My conclusion on dSLR cameras

[Socrates]

What Alex said!!!

RAW files are intended to be post-processed. There are different types of film available to a photographer depending on their final intent (low saturation, B&W, high saturation, high contrast etc...). DSLRs accomplish this through RAW files that allow the photographer to choose different workflows to arrive at the final intended print. RAW files allow the most flexibility to the photographer at final post-process and were never intended to be the final print.

If your intended purpose is to snap away and have the shortest workflow to a final print, then you should be shooting JPEG and allow the internal camera process perform the final sharpening, adjustments to contrast and saturation. I personally think this is a case when expectations between equipment and photographer are not realistic.

Gee. Interesting that Alex NEVER used a reference to RAW or jpg yet you explain his position that way. Perhaps you should allow him to speak for himself.

By the way, I'm wondering... If RAW has that much importance over every other reason why someone would buy an SLR, why don't you save money and buy a P&S that produces RAW?

 

[usayit]

You didn't. I was just wondering how we got along all those years when PP was pretty much non-existent for the vast majority of photographers.

I consider simple things like using contrast filters part of post-processing.... including burning, dodging, etc..

 

[Tasmaster]

Didn't film photographers develop their films? I believe they did.

Not only that, but most of today's digital processing tools directly reproduce the results of traditional film processing methods. Unlike shooting film however, using them is entirely optional.

Yes, developing and processing is the same. In fact, shoot JPG and digital processing (standard contrast, brightness, saturation adjustments and so on) changes the "out of the camera" photo far less than developing a negative film. Not to mention that film photographers applied a primitive batch processing before even taking their photos by chosing certain types of film.

Don't even get me started on photo labs - if you ever sent your photos to a photo lab for developing, you obviously aren't a true photograper since you have no creative control whatsoever. You let others decide how your photos look.

If you want to continue debating an utterly meaningless arguement, shooting JPG is the "purest" form of photography. Oh, and auto-focus and built-in metering suck.

Are we done yet? Can we hug and kiss and go about taking pictures and processing them, each however they like?

 

[Alex_B]

the only thing which counts in the end is the result anyway

 

[usayit]

Gee. Interesting that Alex NEVER used a reference to RAW or jpg yet you explain his position that way. Perhaps you should allow him to speak for himself.

>>p&s and bridge cameras just do a lot of automatic processing,<<

Generally means JPEG.

>>which is left to the photographer when he shoots with a dSLR.<<

Generally means RAW

>>Images from a dSLR are much less processed, hence they need more processing after the image is taken. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive your dSLR is, the worse (soft, low contrast, and all) your images straight from the camera appear at first sight, but the more you can do with them and the more versatile they are. If you do not use this potential, however, then your images in many situations will look poor compared to p&s images.<<

This is basically a comparison of RAW right out of a DSLR sensor (soft, low contrast) and JPEG that has been processed internally by P&S cameras. Alex doesn't have to say RAW and JPEG specifically for us to know what he is talking about.

By the way, I'm wondering... If RAW has that much importance over every other reason why someone would buy an SLR, why don't you save money and buy a P&S that produces RAW?

Not too many P&S have RAW capabilities... there is a small market for them.... One example is the Canon G series (excluding the G7).

 

[Socrates]

You think the only place to control the look of an image is in-camera or in the darkroom? What about film choice? What about developing time? There are plenty of variables in the film process that change the way an image looks. This doesn't make the image any less real.

dSLR users can't change sensors to adjust contrast, they can't change the upload time to adjust contrast. They can't push their sensor to gain a few extra stops or to really get a lot of contrast. All of this stuff that film users had at their disposal must be done in post. If none of this interests you, whatever, no big deal. But to say PP ruins the reality of an image is ridiculous.

First, I object to your major misquote. I NEVER once used the word "ruin."

Back in the film world, the P&S users had the same ability as SLR users to select film so there were obviously other reasons why SLRs became so popular.

Please go back to the beginning of this thread. I objected to the allegation that the ability to do PP is the main reason why photographers buy SLRs. That's simply not true. In a subsequent post, acknowledged that some individuals prefer to use PP. I have no problem with that. I agreed that I have seen many manipulated photos that look beautiful. My point is simply that PP is not the main reason why photographers buy SLRs. Period.

 

[Socrates]

there is a small market for them.... One example is the Canon G series (excluding the G7).

Why don't you buy one? Why did you waste your money on an SLR?

 

[Alex_B]

ok, just to set this straight. yes, i do shoot raw. and if i was shooting jpg, i would turn down in-camera sharpening and in-camera push in contrast to the lowest possible and would then get the maximum out of those jpegs.

however, i do not shoot jpeg since 8 bit per colour channel are in some cases just not enough, in particular when today's sensors' narrow dynamic range makes exposure complicated.

 

[usayit]

Why don't you buy one? Why did you waste your money on an SLR?

* I have one... what is your point? Different tools different purposes
* My main camera isn't an SLR...

To get the most out of PP, I prefer to shoot RAW... the most flexibility over JPEG. In order to get RAW, the choice is generally a DSLR as most P&S cameras do not have RAW with the exception of the Canon G-series. RAW might not be the main reason (never said anything counter to that) but it is one of many reasons to use an SLR including a better/wider selection of lenses.

I shoot RAW when i'm really shooting seriously for a project or pure enjoyment... most control. WHen I'm out with friends and family just taking snaps, I switch to JPEG... shorter workflow. I also mix in film in there as well.. of course with post processing (I haven't done slides in years now).

 

[Socrates]

Didn't film photographers develop their films? I believe they did.

Some did. Most did not. Those of us that preferred Kodachrome couldn't, even if we wanted to.

Not only that, but most of today's digital processing tools directly reproduce the results of traditional film processing methods. Unlike shooting film however, using them is entirely optional.

Absolutely. If you would have read the entire thread, you will realize that that is my point. I objected to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" why photographers buy SLRs.

Yes, developing and processing is the same. In fact, shoot JPG and digital processing (standard contrast, brightness, saturation adjustments and so on) changes the "out of the camera" photo far less than developing a negative film. Not to mention that film photographers applied a primitive batch processing before even taking their photos by chosing certain types of film.

Snapshooters with P&S cameras could choose their own film. Why did so many photographers spend the cash for SLRs?

Don't even get me started on photo labs - if you ever sent your photos to a photo lab for developing, you obviously aren't a true photograper since you have no creative control whatsoever. You let others decide how your photos look.

I didn't do it. Did you?

If you want to continue debating an utterly meaningless arguement, shooting JPG is the "purest" form of photography. Oh, and auto-focus and built-in metering suck.

Please identify where I ever made such a statement. I object to being misquoted.[/QUOTE]

Are we done yet? Can we hug and kiss and go about taking pictures and processing them, each however they like?

No. You misquoted me and that disturbs me.

 

[Alex_B]

i do use SLRs (digital AND film) since they are more versatile and give me more creative options (in particular lens-wise). and i like to see through the lens, optically. it is much easier to adjust everything the way i want it to be. with other cameras it is always more of a lottery

 

[Socrates]

* I have one... what is your point?

Read the posts in the thread. You'll understand my point.

 

[Socrates]

i do use SLRs (digital AND film) since they are more versatile and give me more creative options (in particular lens-wise). and i like to see through the lens, optically. it is much easier to adjust everything the way i want it to be. with other cameras it is always more of a lottery

That's all I was trying to say. I objected to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" to buy an SLR.

Many users like RAW. Fine. Many choose not to use it. Also fine. However, don't try to tell me that PP is the "main reason" why photographers buy an SLR. That's simply untrue.

 

[Alex_B]

i suggest everyone calms down, re-reads, and tries the calumet of peace

photographers should be judged by what they produce, not by their vocabulary, their philosophy or their online discussions

 

[usayit]

Read the posts in the thread. You'll understand my point.

Geee.. I posted in regards to RAW versus JPEG and your response included "why SLR over P&S".

I responded stating that the P&S market w/ RAW is very small...

and now you are telling me to re-read your posts? You just turned me around in circles for absolutely no reason.