Post processing use... (This thread will be echoed in the main photography forum)
DirtFarmer wrote:
While computers do make mistakes, they are fairly rare.
GIGO is not a computer mistake. It's a user error. Putting garbage into the computer in the first place. The main cause of computer errors is PEBCAK (various spellings): Problem Exists Between Chair And Keyboard.
(And I'm not sure what you are referring to as "serrated digital").
I have put together programs back in the 1960s. And I know how easy it is to put in errors so that the program malfunctions. GIGO is a user error. It is also a programming error. I even "debugged" computers before it was fashionable, using a 70 lb portable vacuum cleaner. And computers do make errors for other reasons. One being material failure.
As for my descriptive term, you may understand "pixelation". Take a magnified look at a digital image.
Next time you get a billing error, try telling the person on the phone that their computer made an error.
As a friend of mine once told me, "It is all relative."
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
Stephan G wrote:
...As for my descriptive term, you may understand "pixelation". Take a magnified look at a digital image...
I usually refer to it as "the Jaggies"
And yes, I remember patch boards in the early '60s. And SOAP (Symbolic Optimum Assembly Procedure) on an IBM 650 with a drum memory.
Stephan G wrote:
...And I know how easy it is to put in errors so that the program malfunctions...
And how hard it is to
NOT put in errors...
In my '80s, I find my programs take longer to debug. And the errors seem to be more subtle all the time.
Rongnongno wrote:
It seems that many folks still considering using post-processing is akin to putting lipstick on a pig.
It cannot be further from the truth.
However great your original capture is, it is rarely good enough and needs help.
Here is a sample of an image I am correcting in order to print it 4x4 feet.
I am using a capture screen to show what PP is really used for.
Main photography thread No argument from me. I dislike blown-out highlights - exposing for the brightest part of a scene often results in other parts being under exposed which I frequently correct in PP which (in my opinion) results in a more pleasing image than SOOC. Just one of many situations where PP is beneficial.
Thorny Devil wrote:
No argument from me. I dislike blown-out highlights - exposing for the brightest part of a scene often results in other parts being under exposed which I frequently correct in PP which (in my opinion) results in a more pleasing image than SOOC. Just one of many situations where PP is beneficial.
Thinking back on my own experience in photography, I recall a period when I got into thinking that if I get the shot "close enough", I could bring it out in PP. The actual quality ended suffering because I got too loose with my set ups. I went back to thinking in terms that if I shot with the aim to be closest to what I was "seeing" in SOOC, I would just need to do some clean up and save time as a result. PP is a necessary "evil". At best, it got easier over the years to do the touch ups. I have spent a lot of time and materials in improving my photos when doing film.
anotherview wrote:
I agree with this observation: "However great your original capture is, it is rarely good enough and needs help."
I believe it applies to photography pretty much since its inception.
I know all my photographs need some processing (including cropping) for bringing out their potential.
And "however great your original capture is, post processing can almost always make it better."
joecichjr
Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
BigDaddy wrote:
Absolutely!!!
Such exuberant cuties, perfectly shot
💞💞💞💞💞
BigDaddy wrote:
Absolutely!!!
Thanks for illustrating my point, BD!
joecichjr wrote:
Such exuberant cuties, perfectly shot
💞💞💞💞💞
Thanks Joe, but I didn't shoot them, got them, and the lips off a free site, Pexels I believe.
I just did edit for laughs...
cbtsam wrote:
Thanks for illustrating my point, BD!
My pleasure, I couldn't resist.
I've always said you certainly can put lipstick on a pig, as well as make a silk purse out of a sows ear when it comes to photography.
Some of my most liked photo's started life as lousy pictures. Doesn't always work, but when it does, it's awesome.
Good pics can usually be improved a little, bad pictures sometimes can be improved a lot.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.