this will be intresting


stosser01

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 12:37





In the days of film, it was the chemist or photo lab who developed your image. Digital photography gives us more control as we try to emulate what our eyes see or what our mind sees

melness

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 12:50
stu62 wrote:
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



Let's see some of your photos then ,I'm curious. Maybe the world of photography can have a free lesson on how it's done .
Thanks
Sean

MrB

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 13:14
richandfleur wrote:
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?

As Nigel has written, I am happy to set the camera to produce output JPEGs close to what I want, and then to further adjust them into the final image using PaintShop Pro. Although it is possible to adjust the recorded JPEGs in the camera, I always use my PC software and a big screen for that part of the process.

Richard, although I always do any cropping on the PC, the recorded image could be cropped in the camera. The size of the crop rectangle can be adjusted, as can its position in the image, but the crop format is limited to only the standard aspects 1:1, 2:3, 3:4, and 16:9.

Cheers.
Philip

Gwyn

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 13:21
Shooting RAW and using Lightroom or Photoshop is only the same as developing your film.
Ansel Adams was a master of Photoshop, long before Adobe came up with it.

I can understand some people want the "purity" of a straight from camera jpeg photo, but if a few tweaks of levels, a little straightening (so no unintentional Dutch Angles) or cropping can improve a photo why not?

Yesterday I took one of His Nibs straight from camera jpegs of the dog. It was a good photo, but had the dog's lead rather ruining it, and was a bit flat, so I played with the levels, removed the lead, and cropped it very slightly, to give a much better result.

emleyman

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 13:41
I have some sympathy for Stu's point of view. I think there's a point at which a photo becomes an 'artistic image based on a photo'. It's open to personal preference at what point this is felt to have happened.

I don't have a problem with people playing about with their photos as much as they want, but if they are not obviously adjusted for artistic purposes, then I think people should state this when posting them. As a newcomer to a DSLR and someone who tries to avoid sitting in front of a PC at home, as I have to do it far too much at work, I'd like to be able to see the photos that people take rather than (or maybe as well as) the processed image they have become. This would give me a benchmark to aim for with my photos.

There are a huge number of extremely impressive images on this website, and I'd like to be able to feel these are something I could aspire to taking, rather than wondering if these are possible in a camera, or are really artistic adaptations of real photos.

CiderDrinker

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 14:26
Ah yes, the good old days. I guess when photography was invented everything they took was unedited, straight out of the camera.

Take this image for example, a photograph from 1871.




Since day 1 people have found ways to enhance, edit, trim, lighten, darken, cross process and generally 'photoshop' their final image.

I don't think there was ever truly been a period of photography where you haven't been able to manipulate the final image.

For 90% of my images I only use Lightroom, little shadow tweaks etc. I do like contrasty pictures and black and white, I ways take the picture in colour and convert it.
Digital: Pentax K-1 II + Grip, Pentax K3II + Grip, Pentax MX-1.
Lenses: Pentax D-FA 24-70mm 2.8, D-FA 15-30 2.8, D-FA 70-200 2.8*, Pentax 35mm 2.4, 50mm 1.8, 18-135mm WR, 55-300mm HD, Sigma 70-300mm (macro), Tamron 17-50mm F2.8.
Film: Mamiya C330 Medium Format, Pentax Super ME.

Fodwick

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 16:21
From a philosophical point of view:
Whether it's pixels, molecules of a silver compound or the rods and cones in our eyes. It is all just an interpretation of the "fuzzy real" made up entirely in our minds. Colours, light and shade are difficult to exact for any medium, when our minds can extrapolate and pull depth seamlessly without our realising it (our minds essentially can photoshop). Personally, I have found that sometimes the jpeg image is close enough for me to me satisfied, but sometimes (for instance in the rain) it just doesn't look the same as I have "seen" it. Having the ability to at least try to make the image more like I have "seen" it is very satisfying.
Come and see the beautiful things I see in the ordinary world.
Richard

Rabski

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 21:22
There has, in my humble opinion, never been anything wrong with post processing.

In my earliest days of film cameras, I had a darkroom setup at home and many happy hours were spent messing around with dodge and burn, changing chemical mixes and generally trying to get the most impact out of processed photographs.

The absolute delight of digital photography is that it's possible to do all that and more. And without spending hours in the darkness playing with chemicals that are probably not that healthy.

Making images look as good as you can is surely the whole point. However, they need to be good in the first place. You can enhance sharpness and colour depth, crop, pull up shadow detail and trim off highlights. But there is no software that can get the composition right in the first place.
K5. 35mm, 18-55mm, 50-200mm. Assorted old film stuff including a collection of early folding 120 things, and a much loved OM1 with assorted Zuiko glass.

richandfleur

Link Posted 19/05/2016 - 22:05
I feel there is an underlying concern that you as the viewer are being deceived/lied to, and people want full disclosure around any modifications from ‘real life’.

There are the technical issues at play, in that a camera simply can't present it as you see it, without a lot of processing decisions being made. If you shoot JPEG, then the RAW image has been developed for you, and decisions have been made, even if you haven't actively menu dived and adjusted them. They simply have been made if you are viewing an image from your camera. How much you want to get involved with this shaping of the data, either in camera or afterwards, is up to you. Some brands place a lot of value on the processing systems built in, with quite complex alignment with film stock behaviours etc.

There are then also the psychological and practical aspects of it. Some of which is the photographer influencing the capture of reality through camera placement, framing etc. If you take photos of a riot/protest for example, then you are going to influence the viewers concept of reality at that location by virtue of simply which side of the line you are one when you take the photo. You could argue you're doing the same when you stop at the side of the road and take a photo of a landscape and don't chose to frame the shot to include the road, or petrol station next to you. Or where you move a leaf out of shot before you take the photo because it looked ugly. Or when you took a wildlife shot with narrow depth of field so you didn't give away that it was in a zoo enclosure.

I'd get into a disclosure discussion if it's a clearly stated requirement of a competition environment, or if someone's seen something I've done and asked how I got to that final image. Likewise I'll ask that myself where I see something I like and consider it a skill I'd like to learn more about. Forums such as this are invaluable to me in terms of saying Hey, that's cool, how did you do that please?

Personally I'm only concerned with the final image presented to me. Like a performance really, where I get one shot to look at it, and I appreciate all the hard work that's been put in to present what's now in front of me.

The only time I'm worried that it's not a depiction of real life is when they're crime scene or insurance photos for example.

Then again, I'm very anti all the 'rules' in photography. I'm a creative person, and I don't like concepts that get in the way of that for what I consider to be arbitrary reasons.

Dingo

Link Posted 20/05/2016 - 06:00
Totally get where Stu is coming from though, but the truth is who wants to see ugly when you can make it beautiful.....when in fact I do



I loved the decay, the irregular and the singularity.....but of course if I post this on (insert whatever famous picture hosting of your choice) it wouldn't win any prizes and certainly no fans.

Whereas



might (I said might) find more favour to a wider audience.

Truth (to me) is, whether its heavily processed or just base......the beauty is always in the eye of the creator......your photo might be technically brilliant and aethestically pleasing to the eye, but my dog eared capture speaks more to me.

The last word, and ultimately decision, should really go to Stu..........................do you prefer your wife with or without the slap of makeup!!?



neither has been processed by the way.....as they were taken at the time
Last Edited by Dingo on 20/05/2016 - 06:04

richandfleur

Link Posted 20/05/2016 - 06:58
Dingo wrote:

neither has been processed by the way.....as they were taken at the time

One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.

PaulEvans

Link Posted 20/05/2016 - 07:58
Just building on Gwyn's mention of Ansel Adams, Adam's famous quote "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
Don't think there are many people who'd argue that AA wasn't a "true photographer".
I do tend to try and get the RAW capture as correct as possible in camera, and aim for fairly minimal post processing. Exception is high contrast landscapes where I will typically reduce the highlights and increase shadows in LR to get closer to what the eye saw.

Paul
K3ii, DA16-85, DA35mm Limited, FA77mm Limited, 55mm f1.8 K, 135mm f3.5 M, DA300, DA 1.4 HD TC,
DA16-45, Sigma 15mm f2.8. Cosina 100mm f3.5 macro
Last Edited by PaulEvans on 20/05/2016 - 07:58

Dingo

Link Posted 20/05/2016 - 16:08
richandfleur wrote:

One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.

Well aware of that Richard but I think (and Stu will have to come back to the thread to confirm) that Stu's point was that, even if we set up everything beforehand and then take the picture we still don't have to be happy with it and can change it to look completely different if we so desire, so in fact the whole concept of "original" photograph no longer exists.

We see it every day in the movies when scenes are shot against green screens and complete worlds can be added later. Stu might find consolation in sending off 36 snaps to the Chemist and only having half a dozen that are any good (but are at least his "original" shot) whereas we can revel in pre and post processing if we want to and dramatically alter the original photo to look like anything we want it to, even abstract, regardless of what we originally saw.

I think that was the crux of his original comment, but photography, likes all things in the modern world has moved on to a point where we don't have to see the ugly any more, we just erase it for perfect because it's generally pleasing to more people, and that was the point of my posting the two snaps straight from camera.........I could make them more this, that or the other with post processing but that's the image I took as I set the camera up....and I like the ugly, gnarled flower as it is....regardless of whether it could do with a plethora of tweaks to make it even half decent .

Perhaps Stu just pines for the good old days, whatever they were, or more likely, he just loves to inflame and incite and step back and watch the flames burn for a bit of fun. Either way there is no need for anyone to get precious or defensive about his comment, it's just an opinion, and there are Millions of those on the Internet every day

stu62

Link Posted 20/05/2016 - 20:48
richandfleur wrote:
Dingo wrote:

neither has been processed by the way.....as they were taken at the time

One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.

but even any photo is developed even with film

all those progames are doing is mimicking the film
because in the days of film you could setup 6 identical cameras with all the same settings
but with only one differance the brand of film
you fire the cameras all at the same time on a subject and each photo would be differant

ilford colour film to me seemed to favor the blues more
agfa seemed to like the reds and orange
fugi was yellow and kodak was very mutted well it seemed to me

stu62

Link Posted 20/05/2016 - 20:51
Dingo wrote:
richandfleur wrote:

One of the points raised by others above was that every photo is processed. You may not have touched these after they came out of the camera, but that final JPEG was made based on the development settings you configured within the camera, even if you didn't' realise it or play a major role in configuring those settings.

Well aware of that Richard but I think (and Stu will have to come back to the thread to confirm) that Stu's point was that, even if we set up everything beforehand and then take the picture we still don't have to be happy with it and can change it to look completely different if we so desire, so in fact the whole concept of "original" photograph no longer exists.

We see it every day in the movies when scenes are shot against green screens and complete worlds can be added later. Stu might find consolation in sending off 36 snaps to the Chemist and only having half a dozen that are any good (but are at least his "original" shot) whereas we can revel in pre and post processing if we want to and dramatically alter the original photo to look like anything we want it to, even abstract, regardless of what we originally saw.

I think that was the crux of his original comment, but photography, likes all things in the modern world has moved on to a point where we don't have to see the ugly any more, we just erase it for perfect because it's generally pleasing to more people, and that was the point of my posting the two snaps straight from camera.........I could make them more this, that or the other with post processing but that's the image I took as I set the camera up....and I like the ugly, gnarled flower as it is....regardless of whether it could do with a plethora of tweaks to make it even half decent .

Perhaps Stu just pines for the good old days, whatever they were, or more likely, he just loves to inflame and incite and step back and watch the flames burn for a bit of fun. Either way there is no need for anyone to get precious or defensive about his comment, it's just an opinion, and there are Millions of those on the Internet every day

well john did say i was a mischiefas little devil lol
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.