I Have To Ask (Page 8): I will admit that PP is a dangerous thing - many take it well beyond what is reasonable and come up with some very garish and truly awful interpretations, that...

Pepsiman Loc: New York City

I will admit that PP is a dangerous thing - many take it well beyond what is reasonable and come up with some very garish and truly awful interpretations, that are far from being even remotely artistic.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

AndyH wrote:

I’m relatively certain that HCB, Nat Geo, and Life all had darkrooms and used them. 😎

Andy

Of course they did, and those that are still around use digital PP - even Reuters. But THEY do the PP based on the creative director's standards. The shooter is usually required to submit unedited files so the retouchers can make the magic happen.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

srt101fan wrote:

Why do some of you perpetuate the myth that you have no control over the settings used by the camera to generate the JPEG images? Of course you do! (See my earlier comment on p.5).

Just because it takes some effort to make adjustment doesn't mean that you have no control over the process.

Yes, I can set my camera to use certain "slider positions" in the camera just as I would adjust them in DPP (the RAW editor) for various picture styles (landscape, etc.). I can adjust the default for each style. Those selected settings show up in DPP when I edit an image.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

General comment - the notion of getting it 100% correct in the camera usually does not produce a great or memorable image. It produces whatever the camera saw, within the limits of the available technology. In club competitions - as an example - it is very easy to tell the SOOC images apart from those that have been "interpreted" - and I have yet to see an SOOC image win anything.

I used to shoot large format and did a lot of architectural work - both interiors and outside. SOOC is what we presented to the client as a set of contact prints - aka proofs - for culling. Once the selection was finalized I would either work on them or had an expert retoucher do the work to really make them pop. it was pretty much universal practice that no one ever submitted any work that was not "finished".

I don't understand the rationale of buying expensive cameras and lenses and just shooting jpegs - and somehow trying to convince that this is the best use of a digital camera, and that SOOC is a mark of a great photographer.

srt101fan

AndyH wrote:

Not to speak for anyone else, but don’t the mode settings and image presets all invoke some form of adjustment of color, hue, contrast, brightness, etc.?

You can’t control any of those individual settings from the camera, that’s why they’re preset to the best compromises for individual scenarios, aren’t they?

So you have generalized control, but not of individual image settings. That may be what is being referred to.

Andy

Andy, Maybe I'm not expressing myself too well or maybe I misunderstand the issue. I addressed this in more detail in an earlier post (p.5), but on my D5300, for example, I can select a Picture Control option (Standard, Vivid, etc.), and then fine tune it to increase sharpness, lower contrast, etc. These settings are then used by the camera to generate the JPEG. This applies to M, aperture priority, shutter priority and P.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Hear. Hear.

--Bob

Gene51 wrote:

General comment - the notion of getting it 100% co... (show quote)

ICN3S Loc: Cave Junction, OR

I do everything in Lightroom........I don't enjoy sitting at a computer so try to get the best photo I can without a lot of processing.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Gene51 wrote:

Of course they did, and those that are still around use digital PP - even Reuters. But THEY do the PP based on the creative director's standards. The shooter is usually required to submit unedited files so the retouchers can make the magic happen.

Exactly. It's difficult to achieve a consistent look unless you're in charge of the post processing, whether in Darkroom or Lightroom. Again, that's part of why it's so important a part of photography, and always has been.

Andy

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

srt101fan wrote:

Andy, Maybe I'm not expressing myself too well or maybe I misunderstand the issue. I addressed this in more detail in an earlier post (p.5), but on my D5300, for example, I can select a Picture Control option (Standard, Vivid, etc.), and then fine tune it to increase sharpness, lower contrast, etc. These settings are then used by the camera to generate the JPEG. This applies to M, aperture priority, shutter priority and P.

The controls operate in a "ganged" fashion, compared to dedicated PP software. There are fewer of them to mess with. In other words, you don't have as fine an adjustment or control when you select "Vivid" or "Neutral" or whatever. If you are using it to adjust JPEGs "in camera", you are losing data when you save the file. This is why I shoot in RAW and modify in Lightroom or Photoshop. The RAW file stays lossless, the program sends processing instructions in the export format. In other words, I can save the RAW file and export versions in versions in B/W, subdued colors, or any number of other versions. If I set the camera controls and use JPEG, I'm stuck with the original, at least as far as I know.

Andy

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

AndyH wrote:

Not to speak for anyone else, but don’t the mode settings and image presets all invoke some form of adjustment of color, hue, contrast, brightness, etc.?

You can’t control any of those individual settings from the camera, that’s why they’re preset to the best compromises for individual scenarios, aren’t they?

So you have generalized control, but not of individual image settings. That may be what is being referred to.

Andy

That, sir, is a misconception. I use both raw and JPEG workflows and have no problem getting what I need, provided I stay within the limits of what is practical for each process.

The key is controlled testing of every menu choice, and printing unadjusted JPEGs of each effect...

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

burkphoto wrote:

That, sir, is a misconception. I use both raw and JPEG workflows and have no problem getting what I need, provided I stay within the limits of what is practical for each process.

The key is controlled testing of every menu choice, and printing unadjusted JPEGs of each effect...

See my subsequent response. There are fewer "sliders" on the D5300, at least from looking at the manual - full disclosure, I do not own one - than are available in most PP software, thus less fine control. But my larger point is that once you make the adjustments in JPEG, in camera, you've lost some of the RAW data, no?

Perhaps some of the newer or pro models allow adjustment in RAW format, but I don't see how that's possible. If they're just preparing the "instructions" in camera and exporting them as the PP software does, leaving the RAW file intact, then I stand corrected.

Andy

srt101fan

AndyH wrote:

The controls operate in a "ganged" fashi... (show quote)

Andy, not to beat the horse, but I fully understand everything you are saying, and, having finally started to use Raw and Affinity, I'm now very familiar with the benefits of shooting Raw.

My beef is with people who make definitive statements that are simply not correct. You CAN influence the settings used by the camera to generate JPEGS. and the process is NOT fixed by a "Japanese software engineer" as some have said.

I keep thinking about newcomers to digital photography and UHH. We should be more careful about our advice.

For the record, I think Raw is great! But if someone has the time to adjust the JPEG settings and is happy with the results, that's cool too!

kskarma Loc: Topeka, KS

My simple Rule of Thumb for Post-Processing work......is to select any adjustment that I think is needed, then dial...or slide...it up until it looks about right...then back it down slightly to where I can't detect any 'tweaking'....!! I agree with those on here who find something unsettling about photos that have just TOO much saturation, contrast, HDR, or other manipulation.
But...to each his own...if YOU like the effect...and your 'audience' likes it...then keep it up....!!

safeman

Good gravy! I didn't mean to start WW 3. All I said was that if you start out with a better original, be it a RAW file or film you will end up with a better final photograph whether it is PP on Photoshop or in a darkroom with chemicals and light. Enough already. This topic does not deserve the level of vitriol it is generating.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

srt101fan wrote:

Andy, not to beat the horse, but I fully understan... (show quote)

That makes your position clearer, thanks! I used to shoot nothing but high resolution JPEGs when I first started, but after I'd edited a few photos several times, I noticed some loss when I tried to blow up image segments. At that time I went to saving all of the original JPEGs in their original form, and shooting everything as "flat" as possible. So I'd save versions of the JPEG with my adjustments, and leave the original as neutral as possible. It's only in the past year or so that I've gone to working in RAW and exporting only through PS or Lightroom. That's the best workflow and post processing method for ME, and me alone.

I do think Hoggers sometimes react prematurely with very opinionated and definitive advice. Many others offer alternatives or gently suggest that the OP may have made some mistaken assumptions in asking for advice. We (and I most certainly include myself in this latter group at times) have a tendency to explain how to build a watch when the OP asked for the time.

Andy