Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:19 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

These types of discussions are what make this site such a great place. This topic causes one to examine ones own philosophy concerning the core of what is photography. Is it the raw photograph or is it the end product after processing and manipulating the pixels? I absolutely believe it's both.
I totally agree that pictures that have been post processed need to be presented with that information known. I have included 2 versions of the same picture. More than anything it shows my pitiful skills at post processing. I am not going to say which is processed and which is not. I want to ask your opinions and then see what the results show. Both pictures have been resized to fit on the post.

Muchas Gracias,
smac

Last edited by smac; Jan 30, 2014 at 12:45 AM.
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:19 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

Picture #2

Last edited by smac; Jan 30, 2014 at 12:45 AM.
smac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:30 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

A great shot is a great shot whether it comes from an FZ1 or any of the others.... FZ3/10/20.
Some digital enhancement is valid and combines with the skill of the photographer, as for posting any enhancement's to the image(s) posted I think its not essential.
It depends if what was done could be informative like.... nick converting his color images to B&W with PS plug-in. then yes but otherwise accept the image for what it is.
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:40 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
boyzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,544
Default

The first image has been enhanced - sharpness and contrast.
GREAT shot btw.

Now this enhancement hardly needs reporting.

I think MAJOR digital editing like adding an image to an image yes.


smac wrote:
Quote:
These types of discussions are what make this site such a great place. This topic causes one to examine ones own philosophy concerning the core of what is photography. Is it the raw photograph or is it the end product after processing and manipulating the pixels? I absolutely believe it's both.
I totally agree that pictures that have been post processed need to be presented with that information known. I have included 2 versions of the same picture. More than anything it shows my pitiful skills at post processing. I am not going to say which is processed and which is not. I want to ask your opinions and then see what the results show. Both pictures have been resized to fit on the post.

Muchas Gracias,
smac
boyzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:41 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

Hi Bobc, great topic! Thanks. True to form, I completely - though respectfully, disagree with you. (Why is it that we always disagree? I know you don't drink, but you would make a ->great<- drinking buddy for this reason! :G. Cheers, buddy : )

I think Basac nailed it when he said:
Basac wrote:
Quote:
... use the image editing softwares to get a best result (dark room skills). The software itself can not give an excellent photo but the photographer...Basac,
To expound, the goal is to get the best image possible. Case in point, the famous, luminary landscape photographer, Ansel Adams, authored The Camera, together with The Negative and The Print, which comprise The Ansel Adams' Photography Series, a legendary trio of books about the photographic -> process <-. The output of the =>process<= is the print. The goal of this series is to teach how to produce the best possible image by introducing a paradigm shift into thinking of photography as a process with distinct components whose output is the photograph (or print). It was a groundbreaking series - still very relevant in the digital age, despite the radical change in the technology from electrochemical rendering of the image to electronic/digital rendering. The biggest change is that you no longer develop negatives in a darkroom, rather you develop your latent image file (jpg, tiff, raw, whatever...) in the "digital darkroom" aka image editor, to produce the desired process output, the print (be it to photopaper or monitor...). And a print is a print regardless if the medium is paper or the monitor. In fact, I use different techniques to get the best possible image, depending what medium the print will be or a computer screen. Critical variables to consider for the print - in addition to the viewing medium of the print, include size, resolution, aspect ratio, color profile, etc. By virtue of the fact that you must crop an image alone, is a consession to this point, and cropping alone can greatly influence the impact of the "print". You can change the perceptual focus of "the print", and greatly enhance its composition, as much as by using other tools, like sharpening, or blur, or noise reduction, etc. I suspect you would notconsider any form of cropping as an "illegal" manipulation - but it is! In fact it's among the more radical manipulation you can make, as you're altering the content and composition of the image!

To me, the digital file stored on your SD card is just that - a digital image file, akin to an exposed piece of film stock. It is not a finished product - a print or photograph, until it is brought into my darkroom, Photoshop, and developed. And, I wouldn't even consider displaying something straight from the camera, even if it the object in the digital file is, unlike an exposed film exposure, intelligible. I would never do this because to me it's incomplete, not ready for viewing, half-baked. I've just captured the image with my camera, and I'm only 1/3 of the way through the process.

To your point and concern regarding folks thinking that some of the images are camera-only latent images, I don't share your concern. Rather I would ask...

Are people viewing the picture here to see what the camera can do? OR are they looking to see what people can do with their camera? Big difference.

... don't work too hard!

Nick
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 4:57 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 107
Default

smac wrote:
Quote:
These types of discussions are what make this site such a great place. This topic causes one to examine ones own philosophy concerning the core of what is photography. Is it the raw photograph or is it the end product after processing and manipulating the pixels? I absolutely believe it's both.
I totally agree that pictures that have been post processed need to be presented with that information known. I have included 2 versions of the same picture. More than anything it shows my pitiful skills at post processing. I am not going to say which is processed and which is not. I want to ask your opinions and then see what the results show. Both pictures have been resized to fit on the post.

Muchas Gracias,
smac
I think the first pic is edited while the second is original.
spiderman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 5:04 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
spiderman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 107
Default

Although I do support editing but sometimes, the pic just turns out great without editing but just resized. Like this pic that I took of a pink rose. Honestly I did tried to enhance it but it made it worst! The pink became more red and the slightest sharpenening made the rose looked awful. So I prefer to leave it theway it is. As I have mentioned, as long as it look fine to me, it does not matter if it is edited or not edited.

spiderman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 5:18 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
bmullen@comcast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 4,435
Default

Nick, great post. I can see why you are a teacher.
bmullen@comcast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 5:26 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
fmoore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,116
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Are people viewing the picture here to see what the camera can do? OR are they looking to see what people can do with their camera? Big difference.
Big difference indeed. Since this is a Panasonic camera forum, I would say it is the former. People are here to see what Pansonic cameras can do. In which case, any post editing should be acknowleged so there is no confusion as to what the camera can do. There are many, many excellent photo sites on the internet for viewing many, many excellent photos, many of which have been excellently post processed. IMO, that is not the primary purpose of this particular forum. Nevertheless, the display of photos for the photos' sakeis quite acceptable here as it does allow for a smaller, less populated pond in which to swim and to perhaps help others to swim.

Fred
fmoore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2005, 5:45 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
bobc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,433
Default

Nick... I might just start drinking just to have a few with ya m8...

What you and others are refering to as a "digital dark room"... Just is not accurate.

The camera has the digital dark room built into it. Otherwise the images would come out like this one...

which by the way was enhanced in PS Elements 3.0 using inverse so it would come out lik a negative (which is the process before the dark room).


Attached Images
 
bobc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:23 AM.