rant

Well, its something to talk about and debate for us on the forum, just like the jpeg activity is something for Johns camera club members to do - all part of the fun and interest that is photography!

There may be a fair bit of semantics involved as well ... Philip, we are really saying the same thing about jpegs & RAW - yes, the RAW file is adjusted to produce the Jpeg, but its still an adjustment, editing and manipulation within the camera.

Stub62, I feel that you are not seeing the point here that what the camera outputs is in fact also 'computer programming', very similar to the processes involved in editing images on a computer, but just carried out by a tiny micro-computer to more tightly controlled parameters and more limited capability overall, and with much more generic, pre-programmed results.

As said before, this may be an advantage in some situations, better for an individual than spending time on the computer .... but it will never offer the same ultimate potential as high quality editing work on a computer using the camera RAW file.

I think regardless of the difficulties in a precise definition, the concept of "straight out of camera" is not only about the processing or lack of. It's also about the discipline of taking the shot and making sure that exposure and composition are spot on up front. Just like a slide film, where what you take is what you get.

So subsequently there is no cropping, as well as no levels or curves adjustments or anything else.

The files all come to me and I resize them to fit the competition software, but that's all I do and all files are treated exactly the same.

Of course there is something slightly unfair in that some marques output far better JPEG files than others, but there is a limit to what can be done to make a level playing field.

Unfair yes, apart from the advantage of having Pentax jpegs, what if someone had a camera with no aa filter ... would the others therefore be allowed to crank up the sharpening on their camera settings to even things out?

I can fully appreciate the discipline involved in having to get the composition and exposure right at capture - I hadn't even thought of those as they are really a given for me ... sure, I might frame a little wide if there would be any distortion correction needed as that might also involve cropping, but generally we should all aim to capture the framing and exposure exactly as wanted - that way there's no waste.

Nigel, you seem to be unable to see the wood for the trees.

No-one could dispute that point in principle (but I would prefer to replace "file" with "data").

All I am trying to get over to you is that the JPEG file recorded on the SD-Card immediately after image capture is what most people would regard as the "Out-of-Camera JPEG". I think that is the image file that Stu62 regards as his photograph, and I think that is the image file required for the competition at John's Club.

Some photographers, me included, see nothing wrong with further processing that JPEG file, either in the camera or, more usually, on a computer, to create a different (hopefully better) version of the photograph as a new file.

I think it is that further processing that Stu62 disagrees with, and that new file is one that would not be welcomed as an entry in John's competition.

Cheers.
Philip

I really enjoyed the challenge of getting it right in camera using slides, and was highly successful in competitions using them. In fact I obtained my CPAGB qualification through this medium.
However, I now enjoy digital imaging as much, particularly the opportunity to computer manipulate the images.
Having said that, I'm now struggling to achieve the same level of success, as there are thousands of people out there with digital cameras who are much better at post manipulation than I am! Consequently it povides me with a challenge, and gives me something to aim for. A challenge! Motivation!

Bedtime reading:

exhibit A

exhibit B

The exhibits are very interesting, and make the point! They should be made "must read" for all Photoshop knockers!!!!

Stu

I think this debate is largely missing the point you were making.

If I understand you correctly - all you were saying was that to you, the image should be created at the time it was taken, no amount of PP work is acceptable - whatever comes out of the camera should be the finished item and you were asking if anybody else shared this opinion.

I think most of us have a slightly more pragmatic view. Personally I would be delighted to never have to do any PP work, but realistically, if I want my images to look decent I have to accept that for a multitude of reasons, including at times my own deficiencies when taking the shot, I will frequently have to do some minor levels tweaking.

I think we all set our own boundaries. To me some things are acceptable - others are not. For instance, I have never added anything that was not present but I have been known to remove things that would not have been there at another point in time - litter for instance.

Carl

Let me also make my point about camera jpeg output a different way ... Say I was to take a RAW file and open in in photoshop camera raw, turning off all auto default adjustments. Then I made a few tiny moves on a few sliders, resulting in a photo that was just a little bit different to what it first looked like.

Well, if I then looked at the camera jpeg produced of the same shot, it is very likely that in fact the camera had made significantly more processing changes, more adjustment, dynamic range compression, saturation and contrast boosting ... Much more' overdone ' than my subtle efforts in photoshop.

The is no logic to equating a camera produced jpeg with the concept of ' straight out the camera' and less processed... It is nothing of the sort.

In my mind there is no such thing as an un-edited photograph, either digital or analogue.

I would call it PrP, Pre Processing even altering the shutter speed alone could alter the recorded image significantly.

even the image created from RAW data or film from the camera is not what your eyes saw , it doe not have anything like our dynamic range or brain capability. so "to get it right in camera" is in fact "i hope the camera and software/darkroom get it close to what i saw" and there is nothing you can do about that until technology gets us there, so the whole arguement is of no point until it does

I would suggest that stu62 takes a look at Maria's Gallery (Autumnlight) and if he does not change his mind I would be amazed! Now that is art and if anyone suggests that it is invalid to produce images of that quality and artistic merit I think they should be sectioned. No offence Stu, but I really do think the point you are making is absolute tosh.

Link to Maria's Gallery:

link

Regards
David

Stop beating around the bush David - what do you really think?


...and yes - Maria does produce some stunning work

Carl

as i sad early on i poked a hornets nest which was a good thing and yes i have looked at maria,s work its just not my sort of thing but my argument is why take a photo and then take stuff out which was there ant location when you took the photo you took the photo with it in so leave it in move to a differant location or angle to make the photo it is not a true pice of work which you have try to produce on the camera in the place you are taking it but that is my oppinion

I do agree with you there to a point ... I would never do certain things, like swap a sky from one shot into another one, or add people in, that kind of thing ... But I do take multiple exposures of the same scene in order to use HDR or exposure blending, but that is with the aim of increasing realism by reproducing the dynamic range more as the eye can see it ... It's not always successful of course, but usually better than a single frame where the camera cannot technically cope with the DR.

And I will happily remove the odd small interference, eg a drink can I hadn't noticed, where it can be cloned out and replaced by its own background ...I have no issue with that at all, and I do not consider it to mean that I failed as a photographer to properly prepare the shot, not at all.