I Have To Ask
Jul 1, 2018 05:18:35 #
Charles 46277 wrote:
So what is the alternative--pre-processing?
I belive the OP was asking if and why people belivein in and or use PP, So the anwsers might be as simple as yes or no to the use of PP, and a possible explanation as to why. Or SOOC shooting only. which would be a No.
Jul 1, 2018 06:31:17 #
burkphoto wrote:
Yeah, Ektachrome was twitchy stuff. I ran control ... (show quote)
....."reading" Playboy?
Jul 1, 2018 07:26:41 #
These discussions are so much fun. From statements saying that getting slide film developed was the same thing as Post Processing is in the digital age, to statements like "the notion of getting it 100% correct in the camera usually does not produce a great or memorable image." That, of course, would mean that all of those incredible slide images from Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, John Shaw, et al were really just mediocre at best. You sure can't say that photographers aren't passionate about the craft.
Jul 1, 2018 10:39:09 #
Others have already mentioned the jpeg picture effects in modern cameras. With downloadable Apps my Sony can blend three exposures with entirely different exposures, WB, and gradients. I can blend for focus bracketing, multi exposure action shots, mutiple exposure stacking for long exposure. I can do HDR, add light shafts and starbursts, smart cropping, lens compensation, portrait lighting, noise reduction etc etc and produce a 'SOOC' jpeg. Yes - straight out of camera jpeg. Is that really any different to using PS or LR? If 'SOOC' is intended to differentiate between a PP image and an 'unadulterated' image the purists need to find different terminology. Technology has made 'SOOC' almost irrelevant.
Jul 1, 2018 11:01:07 #
repleo wrote:
Others have already mentioned the jpeg picture eff... (show quote)
I guess in a few years with artificial intelligence our cameras will simply know what we like and shoot it as necessary and produce it then it would be straight out of camera LOL
Jul 1, 2018 12:03:50 #
repleo wrote:
Others have already mentioned the jpeg picture eff... (show quote)
Absolutely - unfortunately JPG and SOOC have come to mean the same thing to so many. The nearest thing to SOOC must surely be the digitised image we see when viewing a "RAW" file.
Jul 1, 2018 12:04:27 #
AndyH wrote:
Perfect analogy!
The young ‘uns have no idea 💡!
The young ‘uns have no idea 💡!
That movie (National Lampoon's Animal House) is a classic, worthy of watching many times. It is not (too much of) an exaggeration of college life in the 1960s and '70s. So many of the scenes there were similar to my contemporary experiences. It, Blazing Saddles, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and The Groove Tube, are some of the great, politically incorrect comedies of the 20th century, IMHO. They were perfect comedic relief from the socio-political climate of the times.
Animal House came out the summer I graduated from Davidson (1977). Earlier that Spring, before the movie release, some friends had rented a vintage tank (!) from an army surplus guy a few miles from campus. He delivered it on a flatbed truck, and they drove it around the fraternity court during Spring Frolics. Unfortunately, I had gone to the beach that weekend, and didn't get to see anything but some blurry snapshots. But seeing the end of that movie about killed me with laughter.
Jul 1, 2018 12:05:42 #
srt101fan wrote:
....."reading" Playboy?
Yeah, well, they cleaned it up a little for the movie... (Animal House).
Jul 1, 2018 12:07:27 #
dyximan wrote:
I belive the OP was asking if and why people belivein in and or use PP, So the anwsers might be as simple as yes or no to the use of PP, and a possible explanation as to why. Or SOOC shooting only. which would be a No.
Answers on UHH are EXPECTED to wander around a topic, and expand into other areas. It's just a chat forum about photography... AND LIFE. It's hard to separate one from the other.
Jul 1, 2018 12:14:35 #
AndyH wrote:
But I don't recall sending instructions on processing, even in E-4 processed films, let alone the incredible Kodachrome.
Slid films are the closest analogy to "SOOC" imho.
What do you think?
Andy
Slid films are the closest analogy to "SOOC" imho.
What do you think?
Andy
I think you're exactly right. I've always treated JPEGs like slides... Bake them as fully as possible in the camera. Sure, we could ask a lab to "push one stop," but beyond that, Ektachrome was awful.
With slide films, we:
NAILED our exposures to within 1/3 stop for the part of the subject we wanted to appear natural
FILTERED the light coming through the lens to match the color temperature of the source (equivalent to custom white balance with digital)
ADDED filters for special effects, sparingly (equivalent to some art modes on certain digital cameras)
We did as little post-processing as possible with slides. Duplication always gained contrast and lost sharpness, so we avoided it when possible. (Pete Turner was a notable exception. He turned the Bowens Illumitran into a post-processing wonder by copying his Kodachromes with filters or making composite images!)
Jul 2, 2018 19:11:09 #
Jul 2, 2018 19:34:07 #
When I have an image printed, it is done on a matt paper. It has to be adjusted. The paper will kill the image if it isn't punched up. Shooting RAW also makes adjusting kind of fun. Being relatively computer illiterate (not totally), I find LR semi intuitive. The organization is also really helpful.
Jul 2, 2018 20:45:06 #
Andy:
Thank you. You said, exquisitely, what I have been trying to say, poorly, for the past week or so.
Thank you. You said, exquisitely, what I have been trying to say, poorly, for the past week or so.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.