Why Photoshop, Lightroom, etc?
Jun 5, 2014 07:20:40 #
AndyCE wrote:
JimKing and all that replied already. br I really ... (show quote)
The camera only does what the manufacture sets it up to do what they think is best and you then have to take the photo and do some PP to bring out what you want to show....Rich
Jun 5, 2014 07:29:17 #
AndyCE wrote:
Ok Shouldn't the person and the camera be the only tools that is needed?
I haven't uploaded one photo yet! But every photo I think I should upload I do a auto correct. (That is how much of a beginner I am). I can understand for professional people you want to provide the best possible pictures for your client. I dunno, maybe when does the editing end and the art begin?
Thank you all for your patience!
Andy
I haven't uploaded one photo yet! But every photo I think I should upload I do a auto correct. (That is how much of a beginner I am). I can understand for professional people you want to provide the best possible pictures for your client. I dunno, maybe when does the editing end and the art begin?
Thank you all for your patience!
Andy
You should read Ansel Adams technical books. He did a lot of post processing. Of course he did his pp in a dark room but it is still relevant.
Jun 5, 2014 07:57:40 #
amehta wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :lol: :lol:
So basically you want the crash course in photography?
So basically you want the crash course in photography?
I'll take what I can get! :) Seriously, I don't want a crash course. Also I think I'm a slow learner! :-D But I do have a good memory, which help!
Andy
Jun 5, 2014 08:02:48 #
accuseal
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
Simply put, Post Processing software takes the place of things we used to be able to do in the darkroom like dodging, burning, filters. Few photos are perfect as taken. Many of Ansel Adams most famous images look nothing like the straight out of camera version.
Jun 5, 2014 08:03:42 #
RichieC wrote:
Think about your premise. br br You are using a ... (show quote)
RichieC,
Good points! :thumbup: I'm not critizing those that use it, (someone else posted that) I really don't want to give that impression. Just a little curious. All the replies have been very informative!
Thanks,
Andy
Jun 5, 2014 08:29:14 #
AndyCE wrote:
Ok first let me say I have no intention of offendi... (show quote)
This is a question that will continue being asked. The objective of photography is to produce an image. The camera, lens, film, sensor, skill of the operator - and post processing - all contribute to making that image. It's the result that counts.
Jun 5, 2014 08:30:46 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Gene51 wrote:
This only applies to "run and gun" snapshots. I have yet to see a straight out of the camera image that could not be improved with post. I think we both agree, but the only time an image doesn't require post is when it doesn't matter.
In general that may be true, but I still get the odd shot now and then that is exactly what I want and although I may attempt a bit of PP, it isn't always necessary.
Jun 5, 2014 08:39:01 #
This is the best, most useful exchange I have seen on the Hog yet. Excellent, provides answers to questions that have been lurking in my beginner's mind for some time.
Jun 5, 2014 08:40:19 #
AndyCE wrote:
Ok first let me say I have no intention of offendi... (show quote)
Digital cameras are much like the film cameras that preceded them. The information recorded on the digital sensor is like the negative of a film camera. It MUST be processed to be seen. That isn't a choice.
Most camera process the digital negative (also called a RAW file) to create a jpeg file that you can see both on the LCD of the camera and if you view it on other screens or print it. When going to that image they apply processing. Nikon calls their processing "Picture Controls" and give you some choices as to which to apply in the camera. Some cameras also let you adjust some of the details of that processing, including doing "retouch" in the camera.
But that processing is relatively limited and crude compared to what you can do in the "darkroom" of post processing programs like Lightroom or Photoshop.
When you take a jpeg image "straight from the camera" it is like, in the old days, taking your film to the drugstore to be processed and printed. You allowed them to make all the decisions on how to do it.
No professional photographer ever did that.
But if you are happy with snapshots you are welcome to do that.
Jun 5, 2014 08:40:33 #
Ansel Adams was a great photographer as he had the eye to allow him to visualize the finished image. However, he was a master in the darkroom. Most of what we see from him is the finished product after darkroom manipulation processing. The computer has become our darkroom.
Jun 5, 2014 08:53:35 #
The key to your question lies in your question "If photography is art...". Photography is not art. It is a technical process. The art comes from your vision. Ansel Adams talked about "pre-visualization". That is, visualizing what you want the final image to look like before snapping the shutter and then using the darkroom tools to realize that vision. So the art of it is all in your vision and your mind. You use the camera and the software to execute that vision.
Jun 5, 2014 08:56:44 #
manofhg
Loc: Knoxville, TN
jeep_daddy wrote:
Believe it or not, a picture taken straight from ... (show quote)
I agree with Jeep Daddy. The JPG is pre-processed (by the camera which is whatever the manu has decided is the best way to process it). When you shoot in RAW, the camera has not manipulated the image at all and presents all the "raw" information. This allows the photographer to do the processing the way he thinks it should be. I also use Lightroom and have just purchased Elements, but don't know much about it yet.
An example of one of the things that is taken care of in Lightroom and probably the camera jpg shot is lens correction. Each lens affects the appearance or skew, for lack of better wording, of the image. Without correcting this, the picture won't quite look like what your eye sees. If you want an image that accurately depicts what your eye sees, this must be a step which won't make it perfect, but will bring it closer. The same can be said for tonal balance, contrast, shadows, etc.
Occasionally, I try to process an image for some artistic effect, but generally, my goal is to make people look at the image and think of the place, not how the picture looks.
Jun 5, 2014 08:58:53 #
CA_CanonUser
Loc: Friendswood, TX
You must remember that if you are shooting JPEG, the camera has already done a lot of post-processing for you, but it had to guess at what is actually correct. Only you know what the scene actually looked like, so only you, through post-processing, can achieve close to that reality.
If you are shooting RAW (preferred for post-processing), then the photo recorded by the camera is not even close to what you saw when you snapped the picture.
If you are shooting RAW (preferred for post-processing), then the photo recorded by the camera is not even close to what you saw when you snapped the picture.
Jun 5, 2014 09:16:35 #
Film was not only taken, but developed. In digital software is the development phase. How much you change with the software will depend on your philosophy. I agree that starting with Elements is a good idea. You will , at least, need to sharpen a bit and perhaps crop.
Jun 5, 2014 09:26:14 #
AndyCE wrote:
JimKing and all that replied already. br I really ... (show quote)
No problem at all.....as you see, there are a lot of passionate people on here....also a lot of very talented people who won't hesitate to give you help and answers to your questions.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.