post processing and computer questions

[Gaerek]

Adams wrote "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" between 1948 and 1950, showing in detail that it's a 3 step process to get a photo, most of which happens in the dark room. Photographers have always known it, Adams wrote about it.

All photos must be processed. Film or digital, it's always been true and it remains true.

Your choices:

1. Let the camera decide how to process it.
2. Let the Lab decide how to process it.
3. Take control and process it yourself the way you want it.

Most of us opt for #3. It's just that simple.

Could not have said this better myself. :thumbup:

 

[Derrel]

With the transition from B&W to color slide film in the 1950's, an increasing number of professional photographers made images on slide film that were, more or less, perfect right out of the camera. Ansel Adams was a B&W worker; his color work was limited, and rather unimpressive. Digital SLR cameras are much like good cameras loaded with color slide film. It's possible to do excellent work straight out of the camera. Use a polarizing filter for scenic shots. Adjust the sharpening upward from neutral. Use the pre-set or custom-tune the parameters of tone curve, sharpening, and color. Bracket your exposures. You'll be able to make good photos right out of camera with a modern d-slr. The idea that photographers have "always" relied upon darkroom manipulation to make excellent photographs is flat out wrong, and ignores literally decades of color slide supremacy, where there were very few, if ANY, adjustments made to the final image.

 

[Overread]

This debate always gets people posting or thinking in very polar arguments. Nobody who edits says that its about fixing it in post - infact anyone who is serious realises very fast that getting it right in camera is almost the only way to go if you want the quality finished product out at the end. Heck often those who are far more into eiditing - maybe to use the photo has just part of a collage they are even more concerned about getting it perfect in camera so that they have the right data to work with in editing.

As always is a multi part process - you can skimp on the taking of the shot and spend hours trying to restore it in editing and sometimes you might get lucky and get something slightly usable - and you can skimp on the editing and get something that is perfect in camera and generally of good quality to excellent quality.

However using both sides of the coin gives one the most control and the best possible result.

Derrel even you're considering editing just that instead of using out of camera controls you're talking about adjusting the auto effects in camera - perfectly fine to approach things this way, but it only works if you use JPEGs (RAW won't get the edits) and also I think its a harder approach. The LCD is a poor tool to review shots so deciding to apply more or less of an effect (esp something like sharpness) is very hard to judge - and further is a method that requires you to be able to take more than one shot of the scene - otherwise you'll be left with whatever edits you have on at the time.

Like I said this method does work, but for the "best possible" result I find it far easier to work these things outside of the camera body in the computer. It need not take hours either - a few moments and you can throw down some basic editing that still gives you a little more control and choice.

I also wonder if all those colour photographers could have had a colour darkroom how many of their shots would have looked better for the result of good editing control and practice?

 

[Vinny]

I don't know how old your laptop is but I was processing photos on a 6 YO desktop with a 2.4 GHz Celeron processor, 40 Gig hard drive and 1.2 Gig of memory. I tried GIMP, Photoscape and Picasa and they were OK with GIMP being the most comprehensive. I eventually bought Serif Photoplus X3 and use Nikon's ViewNX 2 to do things with RAW files as Photoplus is a little weak in making changes to Nikon's NEF files.

It was a little slow going but since you're not making a living out of it I will assume that you are not processing 100's of photos at a time so speed may not play a big role for you. I would agree that a external monitor would be beneficial along with a mouse and if hard drive space is an issue - buy a external drive. I did that as well to get some extra space that my internal hard drive didn't have.

The only problem is that for photo processing you might want to buy a IPS monitor vs a standard LCD as the colors are supposedly better in them. I believe Amazon sells a HP 21 inch for about $275.

Depending on your computer setup it may take 30 seconds or so to apply a filter or to sharpen an image vs 10 seconds (? - not sure how long) with a newer, faster machine.

I was totally clueless going into digital photography about the need for processing and apparently I was totally clueless about film photography as well in what processing was done.

My suggestion would be try it and see how it goes with what you own and go from there. Invest nothing by using Gimp or some other freeware or invest a little by purchasing Adobe Elements, the Corel product or the Serif product. None of them are Adobe Photoshop but you may be surprised in that they do the job that you need.

 

[sobolik]

Most of the photos I see here on the Forum (even in the beginners sections) are processed via Photoshop etc. If you have a good DSLR and your photos are not processed is it considered that you have only half a photo? It seems odd that with the sophistication of the newer 'good' cameras and lenses, that the quality of the photos they produce are inadequate without post.

I need a new computer before I can have enough memory for photo processing. Living in the mountains, we have been evacuated about four times in the past ten years due to Forrest fires, and packing in a hurry is tough. A laptop would be ideal considering this, but from what I read here, a laptop is completely useless for processing photos because of the inadequate monitors (screens). I could get more memory for the laptop I'm using and be able to afford post, but a new desk top and monitor is a long way off money wise. I am an armature and a hobbyist and not intending to go into business or publish professionally, but would like to produce pictures that are good enough to post on the Forum and share with friends. Your thoughts?

Thanks as always, Tom Beard

HA! I use an ancient HP Laptop AMD 64 processor 3400+. 286 MHz, 512 MB RAM and I'll process 2500 photos from just one wedding on it. Actually only about 700 make the final cut but still it works fine. It has a 15" monitor and it is just fine. You can now buy the cheapest new laptop ($400-500) and it is far superior to the one I use for thousands of photos every year.

As far as post processing. I feel 100% need PP. I have a Nikon D-90 and they are never sharp enough straight out of the camera. All of them need some sharpening. The point and shoot pocket cameras have much more sharpening in camera and I find need little after the shot sharpening is needed with them. The atitude seems to be that excess sharpening ruins a photo. So I think the last thing that high end cameras want to do is over do it IN THE OPINION OF THE USER. For example, Arizona Highways Magazine does not want you to sharpen your submitted photos at all because they want to do the PP. On the other hand the average point and shoot camera user could care less how much they are sharpened as long as they look good.

 

[IgsEMT]

WOW,
I never said processing "isn't important". It is an important part. All I said was people spent today more time in front of computer then anything else. Look at the threads, everyone is an "expert" in photoshop but not that many can set a nice lighting ratio. Thats all that meant. There are times I can sit for HOURS in front of one image but I prefer to spend more time shooting and less time processing of fixing others mistakes. On the other hand I get payed to fix other's mistakes

 

[Rekd]

If you are a good photographer, you can be quite satisfied with your camera and it's finished image...

Not true. I'm not a good photographer and I am QUITE satisfied with a lot of my stuff straight OOC. :mrgreen:

 

[IgsEMT]

Quote: Originally Posted by LarryD
If you are a good photographer, you can be quite satisfied with your camera and it's finished image...


Not true. I'm not a good photographer and I am QUITE satisfied with a lot of my stuff straight OOC. :mrgreen:

LOL

 

[luna88]

Hi
Everyone
I have a same problem.
So what i can do for this problem.
I am waiting for anyone.
Thanks