jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

In an article about the Nikon D800E, the reviewer discussed the anti-aliasing filter, and the way it slightly degrades images. Nikon removed this filter from the D800E to produce a sharper image. He went on to say that virtually any photo can be improved by adding in some of that sharpness that was removed by the filter.

I think this applies to any picture taken by any camera. No device is perfect. OK, so the camera is set perfectly and here is the result - ta da! Maybe the sharpness could be better, or the color is washed out, or there are dark areas that could be brought out.

My camera is not my master. It's simply one of the things I use to produce the pictures I like.

ninods

To me "communication" is the goal!?! What ever it takes to achieve! With over 50 years taking photographs! I Thank GOD for PhotoShop and whatever else may follow! Ciao!

MtnMan Loc: ID

Most (maybe all) DSLRs give the user quite a bit of control over the processing done in camera. First by selecting the image type (RAW vs. various JPEGs), sometimes by selecting the JPEG color rendition, then by selecting things such as white balance and picture controls. My Nikon also allows you to tailor the picture controls; e.g. saturation, hue, contrast, sharpening.

In addition my Nikon enables a lot of in-camera post-processing such as cropping, Active D-lighting, selective color, and so on.

A claim of some kind of purity by accepting the camera makers choice on these suggests a lack of knowledge as to what is going on to make a viewable picture.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I like your new avatar, but it's too bad you had to get rid of the other one. That was cute. I can understand why you did it.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

The agrument that PP gives you total control while "in-camera" doesn't, i.e.: the cameras programming has control is, in my opinion fallacious. Consider - a computer program is altering light according to the instructions written into the comuter by someone. The computer is either desk-top, lap-top or camera. What difference does it make how you control the program, the tool that you use - the computer key-board or the camera's menu. Yes, PP gives greater nuances and sublety than the camera can- if thats what you want to do- go for it! If I can create the image I like by using my camera's computer why the heck not! If I want to create an artistic image, then I'll use the instructions controlled by a key-board, but only then. I've heard the "shoot JPEG" statement from several in the "scientific" community and my interpretation of what they are saying is capture a clear statement OF THE ACTUAL REALITY - not a scene as the eye of the beholder would like it to be. You want to make reality into what you would have it look like - go right ahead, I'll enjoy your effort. But, I'll also enjoy mine.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

The meter in the camera is set to create an image which is generally pleasing to "MOST" people. It does not consider who light is different in various parts of the world--and there are subtle differences. (the old Kodak films for example were designed to show light as it struck the earth in Rochester New York.---I learned this on a tour of the Kodak facility yesteryear and never forgot it).

That said, I work every hard to "get it right" in the camera but there are some things (especially in the digital age) that require some post work. (Try shooting an African -American wedding and you will see one such example) Digital bu the very nature of the pixels required some degree of sharpening--especially if you use high end cameras.

For the most part I retain the integrity of what came from the camera (and my efforts in that area) but I originally got into photography to have record of the scene as I actually saw it. I use post work to fulfill this vision, nothing more.

I use Lightroom and shoot in RAW, which by its very nature is more flat and dull than jpeg. RAW demands post work. But when I started I just used jpeg. Once you see what a RAW image contains and can show---RAW becomes the way a serious amature or professional will go (deadline photogs like newspaper photogs use jpeg because of speed of processing--when I shoot sports for the local paper they want only jpeg) There is a learning curve, and time cost, but once you try it you will understand the benefits.

Larry

Mermade Loc: Mississippi

:D :D :thumbup:

Jim Plogger Loc: East Tennessee

While every effort should be made to make sure all of your camera settings are right, accepting your photos out of a digital camera in a jpeg format is the equivalent of shooting 35mm film and having the drugstore process them. The results were never really satisfactory, especially when they applied "color correction".

Any of us who did work in a chemical darkroon know that we made ajustments before the final print.

Technology exists that allows us to improve the image out of the camera. Why not use it if it results in a better photo. There are very few out of camera shots that do not need some adjustment.

But for some of you who are "purist", I certainly respect your position on this.

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

If you shot film would you not have it developed? It is the same thing, especially for those of us that choose to shoot in the raw format. I do agree that the camera should do it's job. I also feel that the darkroom should do it's job.

twitcher32 Loc: North Carolina/Costa Rica

I'm with you, Artistwally. Get the best you can with the camera first and then, if necessary, adjust with Picasa. But having said that, I acknowledge there are some photographers that use the original exposure as an artist's easel and carefully adjust (paint, if you will) the final picture. It all boils down to whatever floats your boat.

mdeman Loc: Damascus, Maryland

Myself, I try to get the best photo I can at the time. But even then, I love tweaking them in PP. I get as much personal enjoyment out of post processing as I do out of taking the picture in the first place.

Now if someone will invent a process that just pulls the remembered image out of my memory, with all it's details. I could forget about the camera and just play with the image, and maybe enjoy the experience that produced the image even more.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I agree and expect more PP controls will eventually wind up in the camera in the future.

William Bennett Loc: Il

I mainly use the crop tool an the lighten or darken tool

oldmalky Loc: West Midlands,England.

As i have said i use the crop and very small tweaks,in fact for the first two years i had never heard of photoshop and had no idea of what it did and what does it do??in fact it can alter the picture you took beyond all recognition and therefore it CAN make an average photo good and a bad photo good,when I first came on this forum a lady posted a picture of a railcar which had been taken on a cell phone and it was fantastic it turned out it had been processed in PS, but like as been said whatever floats your boat!!I wish I knew how to alter/amend/change some of mine they would look better.

2x25mpg Loc: Long Island NY

I HAVE to shoot the regular old fashioned way. I suck on the computer,
I have wasted lots of money buying editing programs that say easy to use. I have gotten the free stuff also like picassa etc but can't understand how to use them.
They are all so complicated so I just gave up and don't edit anything because I don't know how.