this will be intresting

i have come to think that there is not many true photographers on here

simple reason is that every one seems to have to alter there photos with one program or another to change what they look like

i know this will cause arguments but what the hell

it seems that those that play with there photos are to scared to post what it came out the cameraas well as how it finished up


come on prove that you can take photos straight out the camera and if its not cropped even better

Sorry Stu, can't play ball too much I don't personally see the value in those particular 'out the camera' aims ....

To me the camera is the tool I use to try and capture the most quality image data the sensor is capable of .... With the most dynamic range, best exposure value and sharp where needed. I want to compose and frame up nicely of course, but I try and shoot a little wide for leveling and cropping purposes later, as there may be different shapes and amounts of each edge I want to keep. The best time to make those choices is quietly on the computer when that's the sole thing to worry about.

Nice pic ..... What saturation and sharpness settings did you use ?

Digital wise, you capture some raw stuff and then develop it. A JPEG straight from camera is this raw data processed in a certain way.

It's all 1s and 0s until you chose to make something of it. There is not such thing as 'just what the camera saw'.

In fact, especially in terms of digital video, the aim is to use the camera as a tool to capture as much detail as you want (flat picture profile etc) to give you the most leeway and data to process to the final image you have in mind. That looks like mush if you view it straight out of camera.

Process to give you the image you want. Call it art, call it whatever you want, but it's what the creator had in mind. Developing a photo is nothing new.

It's blunt, but I don't care if it doesn't look like it did on the day. I only care what it looks like when I view it.

It pays to remember that a lot can't be done in post either, and that's where I feel the 'photographer' part comes into play. Your stance, shutter speed for blur/freeze motion, your perspective, lens choice, composition, where you place your exposure to protect/capture the area of importance to you, depth of field etc etc... That's equally important to the shot, and complements the photographers development skills.

what you are after is a RAW file competition You pic has been processed by Ricoh engineers instead of you Where is the glory in that? It's no different now than it was in the film days. Just more easily accessible. Photography is a complex process and does not end with a shutter release. Nice photo nevertheless; you'd get even more 'punch' straight out of the box if you were a Canikon user. They pack it 'shiny'; the masses love it.

Even black and white prints from film almost always need some burning and dodging to bring detail from the shadows and hold back the highlights. Then one has a choice of paper grades - a contrasty negative probably needing a softer grade paper to get the best out of it.
But it doesn't stop there. One might deliberately under/over expose the negative and adjust developing times accordingly to compensate to get the desired negatives. Then one may use the sky from another image if the photo you're presently working on lacks a decent sky.
A straight out of the camera image is really just a snapshot, a proof print waiting for further work. Often the packet of prints back from the chemist D&P look pretty dreadful until one spends some work enhancing them. It's the difference between a snap shooter and an enthusiast photograper.

Stu is trolling.
Perhaps the real problem is that he is plain lousy at post-processing?
I second JAK's post above.

well when you had film you couldnt alter things like you can today and that was the skill of the photographer
and all those programs in the camera are the equivalent of the film
it was the skill of the photographer to capture that image at that prosice moment it seems that every one is forgeting how to take a photo
and how to use a camera

Don't feed the insulting troll, folks.

Don't jump to conclusions, Stu is maybe being a bit mischievous but there's no harm in a bit of discussion around the process/don't process argument. It could be a RAW vs JPEG thread, or any other that invites us to discuss two radically different approaches.

Many years ago I was discussing some pictures with a friend and explaining how I could crop in the darkroom, change the contrast, even dodge and burn. His reaction surprised me, "That's not fair, " he declared, "We can't all do that." That would mean that nothing could be done unless everybody could do it equally, and that can't be right.

So just do what you want, process if you want, but enjoy whatever it is that you do.

Right
Sure
Definitely

Stu posted provocatively implying that everyone else aren't photographers and don't know how to use a camera.

Comments deliberately intended to provoke.....

Then bait.....

And bait again.....



Sorry John, but Stu was by definition most certainly trolling.
No jumping to conclusions when the evidence is so compelling.


You're right, there is no harm in asking for a discussion re: 'To PP or Not to PP' - but harmful when posting hostile remarks which are deliberate in their intent.. Just look at the responses.

Can we all please remember that personal attacks on other members are definitely against the rules and against the ethos of Pentax User.

If we don't like a thread, report it by PM or report and just decline to participate in it. Then things don't become personal.

I think it's fair to say that Pentax does offer a wide range of in body processing tools, such that someone can have a lot of control over how a photo they take is developed.

It's all processing though, whether sharpening/contrast/brightness etc is done in camera or not. Out of camera you just be more control over the process, and have access to additional tools, and arguably a nicer work interface. Can you crop in camera for example?

I'm really anti rules around what should be a creative pastime. I get where the OP is coming from, but I just don't think it applies anymore, especially when what you've taken is solely to capture as much detail as possible, and isn't ever intended to be the final result.

I got to say I do agree with Steve on this. I don't see this as being an interesting discussion around pp at all. Just insulting and shows a complete lack of knowledge on his part.

His words


Well unless he has some super power that would let him view undeveloped film it would need processing just like digital. And unless he is uploading really large files I presume he is using some kind of software or editing programme to make the files small enough to upload. Where do you draw the line.

If I had a pentax pic of Kermit I'd post it because he's a ####### muppet too

For me Lightroom is merely a collection of filters and the ability to adjust light which is not unique to the digital age. Contrary to belief even in the film era a image wasn't created from start to finish with a click of a shutter. Prior to automated development the photographers skill continued in the darkroom with years of experience of times, temperature and chemicals. Adding filters and dodging and burning skies all to create their personal style on an already well taken image. I for one prefer the convenience of my pc than my short and usually unsuccessful time in a makeshift dark room.
I feel privileged to have experienced both the film and digital era and enjoy looking at other members amazing images with their very own unique styles and while I understand stu62 I also feel we are now given tools to create unique images either by recording a moment in time as you see it or artistically creating your very own masterpiece.
ps don't be hard on me I may go quiet for another 10 years