So What's the Camera Doing?

Gravelrash · 2014-05-02T18:34:13+0100

Sorry for what may end up being a lengthy post but here goes... Brother-in-law buys some studio lighting and asks me to go down and have a bash with my K-5II I used him as Guineapig, background is just the magnolia wall. I have never used a studio light set-up before but had an idea of what I wanted to produce Camera was set to RAW+, with the jpg output I used the B+W in-camera setting, I was raised on monochrome so please don't bash it, just my thing. To the point. The camera did a great job of creating the image I wanted the problem is I don't understand how/why, and that bugs me. Let me explain with 3 pictures to illustrate. The RAW output produces exactly the picture I took, warts and all... The In-camera filter produced exactly what I wanted... Please note that the camera's filter has significantly reduced the skin imperfections whilst simultaneously balancing the background, which was a result that I was hoping to get, along with the creation of a mono image. If I take the RAW image and simply click the B+W option on my computer I get, a more expected, mono version of the RAW image, blemishes and all... I think that it would be advantageous to have the ability to re-create the blemish improvement on a regular basis but if I don't understand what just happened I'm going to struggle. If anybody is able to follow what I'm on about I would be interested to know what process or settings are going to affect this for future reference (apart from the obvious 'just use the filter')so I could perhaps recreate the process in colour, if needs be. I see some very flattering images of the ladies and I'm guessing they're not all Photoshopped to death? If it helps it was a background flash used on the wall and a single flash to the right in a lightbox a little above head height, but you probably knew that. We have some brilliant talent on the forum so was hoping for your insight.

Pentax Digital Camera DiscussionPentax Digital Camer...

Add Comment

tyronet2000 tyronet2000

4862 posts
15 years
Northumberland

Posted 03/05/2014 - 20:16 Link

To use the term very loosely, doesn't everyone "photoshop" to some degree, irrespective of software?

Regards
Stan

PPG

McGregNi McGregNi

5986 posts
14 years
Surrey,
England

Posted 03/05/2014 - 20:21 Link

I'm not using the term loosely - I'm using it as the now common way to describe image adjustments that involve chopping, pasting, compositing and otherwise altering the content of an image to the extent that it is a distortion of reality. I include here the sort of extreme body and skin treatment used for fashion and advertising.

The other sort of PP, that I say we should all be using, is about allowing the camera sensor data to fully be displayed and reproduced in an optimised manner.

If I said a shot had been 'lightroomed' to death - now that would conjure up a rather different impression....

My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

Edited by McGregNi: 03/05/2014 - 20:26

tyronet2000 tyronet2000

4862 posts
15 years
Northumberland

Posted 03/05/2014 - 20:58 Link

Quote:
...If I said a shot had been 'lightroomed' to death - now that would conjure up a rather different impression....

As a beginner in Lightroom I done a few images to death already

I understand what you mean though, nothing wrong with tweaking a little, but a complete metamorphosis of maggot into butterfly by software I disagree with too.

Regards
Stan

PPG

Edited by tyronet2000: 03/05/2014 - 20:58