Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Post-Processing Digital Images
Post processing use... (This thread will be echoed in the main photography forum)
Page <prev 2 of 2
May 24, 2022 18:59:18   #
Stephan G
 
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."

Reply
May 24, 2022 19:44:40   #
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.

Reply
May 25, 2022 00:43:00   #
Thorny Devil Loc: Alice Springs, Central Australia
 
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.

Reply
 
 
May 25, 2022 07:15:22   #
Stephan G
 
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.

Reply
May 25, 2022 11:42:39   #
National Park
 
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."

Reply
May 30, 2022 07:58:47   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Yep.
National Park wrote:
And "however great your original capture is, post processing can almost always make it better."

Reply
Jun 1, 2022 09:37:56   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
cbtsam wrote:
I certainly agree with the general thrust of your argument, Ron. SOOC was never how the greats in the history of photography worked in the days of film and darkrooms. However, I do think that putting lipstick on a pig could easily be another legitimate use of PP.

Absolutely!!!



Reply
 
 
Jun 1, 2022 14:08:01   #
joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Absolutely!!!


Such exuberant cuties, perfectly shot
💞💞💞💞💞

Reply
Jun 1, 2022 17:08:50   #
cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Absolutely!!!


Thanks for illustrating my point, BD!

Reply
Jun 2, 2022 10:41:22   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
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...

Reply
Jun 2, 2022 10:47:49   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
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.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Post-Processing Digital Images
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.