Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Photo Processing Debate
Page <<first <prev 3 of 11 next> last>>
Mar 13, 2014 17:52:51   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
KJ Smith wrote:
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer program to process & tweak their photos, but I would appreciate some sincere responses to this question: Why not learn to take the photos the way you want them to turn out rather than manipulating the photos completely before you print them from the comfort of your own home? Got redeye? Well, then, take another shot. Want a bluer sky? Use a filter & adjust the camera. I'm not slamming anyone so, please, don't get upset. I can't afford a photograph program (which means, I should probably buy another laptop), printer & photo paper, not to mention that I don't have a place for any printer or a bunch of photo paper, so it's more economical to take my card to the drug store for processing. Someone, please enlighten me because I'm not seeing the benefit of the expense of a computer program, color printer & photo paper. I'm obviously missing something (which is usually the case)!
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer pr... (show quote)


Previously posted by a hogger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBF1i8t8Skw

Reply
Mar 13, 2014 18:11:17   #
roycebair Loc: Utah, USA
 
Here's what National Geographic has in their Photo Submission Guidelines:

We encourage you to submit photographs that are real. We want to see the world through your eyes, not through photo editing tools. Please do not digitally enhance or alter your photographs beyond the basics needed to achieve realistic color balance and sharpness. If you have digitally added or removed anything, don't submit the shot.

BURNING AND DODGING: Brightening or darkening specific areas in an image is allowed, but should be kept to a minimum and not done to the point where it is obvious. Your goal in using digital darkroom techniques should be only to adjust the dynamic tonal range and color balance of an image so that it more closely resembles what you saw, and communicates the mood of the scene.

STITCHED PANORAMAS: These are allowed only if the segments were all made within the same time frame. Don't create panoramas with sections made at significantly different times. …If your photo is a stitched image, please indicate so in the caption.

HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE (HDR): These shots are allowed only if the combined parts are made at the same time. Don't submit final images where the foreground was shot at noon and the sky at sunset. If your photo is an HDR image, please indicate this in the caption. (…The final image, when done successfully, produces a final image with a greater dynamic range than is possible with a single exposure.)

Reply
Mar 13, 2014 18:14:00   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
GPS Phil wrote:
Getting it right in the camera, as far as I'm concerned means that I have an image that is worth saving for PP.

Phil


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Mar 13, 2014 18:43:27   #
Dave_TX
 
Sometimes one's opinion of what is "right" changes over time. Therefore, what came straight out of the camera may no longer be what is desired at a later time.
Getting certain things such as shutter speed, aperture, and ISO setting "right" at the time of the shot is always desirable because it allows taking advantage of as much of the sensor dynamic range as possible so there is more to work with in PP. The direct conversion of that shot without PP may not look good. What's your goal, a snapshot or a photo? I know that sounds a bit snooty and you can take it that way if you want to. Snapshots have their place and most people who depress shutter buttons are satisfied with snapshots. A post-processed photo on the other hand is usually a better representation of what the photographer was shooting for.

Reply
Mar 13, 2014 19:37:44   #
Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles
 
Even the best shots generally need a little cleanup and perfecting in post. It's the nature of digital cameras and light.

Some photos rely on tricks for special effects. So be it.

I try real hard to get what I want in camera, but it isn't always possible.

I do object to using Photoshop to create dishonest "photojournalism" or travel images. Some media routinely do this: BBC, Reuters, and National Geographic have done this. BBC and Reuters are notorious. National Geographic got a little press one time when they were discovered to have "moved" one of the pyramids for a stronger composition.

One of the cute things Natl Geog used to do was create phony photo essays of primitive tribes. When their crew used to travel to document some jungle tribe, they'd sometimes find the natives to be unattractive and their clothing and village very drab. So Natl Geog would bring in some photogenic models and photogenic clothing and village doodads, take the photos, and pass off the result as the 'natives' and their 'native village.' (This was explained to me by a retired Natl Geog photographer who laughed about as he explained 'styling.'

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 06:23:57   #
Zinkler
 
There is a free program called Lightzone

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 07:14:18   #
steve03 Loc: long Lsland
 
KJ Smith wrote:
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer program to process & tweak their photos, but I would appreciate some sincere responses to this question: Why not learn to take the photos the way you want them to turn out rather than manipulating the photos completely before you print them from the comfort of your own home? Got redeye? Well, then, take another shot. Want a bluer sky? Use a filter & adjust the camera. I'm not slamming anyone so, please, don't get upset. I can't afford a photograph program (which means, I should probably buy another laptop), printer & photo paper, not to mention that I don't have a place for any printer or a bunch of photo paper, so it's more economical to take my card to the drug store for processing. Someone, please enlighten me because I'm not seeing the benefit of the expense of a computer program, color printer & photo paper. I'm obviously missing something (which is usually the case)!
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use a computer pr... (show quote)


Photo manipulation has always been part of photography. In the darkroom photographers have always dodged, burnt and used other methods to get the prints they wanted. Ansel Adams was a master at this. If you like just taking the photos and sending them out that is fine. You should do what you enjoy and have a lot of fun doing it.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2014 07:17:16   #
mldavis2
 
Great responses, to which I'll add:

Common and popular print formats were established back in the "old" days of film. So the aspect ratio of your digital sensor is usually 2:3 on a DSLR and something else on some point 'n shoots. If you go to a store to buy a frame for one of your shots, you have a choice of 4x6, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc. Do the math and you'll see that what you framed in your viewfinder won't "fit" into that frame without some judicious cropping. I prefer to decide what gets cropped rather than leaving it to the kid running the printer at the drug store.

Second, as mentioned, every JPEG image that comes from a digital camera is modified by the in-camera computer, usually boosted saturation, contrast and sharpening. All RAW images need "help" or they look soft and flat and if not "tweaked" will print the same way.

But if your results are satisfactory for your purposes, there is no need to spend money on software and time for post processing.

On the other side of that defense of post processing, I personally do not like the current trend of oversaturating prints. Even our photo magazines like Outdoor Photographer display garish, overly saturated images on the cover these days. It may sell magazines, but I don't care for it. It looks as though a photographer is trying to make a great shot from an average one, and it doesn't work for me. JHMO

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 07:51:46   #
dj01 Loc: South Carolina
 
I just happened to have read this article yesterday and I am certainly not a photography professional in any form but am guilty of some of the same "sins" as the pro in the subject of this article.
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2014/03/12/mcp-thoughts/

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 07:51:49   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Cameras can record what the eye sees, when the scene has "normal" tonal range (dark vs light), and "normal" color, within 3000K and 6000K, and normal color range (within the camera's gamut and color depth for jpg). When the scene exceeds the "normal" - then its best to avoid recording images as jpg from the camera and use raw instead. This is probably the best way to record what the camera saw. But it is not an image file, it only contains data. All cameras record raw data. An in camera jpg is just setting the camera to some preset values for color balance, exposure compensation, contrast, sharpening, color space etc. You get to choose from 3-5 presets, and if you need something in between, or beyond the range of adjustment provided by the preset, you are out of luck. Recording a raw file and editing the image in a raw converter restores all the adjustabilty that you surrender when you choose an in camera jpg.

Unless you are using a Fuji with an EXR processing engine, which actually produces a better jpg than what is possible with the corresponding raw file (if you want the details send me a PM), processing a raw file gives you the best chance at the highest image quality, most detail, greatest dynamic range, better color rendition etc.

If this concerns you, just think about what went into doing this in the old days. The master photographers would record the best photo possible (on a negative or a piece of transparency film) then the work in the darkroom would begin. Dodging and Burning is a tool in Photoshop, but they have their origins in the darkroom where a photographer would hold back light from a particular area of a print in order to create better rendition of detail, tonal range, and shadows/highlights - if working in color, you had an enlarger with a color head - a set of filters for each color that you could dial in to make color corrected images. If you shot transparency, you would set up control shots and install color correcting Wratten filter gels on the lens, and so on.

It is much easier today, but the process has not changed. if you want snapshots, take the memory card to the drugstore. If you want color corrected and basic tonal balance and some light retouching, pay the extra money and have the images processed by a pro lab that offers this service, or acquire the software and learn how to do it yourself, so you have some control over the result.

Rarely is the image out of the camera the best possible, and only in certain situations does it reflect what you saw. Post processing is where you create the magic. As far as red-eye is concerned, that is a basic beginner mistake that only happens when you use on-camera flash.

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 08:23:21   #
MW
 
Michael66 wrote:
Not to rag on those 'Hoggers who use dodging and burning in the darkroom to process & tweak their photos, but I would appreciate some sincere responses to this question: Why not learn to take the photos the way you want them to turn out rather than manipulating the photos completely...


Because the image I want as an end result cannot be achieved in-camera by any available technology. A couple of examples: I can clone out small distracting objects that could not be physically removed from the scene. Sometimes the desired WB is different in different parts of the image.

In general, because I'm not always interested in an accurate recording of a scene but rather an image that is based on some but not all elements of the scene.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2014 08:38:59   #
MW
 
Unless an event is being reported or there is some other reason where it is important that there is a strong correspondence between a photo and the actual scene, I think the resulting image should be judged as a thing in itself. I.e., the image is the image and how it was created is not relevant though the "how" may be be interesting.

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 08:40:55   #
Pixelpal Loc: Virginia
 
Enjoyed the photos.

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 08:43:57   #
bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana
 
So, I'm guessing when you take your memory card to the Walgreen's kiosk, you don't crop, brighten, straighten, change color cast? All those items on that kiosk ARE post processing. Unless you just put the SD card in and hit the "print all" key, you are post processing. If that is all you do, you really are missing a lot. As others have said, not being able to afford a PP program isn't really an excuse with all the free programs out there. I'm not saying you have to overcook or overprocess images, but our eyes can see so much more than even the most advanced sensor can pick up, we need to use the computer to tweek the image to bring out the depth of the colors and light.

Reply
Mar 14, 2014 08:50:01   #
KJ Smith Loc: Kansas City
 
No, I do not crop, lighten, darken, or anything else. I pick the photo & want printed & click on "add to cart"! I've found very few photo processing programs on the 'net that's free but I'll keep looking -- maybe I got a CD with my camera for post-processing (Canon EOS Rebel Ti3).

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.