To edit or not to edit? /To be or.../
Feb 19, 2012 13:55:07 #
Digital images, by their very nature, will benefit from at least a slight contrast adjustment and some sharpening.
Note I said would benefit - not require. The anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor does tend to soften ever so slightly, the original file. In many cases the image looks fine if nothing is done, but looks better with a little contrast and sharpening. That is exactly what any consumer print service does to your file unless you ask it to be turned off (which the teenager running the machine has no idea how to do1).
Note I said would benefit - not require. The anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor does tend to soften ever so slightly, the original file. In many cases the image looks fine if nothing is done, but looks better with a little contrast and sharpening. That is exactly what any consumer print service does to your file unless you ask it to be turned off (which the teenager running the machine has no idea how to do1).
Feb 19, 2012 14:19:54 #
I look at PS as a digital dark room. Not every photo needs extensive processing but I shoot in raw (someday I hope to be good enough to shoot in jpeg, lol) so every photo I take goes into PS. If you shoot in Jpeg then the camera applies some "corrections" to every image that you take. If you want to see what you really shoot, shoot in Raw.
Feb 19, 2012 14:31:40 #
jwpulliam
Loc: New Harmony, In
I think perfect is in the eye of the beholder, but I think getting an accurate white balance does move us closer to the bar of perfection. I use something called an ExpoDisc and that has helped me get what I think is a more accurate exposure and color than before when I used Daylight, Shadow, and the the other preset white balance settings. However, I now think the best way is to set the white balance manually in Kelvins, but it is time consuming and again is a judgement issue, since it takes me several shots to judge the accuracy. What I see on LiveView doesn't always translate into a picture I'm happy about adding to my library.
Feb 19, 2012 14:42:58 #
senad55verizon.net wrote:
quote=tainkc quote=MMC I have Nikon d70 and d50.... (show quote)
I totally agree. I get a great deal of enjoyment of spending an evening listening to music and making images come alive. Long Live Raw!
Feb 19, 2012 15:15:08 #
I enjoy the artistic addition of image corrections as well. It's the second most fun in Photography. What else would we be doing on a cold rainy day?
Feb 19, 2012 16:35:21 #
senad55verizon.net
Loc: Milford, NJ
Roger Hicks wrote:
No, really, I don't believe it. And I've been using both for years.
You may like it. May regard it as a necessary evil.
Cheers,
R.
senad55verizon.net wrote:
Believe it or not, after some serious study of Camera Raw and Photoshop, postprocessing can be just as much fun and just as rewarding as running around pushing the shutter button.
No, really, I don't believe it. And I've been using both for years.
You may like it. May regard it as a necessary evil.
Cheers,
R.
What I compare it with is doing B&W in in the dull reddish half-light of a sulfurous-smelling darkroom, and the endless traipses to the camera store for processing color negatives and transparencies ('some day my prints will come'). Remember all that?
That's what Photoshop and its lesser siblings replace. Works for me!
Feb 19, 2012 16:39:24 #
Roger Hicks
Loc: Aquitaine
senad55verizon.net wrote:
What I compare it with is doing B&W in in the dull reddish half-light of a sulfurous-smelling darkroom, and the endless traipses to the camera store for processing color negatives and transparencies ('some day my prints will come'). Remember all that?
That's what Photoshop and its lesser siblings replace. Works for me!
That's what Photoshop and its lesser siblings replace. Works for me!
Remember it? I'm still doing it!
If your darkroom smelled sulfurous, it wasn't properly ventilated.
I sincerely doubt that you dislike real darkrooms more than I dislike computerized post processing. This doesn't mean either of us is right -- but it doesn't mean that either of us is wrong either.
Cheers,
R.
Feb 19, 2012 16:56:35 #
senad55verizon.net
Loc: Milford, NJ
Roger Hicks wrote:
quote=senad55verizon.net What I compare it with i... (show quote)
It wasn't poorly ventilated, it wasn't ventilated at all.
Got the picture, and couldn't agree more about right and wrong.
Feb 19, 2012 17:59:27 #
MMC wrote:
Acountry330 wrote:
I am trying using manual mode, changing exposure but any way I am not satisfied with result that I had.Yes! It can be done. But it takes lots of trial and error.
So far....
Feb 19, 2012 18:40:08 #
Here we go, chasing perfect again, never stop trying for someday I believe it might happen.
Feb 19, 2012 18:55:17 #
MMC wrote:
I have Nikon d70 and d50. Almost every picture which I took I am editing with Photoshop. Sometimes I can improve my picture very fast sometimes not. My question is 'Is it possible to have perfect picture from camera without editing?"
No!
Feb 20, 2012 08:49:13 #
Feb 20, 2012 09:24:42 #
jwpulliam wrote:
I think perfect is in the eye of the beholder, but... (show quote)
White balance is a hot-button issue here. I have used Expodisc for years and love it. It is for white balance, not exposure. I disagree with your setting it manually because the way you do it, you are just guessing and you may as well just set your camera to auto. Humans are just too subjective and fraught with selective memory.
As for tables of color temperatures, who knows who those numbers were derived. I could write a paragraph on the pratfalls of such tables. Best thing to do is to pitch them. The proper way to set color temperature is with a color temperature meter. However, the Expodisc is a cheaper, simpler way of doing the same thing.
I would like to learn if and how you can use the Expodisc to set exposure. If anyone can, please post your experience.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.