Am I the only one that refuses?

[sarasphotos]

hmm I have to disagree..... pp images is just another way for a photographer to add their touch! Plus when I take a picture I see it in a totally different way than the camera does. I see potential and with a little bit of time I can get my photos looking like I want them to.

 

[Artrina]

Art has many forms and within those forms are variations. Maybe the OP thinks beginners should get better at trying to catch with their camera their vision of what their eyes are looking at. I'm not at the point of posting pix for critique yet. I spend time reading on sites like this and I DO however spend a lot of time taking pix trying to capture with the camera what I WANT to capture with the camera. Example: I took at least 30 pix of some flowers and a lighthouse decoration in my yard and I STILL don't have the pix I want. I want to get the angle and the other things in the pix better and not have to crop or cut them out. Right now I want to work on THAT part of MY art form. Do I think when I take the time to process the pix I can improve them? Yes, but I'm not at that point yet. I think there IS a place in the world for pix with minimal touch ups and if the OP wants to go that road, more power to him. There is a place for people who want to post process their pix to all different levels depending on what they want to do with them.

Now I have a question for the OP. What DO you want to see in a beginners section on a forum like this? I'm not trying to be a smart tush, just curious as I can see from this thread what you DON'T want in a beginners section.

 

[o hey tyler]

Stop thinking about it as fixing bad images, and think of it as making good images really pop. Even if you are starting out and not taking "good" images, why not learn on those?

My first thought would be that I don't have a strong enough understanding of the technology inside my camera... and I am interested in learning it. The are many ways to process in camera that can just as well be done out of camera... but I'm more interested in learning it in camera.... exposure compensation, white balance, color saturation, color modes.... I want to learn how to do that in camera... I want to be able to look at a scene and know what settings I can set to make the shot pop in the first place.

Or am I wrong into wanting to do that in camera... should I just take the shot in RAW and dick with it later on?

First of all, the first bold things that you mentioned are used in post processing. And like Bitter said, when you shoot JPG and change the sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc IN CAMERA, it's just like post processing an image. It's the cameras software livening up an image. It's not going to do all the things that lightroom could do, and you'd be stupid to discredit photo editing workhorses like that.

Second of all, you can't always make images pop in camera. You can get all the dynamic range that you can if you were to process the image. You also will have a lot of trouble making a photo "pop" to it's full potential in camera unless you have a butt load of flashes or studio lights.

 

[o hey tyler]

From one Noob to another, take a chill pill, put the ego away, breath, and take a moment to really read and understand what people are trying to tell you. I've seen some darn good information posted on why you want to PP and that it doesn't negate learning how to take better photos on the front end.

Wait, who are you?

My intro, posted on 6/3: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/205483-howdy.html

Oh neat, too bad I don't care in the least.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Now I have a question for the OP. What DO you want to see in a beginners section on a forum like this? I'm not trying to be a smart tush, just curious as I can see from this thread what you DON'T want in a beginners section.

Getting back to my original question... I want to see what other beginners are doing pre-lightroom so that I can learn from it.

Its disheartening to me to see an absolutly stunning photograph only to learn that its only absolutly stunning because it was processed outside of the camera. Its tought to compare and contrast my own photography when the photographs I have to baseline them from have additional processing done to them. I'm sure someday down the line as my skill are more in tune to put more focus on my work, but until then... post processing simply isn't in my approach.

 

[Boomn4x4]

and you'd be stupid to discredit photo editing workhorses like that.

Well then, great!!! I can keep my IQ right where its at. I have never discredited photo editing work horsers... I've simply stated that using them is not in my current game plan.

 

[Overread]

Welcome aboard the rollercoaster erinag99!

You might find the following two threads of interest;
This presents a good idea of a situation where the shot out of the camera could not work perfectly - but through editing was able to be enhanced by working with what the camera was able to capture.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...93693-tricks-using-raw-dont-burn-results.html

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...o-gallery/197325-full-photoshop-workflow.html

Think of it like making a clay pot - you have to get both the molding and the firing and the glazing to work all together. Sure you can glaze a poor mold of a pot to make it look better, but the key to the final good product is that each stage is understood and refined from start to finish.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Stop thinking about it as fixing bad images, and think of it as making good images really pop. Even if you are starting out and not taking "good" images, why not learn on those?

My first thought would be that I don't have a strong enough understanding of the technology inside my camera... and I am interested in learning it. The are many ways to process in camera that can just as well be done out of camera... but I'm more interested in learning it in camera.... exposure compensation, white balance, color saturation, color modes.... I want to learn how to do that in camera... I want to be able to look at a scene and know what settings I can set to make the shot pop in the first place.

Well, then shoot jpeg, and do your post processing in camera. That's fine.
It's limiting. It's global.

But it becomes fussier if you have to go through your menus to tweak contrast and saturation for many shots. It's pretty easy to tweak that stuff globally with the software that came with your camera. The benefit is you can immidiately see the result of your choice and back it down or bump it up more. With in camera settings, you have to retake the picture, look at the poor image quality of the LCD screen and decide.

Or am I wrong into wanting to do that in camera... should I just take the shot in RAW and dick with it later on?

Nearly everyone would suggest you shoot in RAW. There are situations you don't want to, but that is still up to the photographer.

Honestly, I work on computers all day... the last thing I want to do is go out to do some relaxing photography, and have to come back and work a on computer a little longer.

Well, then that's your answer, right there.
But you STILL need to get them of the camera and do something with them anyways, sooooooooooooooooooooooooo...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Getting back to my original question... I want to see what other beginners are doing pre-lightroom so that I can learn from it.

Maybe you should be beyond the beginners to see what you should be learning?

Its disheartening to me to see an absolutly stunning photograph only to learn that its only absolutly stunning because it was processed outside of the camera.

Ansel Adams.

Its tought to compare and contrast my own photography when the photographs I have to baseline them from have additional processing done to them. I'm sure someday down the line as my skill are more in tune to put more focus on my work, but until then... post processing simply isn't in my approach.

Do you think none of the Masters of Photography did any post work?
That's the thing. I would bet that 97% of all awesome photographs have had some post work done to them. Be it film, or digital.


You keep saying post work isn't your approach, yet want to learn how to adjust the saturation, contrast sliders IN your camera, which is post work.

 

[Boomn4x4]

Nearly everyone would suggest you shoot in RAW. There are situations you don't want to, but that is still up to the photographer.

Probably suited for a different thread... but its my thread so I guess I can do what I want...

Could you go a little further into that?

 

[benlonghair]

Is it that school's out now that we've got such an influx of nastiness recently?

Its disheartening to me to see an absolutly stunning photograph only to learn that its only absolutly stunning because it was processed outside of the camera. Its tought to compare and contrast my own photography when the photographs I have to baseline them from have additional processing done to them. I'm sure someday down the line as my skill are more in tune to put more focus on my work, but until then... post processing simply isn't in my approach.

So what would you have us do? Set the RAW converter to straight zeros and then post the result? I don't understand what you want.

If you draw something with a pencil, you can post a scan of the original as is. But with photography a good portion of the info in the image doesn't show until you process it.

 

[erinag99]

Wait, who are you?

My intro, posted on 6/3: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/welcomes-introductions/205483-howdy.html

Oh neat, too bad I don't care in the least.

Then, seriously, why did you ask? My original post was to the OP, not you.

 

[o hey tyler]

and you'd be stupid to discredit photo editing workhorses like that.

Well then, great!!! I can keep my IQ right where its at. I have never discredited photo editing work horsers... I've simply stated that using them is not in my current game plan.

Good job not reading what else I posted.

You know, that part where you contradicted yourself by saying you want to post process an image, just while it's in your camera? That's what I am referring to. And by editing an image (unless you do a piss poor job at it) will not decrease your image quality. Are you just refusing to retain information or is something else afoot?

 

[erinag99]

Welcome aboard the rollercoaster erinag99!

You might find the following two threads of interest;

Overread, thanks! I appreciate it. I'm signed up for a photoshop class in a couple of weeks and I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[Overread]

Nearly everyone would suggest you shoot in RAW. There are situations you don't want to, but that is still up to the photographer.

Probably suited for a different thread... but its my thread so I guess I can do what I want...

Could you go a little further into that?

Generally speaking when you don't want to or don't have time to edit the results and when the final product is most likley not intended to be artistic. Eg sports photographers will use JPEG to shoot in because the shots have to be off the pitch and to the printers straight after the match (heck with the net sometimes even before the match is over). The photographer has no time to edit the results and also makes use of the large buffer that JPEGs have over RAWs (smaller file size so you get more in a burst).

Another example is holiday snaps - they are simple snaps we all take, but many might not want to process nor have any creative ideas - its just a quick memory shot so they simply make their life easier in JEPG.