asyncritus

GIMP (amongst a zillion other things) allows me to fiddle with the brightness and contrast levels.

The product is often much more pleasant than the pic from the camera itself.

Given that the lens quality cannot be faulted, how can I improve the camera's output without having to go the GIMP route? Any ideas?

TheDman Loc: USA

Digital cameras can't read your mind and know exactly how much brightness/contrast/sharpening/whatever you are going to want for any given scene. They just record the light that hits them. It's up to you to bring the image up to your final vision for the scene.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Some people make photographs with JPG fine and produce SOOC and they swear by it. I can't do that. I shoot RAW. Import to LightRoom with minimal post processing. Polish and size in Photoshop. Then I "save as" either PNG or JPG. If I don't like what I have produced --- it's back to LightRoom because I have my original non-destructed file in RAW. Good luck.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

You, of course, are not obligated to use any PP program. There are in camera adjustments available. There are even in this forum arguments about the use of enhancements in post and weather or not they are "phony". There are things you can do with PP system that can't be done any other way. It's completely up to you.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Mine has this built in...Color Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd5LHdtEXf4

Danilo Loc: Las Vegas

This is a rather broad and subjective topic, asyncritus, and difficult to address. Most likely, your eye will ALWAYS see things somewhat differently than your camera's sensor. Your eyes, combined with your brain, can "see into shadows" without "blowing out" the highlights...your sensor cannot do both of those simultaneously.

Your brain will automatically minimize the yellow spectrum when you view subjects under incandescent light...your sensor can't do that. Likewise, your brain will reduce blue/violet when you view subjects under outdoor overcast skylight...your sensor cannot.

You can set your white-balance for each shot, or rely on Auto-WB, use a color-balanced flash to illuminate shadows for each shot...or turn to Gimp, PS, or something similar.

The best you can hope to do is educate yourself to the foibles of the camera's sensor to, hopefully, eliminate surprises at download time. But this is just like the painter, who must constantly be adding new colors to his palette, or new brushes to his collection. It's all part of the Never Ending Story. :thumbup: :thumbup:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Nope: You cannot. Beside the subjective issues of appreciation (mostly mentioned so far) there are the technical limitations that you can somehow push back only by using GIMP (or zillions other things) :lol:.

As to the cameras limitations... Well, you can always wait for the next generation that may or may not satisfy you or anyone else for that matter.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Why are you blaming the camera for your shortcomings? The camera will do whatever you set it up to do. If you can learn "gimp" you can learn "camera"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Jim Bob

Trial and error, my friend. You must get the exposure right. Try fiddling with exposure compensation, bracketing shots, utilizing various picture control settings. Hard to be more specific without camera information. I am not a post processing fanatic like some posters. But I must confess, that even my best shots can be improved-sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Occasionally I am so impressed with an image that I make no adjustments at all.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

All the answers given by others here are correct. The camera can't read your mind. (That was my only failing grade in college, Mind-reading 101 :XD: )

On the other hand, my camera has a lot of settings that can be changed to tune the jpeg without any other postprocessing. It also has some PP capability in the camera. I choose not to use all that as I shoot RAW and enjoy the creativity of PP.

While Canon may not be as advanced as Nikon, even Canon has some of this built in. :mrgreen:

blackest Loc: Ireland

Well theres little i can suggest except perhaps using a cp filter and a lens hood.

On the other hand you might like to try ufraw which is a raw preprocessor which can be used as an initial processing stage before moving directly to gimp. The mac version has ufraw built in and windows and Linux have it as a separate download.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Bah, canon and nikon are not all that different if you use raw so it really comes down not to the brand but to what the sensor used is (and manufactured by whom)

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

in an effort to push post prossessing and the sale of related editors, we are being pushed away from the idea of being satisfied with any file as it comes out of the camera.

Toddzzilla Loc: Modesto california

I myself don't really care to post process, I come from old school35mm and believe for myself that my pictures should come out of the camera the I indented it to. I have only been into the upper end of digital cameras for a couple of years now but have learned that taking my time in full manuel mode really pays off. I do have pp programs but once I start that process, have more often than not gone back and if I feel that the pic is worth printing I will go back to stock pic and then print. Just learn the camera and read and learn from the good advice here on UGH. Good luck

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

Same reason Eric Clapton can drag a guitar out of a garage sale and make it sound like a Stradivarius..., it ain't the instrument, its the artist and his command of the instument.

Learn how to "tune" your camera/instrument and your abilities. Until then, post process so you know what you are yearning for!

If photography and guitar playing was easy, it wouldn't be worth much.

You'll get there!