johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

The globe shot required the following processing in the picture below. I highly doubt you could (if even possible) make those changes on the fly when taking pictures. Can the camera process something close into a JPG, sure, but I don't know of any camera that I can accurately make those changes before taking a picture.

In the photo, everything in the history stack from #8 and down to #0 were done by my processing software to get a visible image from RAW data. Everything from #9 to #16 was my input.

(Download)

Bill P

And it does it with a very broad brush.

Bill P

This is drawing a line to prove a point. Yet, the line doesn't exist.

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

You hit the nail on the head! Didn't mean to open such a nasty can of worms. Wish I could erase it all. Is it a way to at least stop post it?

Bill P

you've got it.

LittleBit Loc: St. Louis, MO

Thank You for your reply to my question.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The answer not being a smart a$$ is sometimes yes and often no. The camera processing software that takes a raw file and processes it into a SOOC JPEG is pretty amazing but it is also limited. Because we expect the camera to be able to take photos in quick sequence it's necessary for the camera software to get the job done quickly. Under the hood that may mean something like having the camera software limited to integer math versus a computer processor able to use the precision of floating point math. Bottom line the camera engineers have constraints over what they can do.

They also don't know what you photographed and so they're going to address that by applying average solutions. Not knowing what you photographed they have to assume your photo is average.

If the photo is easy -- Mickey globe -- they can do a pretty damn good job. As the photo gets more complex (tricky lighting or dynamic range problems) they can start to strain.

You have control over the camera software. You are post processing the photo by selecting the camera software settings. You set the camera WB, you set the camera picture controls, sharpening, contrast, color saturation, input profile.

But those controls are still limited. Can you set two different white balances and apply them to different parts of the photo? I can and so that brings us to the "often no" part of my answer. I'm better than the software in your camera. Especially when I have better tools that aren't constrained by limitations like here comes the next photo .3 seconds later.

It's my photo and I know what I photographed. I know how I want to process it and I can do that job better than the software in your and my camera.

I don't use post processing to make corrections. If I had to accept the limited output from the camera software then I'd have to start applying corrections.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Has everyone forgotten Kodachrome?

There was no post processing. Nobody at Kodak inspected your slides and "enhanced" the exposure or contrast and they did not fix your white balance. You took the slides out of the box and projected them. Then you culled out the bad ones and learned from your mistakes to avoid certain situations. The same applies to E-6 slides today.

It is only with negative film and digital that we get a second chance to correct the image. But if we learned enough from shooting slide film we can probably minimize or eliminate the "corrections".

A proponent of post processing can easily find or concoct a scenario that requires post processing. But we can also find situations where no additional post processing is necessary.

SOOC

(Download)

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

Clarification is needed here, though. In the old days we went bigger because we wanted the equivalent of "more pixels" - bigger negatives allowed bigger enlargements. But in the digital world, 20mp is 20mp whether it is on a FF sensor or the sensor in your point and shoot.

Now you shoot FF if you need very shallow DOF or best possible noise control.
I personally shoot 4/3 and love it.

Composition, lighting, subject, and exposure are king! You can get those with any camera. Choose the one that feels best to you!

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

I've never queried my decision to go FF. It took some time to get there (nearly 8 years) It was a personal decision for me and a good price on the CANON 6D mkII was a worthwhile jump on the 60D APS-C model I had earlier (still got). I do feel it's a better camera, but then after 8 years most things are.

The 6D with the 24-105 std lens is comprable in size to the 60D and lighter than my 60D which has the higher quality 15-85 lens on it.

alphonso49uk

The responses here answer your question with regard to pro photographers.
If your not a pro and arnt blowing photos up to really big sizes you wont notice that much of a difference.....except maybe in really low light. Its more about the quality of lens you have on the crop sensor.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I use FF for landscapes and close birds. I use crop sensor camera's for birds in flight and birds that are further away. With a cropped sensor camera I can put more "effective megapixels" on the subject than I can with a FF, especially if extensive cropping is needed on the FF.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

... Back on the OP's topic!! Whooohooo!!!

GrannyAnnie

I have always thought this to be true, but being a very remedial but determined student of photography, I have been intimidated to suggest this. To my mind, a truly gifted photographer can use any camera and produce extraordinary photographs requiring little or no tweaking. I don't want to open this can of worms but if you must PP the daylights out of a shot, then it wasn't that good to start with. It makes the "photographer" better as a post-processor than a photographer. And that's okay....just admit where the talent lies.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

... AND back OFF topic... Wow.