rant

am i the only one that thinks photo shop and others like it is not a true reflection on photography as in my eyes its what you see and take with the camera and not what you do with the dam computer programs my rant over unless someone wants to continue it regards stu

The camera needs a little help.
You must remember there are no pure images in photography, either analogue or digital...
Many would say slide film is close, but the temperature of the chemicals or mix of the brew will affect the outcome.
There's nothing wrong with tweaking...it's what the acceptable level is for you

There's no such thing as a 'pure' unprocessed digital image. A camera joeg does not equate to what is commonly termed ' straight out the camera' ... That is to misrepresent the process, which is that the camera captures the image in a RAW format, then uses its tiny camera brain to apply preset image adjustments with further editing input from the photographer via the custom image settings, white balance etc. It's just a much less powerful form of Photoshop and the other computer programs.

There may be an advantage for some with this more limited editing capacity from the camera, as it is more limited in its scope than computer software, so less to go wrong if you are not so experienced, but its just image editing so the same. But there are plenty of times when a camera edited jpeg is a good choice ... For me that is for images where the quality is not subject to critical looking or there are many many shots of a similar nature ... Then camera jpegs' will cut down the processing stages and make things quicker.

Pentax camera jpegs are excellent, but if you want to get the most out then without photoshop etc, then you need to be prepared to do your photo editing on your camera as you go.

It's a misconception that somehow film photography was "pure" in some way that digital is not.

The truth is that all photography is a 2D representation of a 3D world and there's little "realistic" in that. We interpret it and to assist us the photographer alters the original capture to represent their vision.

It could be as simple as the use of coloured filters, it could be changes to processing, it could be changes in the darkroom, it could be changes on the computer. These are all different ways to the same end.

The camera needs some help, as it's dynamic range is less than your eyes, hence the need to preserve high-lights/lift shadows.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
Ansel Adams

From what I have read about how he worked, I would guess that Ansel Adams would have meant this to apply to both the image capture and image processing stages involved in creating a photograph.

Cheers.
Philip

to me if you know your camera and your settings there should be no editing that to me is what makes a photograph better as he is not dependent on the computer but we all have our opinion which makes us all different


regards stu

Are we to assume that you never print one of the photographs you have taken?

If you do, then your printer is processing the digital image. If you make a change to the default settings on either the camera or the printer, then you are adjusting the processing of an image. Change the paper, and you affect the final rendering of the image again.

If you regard changing the settings on your camera as acceptable, then what you are really saying is that there should be a limit on the amount of processing. Fine, now define that limit precisely.

Geoff

We've all seen examples of, and produced some of our own, where the result of processing had produced something unnatural, and of course for standard types of photography we all want to avoid that. But this is only about the extent of changes ... I agree that if the key shooting aspects were well set at capture then that's the best starting point for processing.

Lets not confuse it too much with historic comparisons, lets stick with what we're using now, digital ... Now the camera records RAW for that can't be used for any practical purpose, so it needs conversion and optimisation to become a more usable form, mainly the jpeg. Whether this process happens on the camera with its tiny brain, our on computer with its massive brain and sophisticated software, that choice is the photographers, but it has to happen one way or the other.

Every digital image demands basic adjustments to contrast, brightness, saturation, and subsets of those. Stub, did you accept my earlier points about the camera jpegs?

The historic point Nigel is just to show that it has always been as it is now, the only difference is the method.

From the moment photography started we were manipulating images, and Ansel Adams is just one example of someone who heavily manipulated images. The original negatives needed this to put the tonal range on the paper with the required contrast and density.

i aggree with you there john but why take a photo and then start taking stuff out from for ground and background that is not a true photograph

Interesting stu62, how would you define a true photograph is the first question. The second would be what qualification would any of us have to declare that definition as an absolute?

To start with, it's not a true Photograph anyway, it's a Digital Image!
It really depends upon whether you want to end up with a true "Record shot", or a more satisfying final "Image"!
This debate has been rattling around Photography Clubs for years, dating back to the days when printers manipulated Monochrome prints in the darkroom! Remember the "fairy at the bottom of the garden hoax" ?
Actually, adjusting / manipulating images in the computer is a skill in its own right, and a very satisfying one at that! It gives me as much pleasure, if not more, than the actually taking of the shots

didnt realise i was poking a hornets nest lol

I also used to like to take slides, as they actually had to be taken rightwithout post manipulation (except for masking!)!