What SOOC proponents don't seem to understand
Apr 22, 2017 09:31:33 #
So Toby, what your are saying is that PP is a must and not an option, that we go out and spend all this money on these DSLRs that are incapable of taking good pictures SOOC, WOW. Can you imagine if back in the film days we had to PP our every shot that we took because it wasn't good enough, thank GOD for Ansel Adams for saving the day, what would we have done with out him! The thing is that we never saw his SOOC shots, which I am sure were crap, or were they, otherwise he would not PP'd them, give us a break. You never see us SOOC proponents start something like this, it's
guys like you that wear that I PP label like a badge of honor, I PP, so I must be a photographer mentality.
Just relax and let everyone do what they want.
guys like you that wear that I PP label like a badge of honor, I PP, so I must be a photographer mentality.
Just relax and let everyone do what they want.
Apr 22, 2017 09:39:49 #
Ansel Adams used to say that the negative was just the beginning. His mastery of the darkroom was what turned his pictures into what they were.
Many times SOOC is shown just to illustrate a point from where to judge a camera or a lens. A file straight out of camera like a negative will require editing to bring the best in it. It is not my intention to offend anyone but the majority of the pictures I see in the forum have little or no work done during editing. In the optical darkroom and it applies to the digital darkroom also, dodging and burning-in among other techniques usually handled by software are necessary to bring the best in a file.
Our lives are easier today than they were when we were using the optical darkroom. We have myriad of manipulations that we did not have then and many softwares like those from Nik and Topaz just to mention two of them are armed with excellent presets that can be modified to the operator's taste to improve on the photography and make it appear more natural to the eye.
The file is only the beginning and yes, the exposure should be right on in camera.
Many times SOOC is shown just to illustrate a point from where to judge a camera or a lens. A file straight out of camera like a negative will require editing to bring the best in it. It is not my intention to offend anyone but the majority of the pictures I see in the forum have little or no work done during editing. In the optical darkroom and it applies to the digital darkroom also, dodging and burning-in among other techniques usually handled by software are necessary to bring the best in a file.
Our lives are easier today than they were when we were using the optical darkroom. We have myriad of manipulations that we did not have then and many softwares like those from Nik and Topaz just to mention two of them are armed with excellent presets that can be modified to the operator's taste to improve on the photography and make it appear more natural to the eye.
The file is only the beginning and yes, the exposure should be right on in camera.
Apr 22, 2017 09:43:45 #
Scott Kelby has put it succinctly: Fix it [the photograph] in Adobe Camera Raw, and finish it in Adobe Photoshop.
This maxim presumes that a photograph needs some editing work to bring out its potential.
I once read a book by an accomplished studio photographer whose lighting arrangement and camera settings enable him to produce a photograph needing no post-processing. He shoots in the JPEG file format, obviating the use of Adobe Camera Raw. His control of the exposure variables upfront makes his result possible.
Obviously, in other shooting environments, this kind of exposure control cannot happen. Even if it could, then the photo-editing would still have to occur, only it would do so via camera and lens adjustments, prior to shutter release, for realizing the inherent potential of a given photograph.
Thank goodness the practice of photography accommodates all approaches to this craft, including SOOC for those shooters preferring this way.
This maxim presumes that a photograph needs some editing work to bring out its potential.
I once read a book by an accomplished studio photographer whose lighting arrangement and camera settings enable him to produce a photograph needing no post-processing. He shoots in the JPEG file format, obviating the use of Adobe Camera Raw. His control of the exposure variables upfront makes his result possible.
Obviously, in other shooting environments, this kind of exposure control cannot happen. Even if it could, then the photo-editing would still have to occur, only it would do so via camera and lens adjustments, prior to shutter release, for realizing the inherent potential of a given photograph.
Thank goodness the practice of photography accommodates all approaches to this craft, including SOOC for those shooters preferring this way.
Apr 22, 2017 09:50:05 #
Just a quick reminder of one of Ansel Adam's best quotes - at least in my mind. And I am paraphrasing only slightly when he is quoted as saying "Good pictures are made, not taken." And I say whatever it takes to get a satisfying finished product!
Apr 22, 2017 09:51:31 #
If I can use an image SOOC then I am delighted. But more often than not (my) images need to be tweaked. What matters to me is the end result, not how I got there. So I shoot in Raw and Jpeg and do what is needed to ensure the image is to my satisfaction. Getting it close to how I want it in camera is the goal.
Apr 22, 2017 10:16:24 #
kymarto wrote:
Any by the way, such corrections take at most a couple of minutes. Open the image in an editor, make adjustments to three or four parameters, and save. Typically takes me about 30 seconds.
Discussion?
Any by the way, such corrections take at most a couple of minutes. Open the image in an editor, make adjustments to three or four parameters, and save. Typically takes me about 30 seconds.
Discussion?
If you take a perfect picture, SOOC then what? I don't earn my living taking pictures, I do it because I enjoy pictures. Taking them is not too difficult, particularly with todays cameras. Getting it perfect is mostly a matter of composition, the most difficult and creative part of taking pictures. Yes, it can be fun, but it's just the very beginning.
I generally spend little time taking a picture. Occasionally, but not often, I spend time setting up a shot, (light painting, still life's etc.) but mostly it's just seconds taking a picture. Far more time is spent in post on the good ones, and ergo far more enjoyment derived from the photograph.
If you are earning a living from your photographs, then perhaps time is money, but otherwise, relax and enjoy being involved/immersed in your work. If I really like a picture, I can easily spend 30 minutes numerous times doing post. Then, when I run out things to fix or ideas to fool with, I'm a little sad I'm done, and it's off to another photo to spend quality time with. Generally a good one gets a high rating, and will be my wall paper for a few days, and if lucky, will get a "DesktopBackground" keyword designation. I currently have 238 photo's so designated, and not one of them has not had significant Post work done on them. Same with my 20 or so large wall hangers. All have PP done, not one SOOC.
Oh, and I rarely shoot raw, not that there is anything wrong with that, but I can do just as well editing a jpg 99% of the time.
Apr 22, 2017 10:18:21 #
kymarto wrote:
I hope you're not implying that I'm "bragging" about my post processing. In fact it sucks on these images; I would never imply that these are finished. I do have some others I might be tempted to brag about, but here I am simply trying to demonstrate the potentials in an image that are not realizable SOOC. Certainly if one is happy with the original image then there is no need to go further.
No, I was just observing that some of the SOOC guys were bragging about their ability to get things right the first time (which, of course, depends on your definition of "right").
Apr 22, 2017 10:19:33 #
Apr 22, 2017 10:22:11 #
When you die, your children will trash all your great bug,bird,dog,frog ,duck etc. Photos.
Apr 22, 2017 10:23:43 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
My favorite is the old "I'd rather be out shooting instead of sitting in front of my computer" comment, as though photography is a race to see how many times one can trip the shutter, and the time spent in pp and time out on shooting trips come from the same allocated pool.
Apr 22, 2017 10:24:56 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
No, I was just observing that some of the SOOC guys were bragging about their ability to get things right the first time (which, of course, depends on your definition of "right").
My definition is always changing. One of my problems with PP is deciding when it's "right". Often, I have several that I think are "right" and end up keeping several "right" of the same picture.
Apr 22, 2017 10:42:03 #
If you see yourself as a photo journalist you are likely to do only minimal PP. If you see yourself as an artist you are going to be far less restrained as you create your art. Apart from this distinction, if you wish your digital image to represent what you actually saw, post processing is going to be essential. Whether you are allowing you camera's program to automatically adjust a JPG or whether you are making the adjustments manually after shooting RAW.
Even the most advanced of today's digital cameras doesn't come close to the capability of the human eye coupled with that most incredible 'computer,' the human brain. If you want your image to look like what your eye captured and your brain recorded when you took the photograph, PP is going to be necessary...whether you allow your camera's JPG program to automate it or whether you do it manually. The excellent example photographs illustrate this point well. Image one was what the camera saw. Image two probably has close to the shadow detail that the photographer actually saw. Image three probably has more shadow detail than could have been seen of the rapidly moving person with the ball.
Someday we may have a camera that that is 'smart' enough to duplicate the the ability of the human eye and brain, but I doubt it will be anytime soon. In the meantime, what is your goal or mission is likely to lead to your choice of how you shoot and whether or not you use PP.
This forum showcases a wide range of goals, philosophies, talent, and methodologies. No one combination is right or wrong and the differences create the texture that keeps this forum interesting.
Even the most advanced of today's digital cameras doesn't come close to the capability of the human eye coupled with that most incredible 'computer,' the human brain. If you want your image to look like what your eye captured and your brain recorded when you took the photograph, PP is going to be necessary...whether you allow your camera's JPG program to automate it or whether you do it manually. The excellent example photographs illustrate this point well. Image one was what the camera saw. Image two probably has close to the shadow detail that the photographer actually saw. Image three probably has more shadow detail than could have been seen of the rapidly moving person with the ball.
Someday we may have a camera that that is 'smart' enough to duplicate the the ability of the human eye and brain, but I doubt it will be anytime soon. In the meantime, what is your goal or mission is likely to lead to your choice of how you shoot and whether or not you use PP.
This forum showcases a wide range of goals, philosophies, talent, and methodologies. No one combination is right or wrong and the differences create the texture that keeps this forum interesting.
Apr 22, 2017 10:52:25 #
Apr 22, 2017 11:00:30 #
Apples and oranges.
Many people here on UHH think that pushing the trigger on the camera box is art.
Do we need to tell them that it is not?
Painting a realistic tree makes you only a skillful painter. Ability to read or write doesn't make you a poet. You can eat your lunch out of the newspaper or with the silverware on a fully dressed table. Which way do you prefer?
Using tools available for post processing doesn't make you an artist either but can make you feel(and some others) satisfied by helping you to achieve an image you feel it is just about the right one.
You are the author and if you decide to share your image you like (even not so good) with others, it is okay. UHH is not a National Gallery.
However, the "Cultural Relativism" belongs to the Stone Age.
Many people here on UHH think that pushing the trigger on the camera box is art.
Do we need to tell them that it is not?
Painting a realistic tree makes you only a skillful painter. Ability to read or write doesn't make you a poet. You can eat your lunch out of the newspaper or with the silverware on a fully dressed table. Which way do you prefer?
Using tools available for post processing doesn't make you an artist either but can make you feel(and some others) satisfied by helping you to achieve an image you feel it is just about the right one.
You are the author and if you decide to share your image you like (even not so good) with others, it is okay. UHH is not a National Gallery.
However, the "Cultural Relativism" belongs to the Stone Age.
Apr 22, 2017 11:00:50 #
This may have already been said here but even a SOOC jpeg can be improved in Adobe Camera Raw.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.