Crwiwy wrote:
In my days of film cameras - unless you did your own processing - what you took was what you got.
Misconception #1
In the days of film cameras, no matter what you took you got 18% grey processing.
You took a bad exposure and they fixed it - therefore it was hard to learn from your mistakes.
You took a great shot - and the "fixed" it - turning it into an average shot. Fantastic eh?
You took a deliberate high key or low key shot - you got 18% grey processing.
You took snow - you got grey snow.
You took a black cat - you got a grey cat.
Unless you got sick of 18% grey and kept a notepad and got your photos processed by a professional lab- and then you got processing like all the pros got.
Contrast curves, a touch of saturation and better sharpness because the image was processed individually.
Much the same as what we get today when we process our own.
Or you could do what I did and change to Kodachrome.
Crwiwy wrote:
You could use creative filters - such as Cokin - but it was still experience and guesswork, so you wouldn't know what the results were until the film was processed.
It still is experience and guesswork.
Its just that we get immediate feedback, the ability to correct a dud shot, and the ability to process our own shots.
Crwiwy wrote:
If it was an important picture then you might bracket the exposure as a bit of a safeguard.
The only way to crop was with a pair of scissors!
Because of average 18% grey processing bracketing was very much a lucky dip.
And the difference between cutting out part of an image with scissors and with software is....... ?
Crwiwy wrote:
Looking at winning pictures at photographic clubs today I wonder if there are actually any winning photographs entered that have not been processed - sometimes heavily - with a photo program?
Every image you see has been manipulated - including your own.
Every digital image should be edited.
Crwiwy wrote:
I saw one recently which was very good - but had been processed through a HDR program.
Read the first part of your sentence here -
"... which was very good ......".
But you find a percieved negative in that
"very good image".
Would you rather a crappy unprocessed image?
Crwiwy wrote:
So I am interested in knowing UHH members experiences in this and perhaps get an answer to my question - 'are competitions now more about post processing than the actual photo?'.
You have changed this from photography ... to competitions.
And as to your question - you will have to read the fine print on each competition to find that out.