day it may not even be necessary to 'Snap That Shutter'. In the spirit of giving an opinion: Voicing Vintage Vinny
Now that's gotta' be 4 cents worth!
I'm new to PP. Less than a year. As near as I may remember, I've been snapping shutters for over 65 years. Did my first pro job about age 21. B&W of course. Couldn't afford color or the hour and a half in the dark room doing a color test strip.
(By the way, someone in this forum said darkrooms were unnecessary because of the advent of 'film canister'. Do you think he missed a few things?
Holy crap ... taking photos for over 65 years with no PP software (necessary, self taught, dark room magic of course, but really light weight compared to even Picasa).
I look at those old photos in awe. Not having much more than that over used phrase .. 'two nickles' ... we had to 'Get it right the first time' (I apologize for upsetting some of you with this comment, no matter how undeniable it is).
Then, just this past year I found PP. A new world opened to me. And I Love It ! ! !
It could make most of those great shots even better, if they were digital.
Some of you made comments that PP will 'go away' one day.
I don't think so.
The newbies coming into this arena today can hardly think of those 'dark room days', let alone appreciate the experience.
Don't get me wrong. Many will go on to greatness because there will always be a few who strive to achieve, but mostly they will 'Press' shutters and head for the PP software because they will have never experienced having to 'Get it (mostly)right the first time.'
Sadly, they will actually spend more time there than behind the camera.
Viva La 'PP'. I see it continuing to soar even as it becomes more complicated (It's really tough for an old fart to learn this stuff).
One day it may not even be necessary to 'Snap That Shutter'. In the spirit of giving an opinion: Voicing Vintage Vinny
Now that's gotta' be 4 cents worth!
Jan 5, 2015 20:30:36 #
OK...
Seven Pages....
Art is Art.
And Now............... A Word or two from Robert Crumb...........
Seven Pages....
Art is Art.
And Now............... A Word or two from Robert Crumb...........
Jan 5, 2015 20:32:29 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
TheDman wrote:
No, it's not.
Would be interested in reading why you think we are not.
Jan 5, 2015 20:41:41 #
James R wrote:
OK...
Seven Pages....
Art is Art.
And Now............... A Word or two from Robert Crumb...........
Seven Pages....
Art is Art.
And Now............... A Word or two from Robert Crumb...........
Never question the wisdom of Mr. Natural!
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Jan 5, 2015 20:57:12 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
sirlensalot wrote:
Would be interested in reading why you think we are not.
Because cameras will never be able to read your mind. They also don't know if you might change your mind in the future. They also don't know if the jpg they are creating will be used on the web or print, and if print, what material they will be printed on, color space, printer, etc, all requiring differently prepared files.
Much of the PP I do today has nothing to do with any shortcomings of my camera or firmware. It's to repurpose my images for different uses. The PP that is due to camera shortcomings will always be necessary, ie, focus stacking, noise removal, exposure blending, etc. No matter how wide the dynamic range of sensors becomes, it will never be infinitely wide, nor will I want it to be at times.
Jan 5, 2015 21:29:46 #
TheDman wrote:
Because cameras will never be able to read your mi... (show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 5, 2015 21:56:23 #
This is an absurd argument. Even the staunchest proponent of post processing knows that it's important to get it right in the camera to start with.
Since Ansel Adams is frequently held up as an example it should be pointed out that he both worked hard to get it right in the camera and then worked hard to improve the final image in the darkroom.
I work as a sports reporter. Most of the time it's not ethical to post process. I try to get the shot right to begin with. It's critical to get it right.
However, when I'm not at work I have the freedom to post process to my heart's content. Post processing, like the camera is a tool. Why lock your tools up and ignore their potential. Use them when they are available.
It would be like a carpenter using only hand tools when they have power tools available. It might be quaint and even beautiful when well done, but it doesn't mean that the person using all of the modern tools available at their disposal isn't an artist too.
Post process or don't. It's your choice, but quit bashing each other over something that is only a matter of oppinion.
Since Ansel Adams is frequently held up as an example it should be pointed out that he both worked hard to get it right in the camera and then worked hard to improve the final image in the darkroom.
I work as a sports reporter. Most of the time it's not ethical to post process. I try to get the shot right to begin with. It's critical to get it right.
However, when I'm not at work I have the freedom to post process to my heart's content. Post processing, like the camera is a tool. Why lock your tools up and ignore their potential. Use them when they are available.
It would be like a carpenter using only hand tools when they have power tools available. It might be quaint and even beautiful when well done, but it doesn't mean that the person using all of the modern tools available at their disposal isn't an artist too.
Post process or don't. It's your choice, but quit bashing each other over something that is only a matter of oppinion.
Jan 5, 2015 22:04:00 #
TheDman wrote:
Because cameras will never be able to read your mind.
That's not the problem really, it's that even if they could read our minds, yours is different than mine. You like this, I like that. What's a poor camera to do????
The idea that firmware is better in a mirrorless camera than in a DSLR is just hilarous. So is the idea that post processing is ever going to go away, or that a better sensor would make post processing significantly less important (or less different from one person to the next).
Jan 5, 2015 22:08:35 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
[quote=TheDman]Because cameras will never be able to read your mind. They also don't know if you might change your mind in the future. They also don't know if the jpg they are creating will be used on the web or print, and if print, what material they will be printed on, color space, printer, etc, all requiring differently prepared files.
Much of the PP I do today has nothing to do with any shortcomings of my camera or firmware. It's to repurpose my images for different uses. The PP that is due to camera shortcomings will always be necessary, ie, focus stacking, noise removal, exposure blending, etc. No matter how wide the dynamic range of sensors becomes, it will never be infinitely wide, nor will I want it to be at times.[/quote
I happen to disagree. Eventually, I think PP will go the way of film. Some will always want it, some will always need it, and some will move on to the next level of technology and tell stories about "remember when". I can't predict where it will lead any more than film shooters predicted digital technology. All I know is we're going there.
Much of the PP I do today has nothing to do with any shortcomings of my camera or firmware. It's to repurpose my images for different uses. The PP that is due to camera shortcomings will always be necessary, ie, focus stacking, noise removal, exposure blending, etc. No matter how wide the dynamic range of sensors becomes, it will never be infinitely wide, nor will I want it to be at times.[/quote
I happen to disagree. Eventually, I think PP will go the way of film. Some will always want it, some will always need it, and some will move on to the next level of technology and tell stories about "remember when". I can't predict where it will lead any more than film shooters predicted digital technology. All I know is we're going there.
Jan 5, 2015 23:06:12 #
Jan 5, 2015 23:06:57 #
Jan 5, 2015 23:24:14 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.