Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Panasonic / Leica (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/panasonic-leica-29/)
-   -   Straight Out Of The Camera... Or Not... (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/panasonic-leica/42662-straight-out-camera-not.html)

bobc Jan 8, 2005 8:59 AM

I have noticed that some people like to enhance their images after they upload them to their computers, and others do not.

I would like to hear peoples oppinions on this...

My oppinion is as follows...

I feel that it is too easy to take a picture and turn it into a better picture with image editing software. Don't get me wrong... But... If your trying to learn photography, you should first learn to get good "out of the camera" shots first.

I also feel that if you do alter images that you post in this site... That you should say it in your post. This does not include the art work that some of you post (which is great by the way), but just the pictures that have been enhanced because they did not turn out in the shooters oppinion.

I have posted many pics on this site, and have prided myself on posting "straight out of the camera" shots. It's true that I am an ameture (as you can tell from my pics), but I post nothing but "straight out of the camera" pics to show what the camera can do... Not to show what tweeking can do... I do this so others are not fooled by the images they see, and run out and buy a Lumix thinking that they are going to get more than what they see, as well as the fact that I want to get good at photography.

I am not saying "Don't tweek", but if you do... At least say it in your post. And if you are tweeking, and think that it makes you a photographer... Think again. And... If your tweeking and trying to fool others by saying that the images are "straight out of the camera", you're only fooling your self.

NickTrop, nzmacro, Willow1, and others who post their beutiful art work... This does not in any way pertain to you... I love what you all do... That is what image editing is all about, and I am amazed by your posts... Keep them comming...:cool:

I hope none of you take this the wrong way, we are all into our own thing here, but I just wanted to share some of my oppinions, and welcome the oppinions of others. This is a great forum, and although I have not been as active lately (been busy), I still make time each day to at least check the posts here.

Thank you all... And please post your oppinions...

bobc


Please Note... This does not include "Noise Removal Software" IMO...

Mag Jan 8, 2005 9:17 AM

I respect your posting out of camera pics bob and reasons why as well. Personally I like playing in editing software, most my pics have auto levels and maybe auto contrast. Some even have noise reduction, although Im picky about noise reduction and dont like to use it because it can ruin a photo if your not careful IMO, but used mildly can be quite efective at times. I feel that whatever it takes to make a photo look good so be it, and ill always strive for better photos but i will continue to improve with editing software as well in the process. I also like using special effects sometimes. I dont normally post whatpost processing idid in the pictures but i will answer any questions asked without guilt. Sometimes mainly in special effects it helps not to say that the water is fake ect. just so you can get an honest opinion. If you tell everyone it was done with a filter before hand theres no way to tell how effective the filter really is.

Just my opinion, and again I will normaly answer anyones questions on settings ect.

Good post bob.

Mag

spiderman Jan 8, 2005 10:06 AM

Mag wrote:
Quote:

I respect your posting out of camera pics bob and reasons why as well. Personally I like playing in editing software, most my pics have auto levels and maybe auto contrast. Some even have noise reduction, although Im picky about noise reduction and dont like to use it because it can ruin a photo if your not careful IMO, but used mildly can be quite efective at times. I feel that whatever it takes to make a photo look good so be it, and ill always strive for better photos but i will continue to improve with editing software as well in the process. I also like using special effects sometimes. I dont normally post what post processing i did in the pictures but i will answer any questions asked without guilt. Sometimes mainly in special effects it helps not to say that the water is fake ect. just so you can get an honest opinion. If you tell everyone it was done with a filter before hand theres no way to tell how effective the filter really is.

Just my opinion, and again I will normaly answer anyones questions on settings ect.

Good post bob.

Mag
I agree with Mag. My pics are of edited and also non edited. As long as it comes out nice in whichever way, that's it. I mean if straight from the camera, I feel it looks ok then be it, like my recent Rose(stolen from my mom-in-law, :) ). IF not, I will enhanced it a little. After this is digital photography isn't it, not film.

I am also trying many features of softwares to learn more. I am still at anovice level though.

Just my honest opinion.

[email protected] Jan 8, 2005 10:18 AM

I agree with Bob that it is a good idea to add to a pic post a short synopsis of post processing done, which I have seen many do. I agree with others that post pic processing is basically the development process in digital photography. Software can't do miracles (Yet, as far as I'v seen) and it is still imperative to get the best shot you can from your camera. As far as I can tell from going to the Wildlife forum quite a bit, most of the guys with the really expensive DSLR's do post processing tomost of theirpics. Bob, I used to feel the same way about post processing till I got elements 3 and realized that I can take a good to great pic from my digital and make it even better to look at with a small amount of work. Just my two cents at this stage of my photagraphy journey.

bobc Jan 8, 2005 10:44 AM

[email protected] wrote:
Quote:

I agree with Bob that it is a good idea to add to a pic post a short synopsis of post processing done, which I have seen many do. I agree with others that post pic processing is basically the development process in digital photography. Software can't do miracles (Yet, as far as I'v seen) and it is still imperative to get the best shot you can from your camera. As far as I can tell from going to the Wildlife forum quite a bit, most of the guys with the really expensive DSLR's do post processing tomost of theirpics. Bob, I used to feel the same way about post processing till I got elements 3 and realized that I can take a good to great pic from my digital and event make it evven better to look at with a small amount of work. Just my two cents at this stage of my photagraphy journey.
Good post... And exactly my point. I did not mean people who allready know how to get great shots. They have every right to tweek away. But people who know very little about photography (like myself), and use image editing to make up for it, should not think that they are becomming photographers... They are becomming Image editors.

Another concern I have is... People come to this site to see what the Lumix's can do becaus they are thinking about buying one, or they already have one and are trying to learn. Many times they see pics posted and do not know they have been tweeked. They then either beat there brains out trying to get the same results out of the camera, or decide to buy one based on what they see, only to be dissapointed.

I feel that I have a certain responsability here to help others as others have helped me when I first came here, and I try to be aware that there are others who may make decissions based on my limited knowledge, or who may be trying to get the same result as something that I post.

I love messing around with image editing... I just feel it should be done with more awareness.

bobc

fmoore Jan 8, 2005 11:00 AM

I also agree with Bob. In order to see what the camera can do it isessential to see only what the camera did. Ergo, resize only. No crop, no sharpen, no levels, etc. Of course there are many ways to make the camera do different things with different in-camera settings and/or add-on lens. If the purpose of the post is to demonstrate the use of a setting or lens, state what that is and post your sample pic straight from the camera so that we can get an unedited view. (Including exif data can help.) If the sample is out of focus, don't sharpen it. That could be an inherent problem with that lens/camera setup. Likewise with color enhancing. If the pic has lousy color, dont fix it with pp. Get a better shot with in-camera settings - if you can. If the close-uplens you're usinggives tack sharp focus at the center and soft at the edges and you crop off the edges and give us only the nice center portion, we get anexpurgatedversion of that lens/camera combo's output.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the post is to demonstrate what can be accomplished with post processing, post on and let us know what you did and how you did it. To really do your editing demojustice it would be most beneficial to give us the before and after.

Fred

JEDinNC Jan 8, 2005 11:10 AM

Bob,

Great topic. Here's another slant and just my opinion. I kinda feel that becoming a photographer (at least digital) and image editing go hand in hand. For me, learning how to edit images has helped me to learn more about taking photos and vice versa. Some of the terms in the vast array of options in image editors are shared and have helped me understand a little more about lighting and exposure, for example. By all means I totally agree that its a good idea to outline any image adjustments made to the photo, so that folks know how you arrived at that final image. Maybe image editing is actually becoming part of being a photographer.Just my take but you've certainly got me thinking!

Best regards,



JED

squirl033 Jan 8, 2005 11:57 AM

i tend to agree. i prefer photos as close to what the camera captured as possible, so i seldom do much in the way of post-processing (the fact i don't have photoshop helps to 'enforce' that philosophy...). at most, i occasionally tweak the contrast, gamma correctionor color saturation; most times, all i do is sharpen the image up a bit if it needs it, and crop or resize to fit what i'm doing. i find the art photos interesting, and in many cases amazing, but frankly, they're not my cup of tea, so i refrain from turning my own shots into psychedelic displays.

which isn't to say that some pics can't benefit from a little help. sometimes the photographer cannot help the lighting or other environmental conditions that cause pictures to be less than desirable, and if post-processing (which some have likened to developing in film) can minimize those undesirable aspects, there's no problem. if the photo is fundamentally sound in terms of color, composition, focus, etc., a little post processing will just make it look better. if it's not, no amount of after-the-fact tweaking will help. that's why i strive for the best shot i can take (i still take a LOT of 'lemons', though), and try not to rely on the software tomake up for a poor shot or technique.

greenbaron Jan 8, 2005 11:58 AM

Very good thinking; Like the argument of people coming here to see what a lumix can and such a lot, never looked at it that way :idea:

So I think this pretty much applies to me :G (Don't feel guilty or offended in any way:!:)

I must be carefull now; IMO, what the photographer does to his/her photos is entirely up to the person itself. But I've seen people here willing to edit photos of others, or doing so, without being asked to. I think one should be really carefull with that; I would considerit pretty rude, if it was done to me :roll:


GB

squirl033 Jan 8, 2005 12:10 PM

the way i figure it, you take a picture because you like what you see, or because it evokes certain feelings or moods. why, then, would youchange that image into something different from what you wanted to capture in the first place? that's why i limit my post work to only very minor things like sharpening, tweaking contast or saturation a bit, or maybe lightening or darkening the image a little if the camera didn't capture it exactly as it looked to my eyes...

some people do use photos as a starting point for artistic expression, and that's fine. i've seen some on this board and elsewhere that are simply stunning. it's just not what i have a camera for. in the days before film, when painting was the only way to capture an image, there were many styles of artists... realists, cubists, pointilists, impressionists... photographically, i'm a realist. but that in no way detracts from the talent and beauty of the work done by impressionists. it just means i prefer my images to be as close as possibleto what i saw that prompted me to take the photo.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2