Good job Nikon: Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a...

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

Straight out of the camera is just that, and it is not Mother Nature nor her doing.

I agree with your last sentence, but can't see the point to even trying to set the camera's JPEG configuration to something "right". I can't guess correctly and don't want to keep changing and retaking the shot until it is right. It is just far far easier, and more accurate too, to set the correct JPEG configuration with a RAW converter. The granularity is finer and can be set precisely by inspection rather than as guesswork.

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

This is like the people who say "I'm a natural light photographer, because it's natural.."

Newsflash, your jpegs are slightly corrected. Post Processing isn't all about saturating, and many times you can get a much more life-like image with some post processing vs. not.

Just saying.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

I'm in total agreement with you. As with shooting color slides, it is immensely satisfying to produce an unmanipulated photograph. (I'm sure we are in the minority here, though.)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

RWR wrote:

I'm in total agreement with you. As with shooting color slides, it is immensely satisfying to produce an unmanipulated photograph. (I'm sure we are in the minority here, though.)

Nobody has ever created an "unmanipulated" photograph!

Photographs are an abstraction of reality, and are a manipulation by definition.

You choose to use this manipulation and not that manipulation, which is fine. But don't claim to be a purist, don't claim to be a perfectionist, and don't claim the other guy doing it all isn't likely to produce better results.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Apaflo wrote:

Nobody has ever created an "unmanipulated" photograph!

Photographs are an abstraction of reality, and are a manipulation by definition.

You choose to use this manipulation and not that manipulation, which is fine. But don't claim to be a purist, don't claim to be a perfectionist, and don't claim the other guy doing it all isn't likely to produce better results.

Hang the precise definition of manipulation! I take pains to meter carefully, to avoid over or underexposure in critical areas. I crop to fit the scene only because I cannot adjust my camera's format. I set white balance and let colors fall where they may. I shoot RAW, and adjust sharpness and contrast to my taste. Then I export as TIFF, and print it out. Thus far, I have been immensely satisfied.
If you wish to make a fool of yourself by falsely accusing me of claiming to be a purist and perfectionist, and claiming that the other guy doing it all isn't likely to produce better results, that's your problem.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

I forgot to tell you he used a Nikon film camera.

Stef C Loc: Conshohocken (near philly) PA

RWR wrote:

Hang the precise definition of manipulation! I tak... (show quote)

So you set your white balance, and although it may look different than what you saw in real life with your eyes, as long as you don't change it and trust the processing done in-camera, it's inherently more accurate and "real"?

Got it. lol.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

RWR wrote:

Hang the precise definition of manipulation! I tak... (show quote)

Now you are contradicting what you said previously! As well as not apparently reading what I said.

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

I do love some of the beautiful pp some are able to do. It can not only enhance/improve their original photos but also create some outstanding art work. I see nothing wrong with that.

However, for me..I prefer to take the best shot possible sooc. I am not good at pp and don't really enjoy the time it takes to do it well. Wish that I did!

I took a class a couple of years ago at our community college. Taught by full time professional photographer. We were not permitted to do any pp except crop. He was trying to teach us to use our cameras to get the picture right in the first place. He said about the only time he uses pp is when he has a very expensive advertising campaign job. And he charges a lot for the time spent setting up the shoot with various equipment and then the time for pp after. But jobs for magazines, newspapers, sporting events and routine shoots it is cropping only. He has won many awards for his photography. So, he probably knows what he is doing.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

The point was how good the Nikon done. If you want to argue about other things create your own topic. :D

Elliern Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

Bill MN wrote:

The point was how good the Nikon done. If you want to argue about other things create your own topic. :D

Sorry...thought your point was you only liked photos without the post processing, just straight out of the camera. My bad :)

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Elliern wrote:

Sorry...thought your point was you only liked photos without the post processing, just straight out of the camera. My bad :)

Yes and no. If my statement would have been before your first one it would have been better. I was talking about other people that disagreed on certain points that should never been brought up in this topic. :D

HJNelson Loc: Durham, Maine

So what was the name of the book? I often find myself wishing I knew what I was photographing.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Bill MN wrote:

Recently I purchased a book over 700 pages on how to ID trees and shrubs. The pictures were taken with a Nikon camera, with no post-processing except crop. Using a reference book like that the pictures have their natural color. I don't use PP anymore except to crop and sharpen. Mother nature dose a better job with color. I only like pictures straight out of the camera. If they don't look good I didn't have the camera set right.

Post processing used to be called the darkroom where use of chemicals, types of paper and methods of processing the film and printing it made the photo. This was done as a matter of routine. It is fine to take the image as is from the camera with it's internal processing and biases. But the final image was processed and manipulated to an algorithm.