Am I the only one that refuses?

[kundalini]

Okay, this thread has had so many twists and turns by the OP, I really don't know what he/she wants. However, I'm a visual person and can grasp concepts easier by examples. Since no one has been willing so far, I'll lay the sacrificial lamb on the alter.

One thing I read earlier is getting C&C from unprocessed images. WHY? Don't you want to show your best effort? The cameras dynamic range is limited and much more so than our own eyes. Unless there is a technical or instructional reason, I will never post an image that hasn't been processed to some extent. Here's the instructional part.


Straight Out Of Camera (SOOC) RAW file. No editing whatsoever. Only converted to jpeg and resized for web.

But this is what I wanted to post for comments. Editing involved obviously.

Oh no, you say, that's much to much and denegrates the integrity of the original image.



SOOC

Edited

You have to choose one way or the other. SOOC is not your friend because you will be inudated with C&C about cropping, tilt, over/under exposure, blah, blah, blah. Why not at least try to mitigate that with some editing?​

Just my 2¢.​

Oh yeah, if you go back and read my previous post, I really don't do a whole lot of editing. The car (notice under the hood and grille for instance) and a portrait I posted some time within the last two weeks are my most processing to date with specific area edits. I'm usually a wholesale change and let it fly.​

One final word, check the attitude. Nobody is going to go out of their way to help and arrogant (fill in the blank).​

 

[KmH]

but its my thread so I guess I can do what I want...

Hardly. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[SrBiscuit]

My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?

i see ****ing wings, man...I SEE EM!!! ****ING WINGS!
ya see em?!?!?! ****!

 

[Village Idiot]

My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?

i see ****ing wings, man...I SEE EM!!! ****ING WINGS!
ya see em?!?!?! ****!

Yer gunna make me cry.

 

[benlonghair]

Let's look at why we PP.

This is a shot that I probably wouldn't have gotten if I'd been fiddling with my WB and such. It was ugly straight out of the camera, but I think it came out OK.

The part on the left is totally untouched. Everything in the RAW converter set to zero. Which do you think is worth showing off?

 

[benlonghair]

Wouldn't it be pig Latin?

And beyond what I said about which would be worth showing off, why would I post something that 100% of the comments are going to be "The white balance is way off"? I'm going to do what I can to fix it, and get critique on things that I can't fix while PPing.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

I scoff at people who tell me they "get it right in the camera". With a dynamic range less than print film, and print film having less dynamic range than transparency film, I'm not sure how this is possible. When I've "got it right in the camera", it means minimal tweaks on color, WB, contrast, maybe a little straightening and cropping and some sharpening.

This is kind of funny since I do "get it right in camera." Lol

It doesn't not however mean, as you point out further in the quote, that no tweaking happens at all. Even when I do contact prints, there is some tweaking. Usually either some burning or dodging.

All it means is that a SOOC image is decent in all the important aspects of photography. Composition, exposure, framing, etc.

But when you mention transparencies I can't help and wonder how much you've worked with film. There is no tweaking of transparencies unless you are printing them which was not often the case for commercial photogs. The transparency photo had to be "get it right in camera." Any tweaking that was done was done by the editor/buyer of the image as part of the pre-press process.



That said, and to get back to the OP's idea... do you like to look at negatives?

It may not be quite the same as looking at a RAW but the idea is the same. A RAW file is today's negative and most of us don't want to look at that. A JPEG is, as pointed out by others, the equivalent of a MalWart print. Not that exciting either when you compare them to prints coming from a good lab.

Nobody will ever force you to do any PP but if you ever do, you'll wonder why you didn't start earlier. And nothing says you have to PP your shots into cartoon like images.

 

[subscuck]

I scoff at people who tell me they "get it right in the camera". With a dynamic range less than print film, and print film having less dynamic range than transparency film, I'm not sure how this is possible. When I've "got it right in the camera", it means minimal tweaks on color, WB, contrast, maybe a little straightening and cropping and some sharpening.

This is kind of funny since I do "get it right in camera." Lol

It doesn't not however mean, as you point out further in the quote, that no tweaking happens at all. Even when I do contact prints, there is some tweaking. Usually either some burning or dodging.

All it means is that a SOOC image is decent in all the important aspects of photography. Composition, exposure, framing, etc.

But when you mention transparencies I can't help and wonder how much you've worked with film. There is no tweaking of transparencies unless you are printing them which was not often the case for commercial photogs. The transparency photo had to be "get it right in camera." Any tweaking that was done was done by the editor/buyer of the image as part of the pre-press process.

We seem to be in agreement over what getting it right in the camera means: very small tweaks. You aren't who I was reffering to. I've run into people on forums who have magical DSLR's that have the dynamic range of transparency film and don't do any tweaking at all and will tell you that there's never any reason to PP if you know what you're doing. I disagree.

As far as my referring to transparency film, it was used as a reference point, along with print film, to illustrate to the OP the limitations of dynamic range in the digital medium that makes at least some PPing necessary. I never meant to imply tweaking was done. You are very correct that with it's fantastic dynamic range, you truly can get it right in the camera.

 

[SrBiscuit]

My real question is this, how long have you seriously been taking photos for?

i see ****ing wings, man...I SEE EM!!! ****ING WINGS!
ya see em?!?!?! ****!

Yer gunna make me cry.

lol hold me?:hugs:

 

[c.cloudwalker]

We seem to be in agreement over what getting it right in the camera means: very small tweaks. You aren't who I was reffering to. I've run into people on forums who have magical DSLR's that have the dynamic range of transparency film and don't do any tweaking at all and will tell you that there's never any reason to PP if you know what you're doing. I disagree.

As far as my referring to transparency film, it was used as a reference point, along with print film, to illustrate to the OP the limitations of dynamic range in the digital medium that makes at least some PPing necessary. I never meant to imply tweaking was done. You are very correct that with it's fantastic dynamic range, you truly can get it right in the camera.

I absolutely believe we are in agreement but I wasn't sure your way of saying it was quite right so I tried to rephrase it so that it would be understood more easily.

And I didn't feel like you were pointing a finger at me. I know the people you are talking about and, tbh, I laugh at them too.

As far as transparencies are concerned, there were always things that could have been improved but there was really no way to do it so, SOOC. But that is exactly why learning how to get the shot SOOC is so important.

In today's photo world, if anything else, it will save you a lot of time in PP.

 

[Derrel]

OP...I think your original premise about the distinction between photography and graphic arts is a good one. A good case in point was the winning entry in this year's Popular Photography magazine contest--one of the the winning images was a very involved composite image, shot over two days. Other contest winners have been criticized for being composite images made mostly at the computer. Plain old straight photography has fallen out of popular favor in many circles. The line between photography and computer-generated illustrations is one a lot of people today seem to not care much about. I think the original post needed a bit more definition or expansion of the term "post processing", which a number of people have seemingly over-interpreted to mean routine, global image adjustments like brightness, contrast adjustment, curves, and so on. Those types of adjustments are typically not considered under the umbrella of image manipulation, but higher-level,targeted image manipulation/pixel-rearrangement/compositing are pretty major types of image manipulation.

 

[vtf]

 

[skieur]

Though I think this thread has gotten way out of control, I do have to respectfully disagree with the OP.

As a fellow noob, one thing I have learned, is how the camera doesn't see what the eye sees. As a result, I, and I'm guessing many others, use PP as a means to bring the photo back to the glory of how it was observed by the human eye. Though, I too, try to force myself to learn the basics, I also have learned the value of PPing a photo to make it the best it can be.

And yes, I have posted unedited jpeg's, but to me, what would be the value in posting a photo that wasn't how I envisioned it? Also, if I am having a specific problem, such as exposure, noise, ect. I would post both a pre-processed photo and the PP'd photo to get the perspective of both what I did wrong in the actual photo taking process, aaaaand what I could have done (or done better) in PP.

Just my few pennies for consideration...

That one thing that you have learned will put you further ahead of many other new and a few not so new photographers, in improving your work. :thumbup:

skieur

 

[Fedaykin]

Now this is great troll/flamewar topic if I ever saw one.

 

[DennyCrane]

Just get a UV filter.