this will be intresting


frob

Link Posted 21/05/2016 - 07:29
I have this arguement constantly with my 'shooting buddy', who demands to see 'the original'. And the arguement goes on and on. I have tried to explain that I prefer to adjust the photo on a 23" screen rather than letting some guy in Japan do it for me etc etc, but one thing we do agree on, is that composition and imagination is more important. A rubbish shot is a rubbish shot no matter how much 'processing ' I do.

stu62

Link Posted 21/05/2016 - 08:04
but they
frob wrote:
I have this arguement constantly with my 'shooting buddy', who demands to see 'the original'. And the arguement goes on and on. I have tried to explain that I prefer to adjust the photo on a 23" screen rather than letting some guy in Japan do it for me etc etc, but one thing we do agree on, is that composition and imagination is more important. A rubbish shot is a rubbish shot no matter how much 'processing ' I do.

but they are not as you are chosing the settings
those guys in japan have only created ways of making that cencer to react and develop the photo like you would take a photo with film and develop that film not the photograph

BruceStrachan

Link Posted 24/05/2016 - 22:20
Bullshit aside...
I never had access to a dark room in the film days so was at the mercy of boots etc...
But I don't have the time to spend 7 or 8 hours on photo editing.
For me I try to capture as good an image as I can normally on jpeg and have absolutely minimal post editing.
I'm quite scared to post images as some of the images here that get great feedback are frankly absolutely nothing like the reality.
Abstract etc is fine but like the op said post the original as well..
What have you got to lose?
Cheers,

Bruce
Last Edited by BruceStrachan on 24/05/2016 - 22:21

redbusa99

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 00:21
surely it is not possible for a dslr to have the dynamic range as the human eye/brain combo so you will never get the camera to see what you saw in one click of a button , so the whole of these FOUR pages have been a complete waste of time.
odd lens or 2

Flickr

McGregNi

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 10:54
BruceStrachan wrote:
Bullshit aside.... Abstract etc is fine but like the op said post the original as well... What have you got to lose?

I don't really do 'abstract', but I believe my images require my computer processing in order to achieve two aims ... 1) extract the full potential of the sensor (especially for demanding situations, high DR, high detail etc) and ... 2) to ensure that the image reflects my feelings and intentions about how I want to represent the scene and subject (thats my personality / style etc) ....

I do generally want reasonably 'true to life' , but I mostly look to create a good looking image, not necessarily a 100% re-construction of what a person standing there at the time would have seen (I don't really understand why that is a valuable aim really ?)

Also Bruce .... could you define what exactly you think of as 'the original' ? Not sure what that could be exactly?

Here's one definition and a comparison ..... I suppose it could be argued that a RAW file, un-adjusted and simply converted to JPEG for web viewing represents 'the original' as the camera 'saw it' ?

OK, so here's a shot of mine at the Haytor Rocks, firstly my final edited version and then the unadjusted RAW .....










Which one is preferable and which represents the scene more accurately ... ?
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

Simonmac

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 13:06
The OPs post is quite irking!

The whole process of photography, be it film or digital, is entirely about manipulation after the the image has been taken.

The naysayers will point to reversal film, yet users of that medium oft chose a particular emulsion based upon its rendering. Likewise colour negative and monochrome.

If the photographer could not manipulate in the darkroom, they could do it at point of capture using filters, as many do now.

Photography is surely about interpretation, as that is all a sensor or film can do. We then have to manipulate to either attempt to recreate the scene 'faithfully' ( I am colour blind so I have a problem with that!) or realise their own interpretation- Ansell Adams springs to mind- check out the original negative for New Moon over Mexico (sic).

But, it is great to debate!!!

Cheers

Mac
macmccreery.com
www.flickr.com/photos/simac/
www.500px.com/simac

MrB

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 20:32
McGregNi wrote:

I do generally want reasonably 'true to life' , but I mostly look to create a good looking image, not necessarily a 100% re-construction of what a person standing there at the time would have seen (I don't really understand why that is a valuable aim really ?)

Nigel, it might be a valuable aim to the photographer, if that is how he/she attempts to rekindle (every time he/she views the image) both the vision and the emotions that he/she had at the actual time of encountering the scene.

McGregNi wrote:

OK, so here's a shot of mine at the Haytor Rocks, firstly my final edited version and then the unadjusted RAW .....
Which one is preferable and which represents the scene more accurately ... ?

Although one might take a guess based on experience (unadjusted raw tends to give a duller softer image), the answers to such questions, and whether those answers have any value, can only be opinions. Firstly, it is unlikely that any respondent to your questions was there to see the scene at the time - it really might have been dull! Secondly, even for the photographer, memory is not particularly reliable and is complicated by the emotions felt about the scene, both at the time and subsequently.

Although I take a keen interest in how others work, it doesn't bother me how they produce their images. What I find not acceptable is the attitude of a few who imply that some others must be a lower form of life because they choose to make their images differently. The final result is all that matters for me and, if someone likes it, that must be a bonus.

Cheers.
Philip

McGregNi

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 20:53
Fair points Philip, and I agree mostly, although I feel that to try and reproduce some feeling, an emotional response to ' being there' (assuming that's what the photographer is trying to achieve), does not necessarily prescribe an accurate reproduction of the location at that exact time. An interpretation through processing may well be able to bring out a more authentic emotional response itself.

We gave Stu a lifeline near the start and allowed him to play devils advocate ... So for that I will claim my chance to do the same, and I will venture my own opinion, an idea, of the key central difference we're experiencing here, a fundamental difference between two different types of photographer (because we are really talking here about ' types' of people, not really about photography at all) .....

On the one hand are the group who have seized digital as the chance to finally gain the control over their images that was always so elusive and inconsistent before, and made their processing an essential part of the image creation art and technique, enabling them to gain the most from their cameras capability and realise their own character and vision through their photography ....

And the other group are those who now want their digital images to look like the packet of 36 they used to get from Boots the Chemist.
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
Last Edited by McGregNi on 25/05/2016 - 20:56

MrB

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 21:09
There are two groups of people - those who put each person into one of two groups and those who don't.

Cheers.
Philip

McGregNi

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 21:16
Well I suppose there was Lloyds, Superdrug, Bonusprints as well, granted
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

richandfleur

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 21:55
BruceStrachan wrote:
post the original as well..
What have you got to lose?

And what has anyone got to gain?

Other than to get a feel for how someone created their final image that was then presented to you.

I guess I'd be asking do you see that elsewhere? Is there a rough outline sketch hanging next to the Mona Lisa? Are there always two photos shown on the front page of a newspaper? Do you go to a movie and see a side image showing the behind the scenes making of playing at the same time?

There are no rules to this. (Unless you're specifically entering a competition that specifically has rules).

That's skipping over the fact, as discussed quite a bit above, that a RAW file (straight from camera) looks very dull, as it has no post processing applied to it by the camera. It's exactly what it says it is, a RAW file full of information ready to be worked on by the photographer as they see fit. It has the most amount of detail present. Heck a max quality 16MP K-30 RAW file is around 26MB in size and a JPEG is around 10MB. That gives you a lot of extra information to play with, but it will look very poor straight out of camera, with essentially no processing applied. By contrast the JPEGs will look much better, as they have some typical processing applied.

johnriley

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 22:15
RAW files actually do quite a bit of processing, unbeknown to us. They correct for lens defects more often than we might surmise. Not so much on DSLR lenses, but CSC lenses are something else.
Best regards, John

richandfleur

Link Posted 25/05/2016 - 23:12
johnriley wrote:
RAW files actually do quite a bit of processing, unbeknown to us. They correct for lens defects more often than we might surmise. Not so much on DSLR lenses, but CSC lenses are something else.

Regardless RAW files offer the output with the most information and least processing and compression applied.
If you want to undertake the post processing yourself, they're the best source file to start with.

If you are happy to configure the various in camera processing options yourself, then the subsequent JPEG output if fine too, but the point is it has been processed, or as I prefer to say 'Developed'.

Posting a RAW file developed by default settings only will result in a very washed out/un sharp/low contrast image. It will appear worse than an in camera developed JPEG and will be of little use. The sensor captures colour information regardless of if you want to use it in your final image, so even black and white final images will have started life as a colour capture for example.

It's a picky point in some respects, but I think it's important to grasp that a JPEG image has been developed by the time you see it. It's straight out of camera, but it's been manipulated in a way that you could apply afterwards in post production software. Sharpening is a good example, where in software afterwards you get far more control over how much and to what part of the image this is applied. A straight out of camera RAW sunrise photo is not going to look anything like how you saw it on the day, without some post development work.

If you're talking practical category definitions, I think you've got 'presenting' changes (for want of a better word) such as contrast/saturation/sharpening, and then you've got 'manipulation' changes such as cloning / composite layer work etc. Somewhere in the middle you've got cropping, lens distortion correction, split toning, black and white conversion, HDR, C/A reduction etc etc...

I'm not sure where you draw the line on this exactly, but hey, in normal every day life it just shouldn't matter. Do what you want to create the image you envision and are happy with I say.

JAK

Link Posted 26/05/2016 - 00:46
If I'm not mistaken a RAW file cannot be directly viewed at all. What one sees as a raw file is actually its embedded jpeg. Software exists to extract that. Images from the early (1990's) digital camera RAW files did not have this embedded jpeg so could only be viewed by converting them to a format that can be viewed. They were based on the TIFF file format which also became the basis for the Adobe DNG format in 2004. How one might view the PEF raw file data unconverted is beyond me. Don't think you could!
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 26/05/2016 - 00:47

MattMatic

Link Posted 26/05/2016 - 09:06
Quote:
If I'm not mistaken a RAW file cannot be directly viewed at all. What one sees as a raw file is actually its embedded jpeg

You are mistaken

The Pentax dSLRs will briefly show you the embedded JPG, and then you may see the screen 'blip' and you'll then be seeing the RAW data.

Adobe Lightroom works the same. The very first time you import an image you'll see a glimpse of the embedded JPG, and then it's switched to the RAW image from then on.

That mechanism is for ease-of-use (rather than having to wait to see that you've selected the wrong image!).

Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.