is there a possibility of a unprocessed section here?

[robbins.photo]

Hey, you never give me advice on my wildlife/zoo pic!

Well I was speaking in general since I don't normally give CnC myself. I do sometimes offer some general technical advice from my own limited experience but usually only if a question of some sort is actually asked first.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

And he is a grumpy gorilla (see avatar) except during full moons and mornings after he has stayed in a Holiday Inn.

Well I'm grumpy because they won't let me stay at holiday inn anymore.. I've been banned. So yes, I'm grumpy. It's not like I actually started the fire on purpose. The strippers were already there when I got there and I have no idea where the chickens came from - as for the rest, well it was just an unfortunate misunderstanding.. lol

 

[bribrius]

Well I was speaking in general since I don't normally give CnC myself. I do sometimes offer some general technical advice from my own limited experience but usually only if a question of some sort is actually asked first.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

And he is a grumpy gorilla (see avatar) except during full moons and mornings after he has stayed in a Holiday Inn.

Well I'm grumpy because they won't let me stay at holiday inn anymore.. I've been banned. So yes, I'm grumpy. It's not like I actually started the fire on purpose. The strippers were already there when I got there and I have no idea where the chickens came from - as for the rest, well it was just an unfortunate misunderstanding.. lol

okay that pretty much made the entire thread right there....LMAO

 

[Derrel]

People say, "There was a lot of post done in the film era."

Uh....sorry, but NO. The majority of people did very little post. EXPERTS who had the more-advance options did some "post".

But for several decades, millions of "serious" shooters shot color slide film, most of which was given absolutely ZERO post manipulation, and was for the most part, developed to a single, standardized specification, with no push-processing until the E-4 and later E-6 type films came along. SO...no...there was a long tradition of film photographers who made contact prints, with VERY little manipulation; straight enlargements with pretty minimal post, if ANY, and decades of slide shooters who shot "straight out of camera". I like to say that they, "Got what they actually shot."

THe main difference was that for the huge majority of people in the film days, a photography had a huge basis in an observable, physical reality. Today, incredible composited images are within reach of kids with laptops and a year's worth of learning, or less. Today, an "image" often has a very tenuous connection with an observable, physical "reality".

Let's make it clear: "photography", as in analogue or film-based photography, has passed on as the major way to work with images; we are now, in most cases, engaged in digital imaging, which is a VERY different type of activity. TO say that there was "lots of post in the film era," is actually a very incorrect statement; it was for the most part, something that only the highest-level workers could even begin to perform. THe vast majority of people "got what they had shot". For decades of their life.

 

[JacaRanda]

Well I was speaking in general since I don't normally give CnC myself. I do sometimes offer some general technical advice from my own limited experience but usually only if a question of some sort is actually asked first.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

And he is a grumpy gorilla (see avatar) except during full moons and mornings after he has stayed in a Holiday Inn.

Well I'm grumpy because they won't let me stay at holiday inn anymore.. I've been banned. So yes, I'm grumpy. It's not like I actually started the fire on purpose. The strippers were already there when I got there and I have no idea where the chickens came from - as for the rest, well it was just an unfortunate misunderstanding.. lol

Oh man, I am so sorry. I never knew. Your grumpiness is forgiven.

Strange though, there was no mention of beer. How can that be? On the other hand you mention chicken and I was not invited? Whatever dude!:madmad:

 

[bribrius]

People say, "There was a lot of post done in the film era."

Uh....sorry, but NO. The majority of people did very little post. EXPERTS who had the more-advance options did some "post".

But for several decades, millions of "serious" shooters shot color slide film, most of which was given absolutely ZERO post manipulation, and was for the most part, developed to a single, standardized specification, with no push-processing until the E-4 and later E-6 type films came along. SO...no...there was a long tradition of film photographers who made contact prints, with VERY little manipulation; straight enlargements with pretty minimal post, if ANY, and decades of slide shooters who shot "straight out of camera". I like to say that they, "Got what they actually shot."

THe main difference was that for the huge majority of people in the film days, a photography had a huge basis in an observable, physical reality. Today, incredible composited images are within reach of kids with laptops and a year's worth of learning, or less. Today, an "image" often has a very tenuous connection with an observable, physical "reality".

Let's make it clear: "photography", as in analogue or film-based photography, has passed on as the major way to work with images; we are now, in most cases, engaged in digital imaging, which is a VERY different type of activity. TO say that there was "lots of post in the film era," is actually a very incorrect statement; it was for the most part, something that only the highest-level workers could even begin to perform. THe vast majority of people "got what they had shot". For decades of their life.

I honestly don't remember much for postwork. its been years. our teacher told us to put them in a tank and then take them out. That was about the extent of the post work I recall.

 

[BillM]

So if I understand this correctly I think what the op is really looking for is a section dedicated to critiquing based on exposure triangle decisions and composition ?

 

[robbins.photo]

So if I understand this correctly I think what the op is really looking for is a section dedicated to critiquing based on exposure triangle decisions and composition ?

Maybe what we need is something more along the lines of an acronym to place in the message subject - I mean we use NSFW now to warn people that the image might be a bit dicey before they open it.

So maybe we just need to add a few:

IKINS - I know it's not straight. Basically used when your not worried about the compositional aspects of the photograph, but your looking for help with other issues, things like white balance, blown highlights and the like

ISSIAM - I should have stayed in Auto Mode. Use this when you need some help with the camera settings to avoid problems with soft images, underexposure or overexposure

HDRGB - HDR Gone bad. Pretty self explanatory really

NCBC - No comments by curmudgeons, for use when you really need mostly positive feedback and encouragement and just don't have it in you to get railed on

I'm sure we could come up with a pretty complete list with a little thought.. lol

 

[Scatterbrained]

People say, "There was a lot of post done in the film era."

Uh....sorry, but NO. The majority of people did very little post. EXPERTS who had the more-advance options did some "post".

But for several decades, millions of "serious" shooters shot color slide film, most of which was given absolutely ZERO post manipulation, and was for the most part, developed to a single, standardized specification, with no push-processing until the E-4 and later E-6 type films came along. SO...no...there was a long tradition of film photographers who made contact prints, with VERY little manipulation; straight enlargements with pretty minimal post, if ANY, and decades of slide shooters who shot "straight out of camera". I like to say that they, "Got what they actually shot."

THe main difference was that for the huge majority of people in the film days, a photography had a huge basis in an observable, physical reality. Today, incredible composited images are within reach of kids with laptops and a year's worth of learning, or less. Today, an "image" often has a very tenuous connection with an observable, physical "reality".

Let's make it clear: "photography", as in analogue or film-based photography, has passed on as the major way to work with images; we are now, in most cases, engaged in digital imaging, which is a VERY different type of activity. TO say that there was "lots of post in the film era," is actually a very incorrect statement; it was for the most part, something that only the highest-level workers could even begin to perform. THe vast majority of people "got what they had shot". For decades of their life.

The difference was between pro and hobbyist, but it was still there. My grandmother did fine art photography and I can assure you she did a lot of post work. The garage had been converted to a darkroom and she had a separate retouching room. One of the guys in our local photography club used to work in a pro lab "back in the day" (i.e. 70's) and he'd be the first to tell you that the films that came in tended to need more than just a straight develop. Just because the photographer didn't see the work that went into correcting exposure and color balance doesn't mean it wasn't getting done; but that's besides the point. Right now we've reached an era where photographic correcting and retouching is available to everyone. I for one don't see that as a bad thing. Not in the least. Does it mean a lot of junk gets on the internet? Sure does, but really it's just a migration of the stuff that was in peoples shoeboxes and slide projectors. On the other side it means that there are even more exceptional images, because there are even more people passionate about photography, no longer having to worry about the "cost" of each image. The great thing about the current state of photography is that all these things survive simultaneously. :hugs: While there are plenty of people who get caught up in the bling factor of hyperrealistic, super saturated processing, there are plenty of excellent photographers still turning out eye popping work, digitally and with film, that is as straightforward as the film photography that is being lamented here. If you're not seeing it, you're just not looking in the right place.
As far as digital images having only a tenuous relationship to reality, meh. As an overall percentage I'd say it's quite small. It just so happens to be a very visible subsection of photography and digital art. If you go to 500px and look at the Fresh page, then go to the Popular or Editors Choice pages, you'll see a vast difference in the work. I'd imagine the Fresh page will have a lot more of what the O.P. is thinking of as straight photography, and the other two pages will be loaded with heavily stylized work.
Of course the subject matter makes a difference as well. Sports shooters and journalists are still shooting pretty much the same way. Often in camera jpegs shipped out right on sight to the editors. Digital has changed photography, but it has no more killed "pure" photography than video killed still photography. It has simply opened up more avenues to more people, much as video opened up whole new avenues over still photography. The ability to light and compose a photography has not gone away. Light, composition, gesture, pose, etc,. . . .these things are all still paramount. That hasn't changed. It's just that now things are being pushed farther.

 

[Scatterbrained]

So if I understand this correctly I think what the op is really looking for is a section dedicated to critiquing based on exposure triangle decisions and composition ?

Maybe what we need is something more along the lines of an acronym to place in the message subject - I mean we use NSFW now to warn people that the image might be a bit dicey before they open it.

So maybe we just need to add a few:

IKINS - I know it's not straight. Basically used when your not worried about the compositional aspects of the photograph, but your looking for help with other issues, things like white balance, blown highlights and the like

ISSIAM - I should have stayed in Auto Mode. Use this when you need some help with the camera settings to avoid problems with soft images, underexposure or overexposure

HDRGB - HDR Gone bad. Pretty self explanatory really

NCBC - No comments by curmudgeons, for use when you really need mostly positive feedback and encouragement and just don't have it in you to get railed on

I'm sure we could come up with a pretty complete list with a little thought.. lol

Will there be a pamphlet? Maybe a sticky?

 

[BillM]

NCBC - No comments by curmudgeons, for use when you really need mostly positive feedback and encouragement and just don't have it in you to get railed on

I'm sure we could come up with a pretty complete list with a little thought.. lol

So mods, can I get my screen name changed to NCBC



j/k, I don't really want my screen name changed ... i think :mrgreen:

 

[manaheim]

Would you like me to also serve you a big dish of raw eggs, or an undercooked cake?

An unprocessed image is an unfinished one, with VERY rare exceptions. Getting it 90% perfect in the camera is not uncommon. Getting it 100% perfect in the camera is almost impossible.

 

[SCraig]

People say, "There was a lot of post done in the film era."

Uh....sorry, but NO. The majority of people did very little post. EXPERTS who had the more-advance options did some "post".

But for several decades, millions of "serious" shooters shot color slide film, most of which was given absolutely ZERO post manipulation, and was for the most part, developed to a single, standardized specification, with no push-processing until the E-4 and later E-6 type films came along. SO...no...there was a long tradition of film photographers who made contact prints, with VERY little manipulation; straight enlargements with pretty minimal post, if ANY, and decades of slide shooters who shot "straight out of camera". I like to say that they, "Got what they actually shot."
{Snip for brevity}

While I agree with the intent of your comment one important factor is omitted. True, "the majority of PEOPLE did very little post" however the LAB still had a lot of control. And, it wasn't always good. The chemical temperature and age, how fast they ran the machine, how well they compensated when printing, the age and type of printing paper, and a couple of dozen other factors ALL affect the final image. In my opinion these should really be considered "Post Processing" since they were done after the shot was taken and are all adjustable.

 

[runnah]

Getting it 100% perfect in the camera is almost impossible.

Well you use a Nikon so there is your problem.

 

[mishele]

^^^Bahahaha

 

[bribrius]

Would you like me to also serve you a big dish of raw eggs, or an undercooked cake?

An unprocessed image is an unfinished one, with VERY rare exceptions. Getting it 90% perfect in the camera is not uncommon. Getting it 100% perfect in the camera is almost impossible.

a unprocessed image is the photo you took. A post processed image is the photo you ended up with. :smileys: