Photographing w/o post-processing

[elavan]

the camera is dumb & can never resolve anywhere near the human eye, even mastering the M mode cannot achieve that. why showcase equipment imperfection/limitation when you have tools at your disposal to at least process closer to something as you see it?

PP does not necessarily equate to fakeness, I'd see it as patching up the limitations of technology, and then more if necessary for artistic requirements.

PP is also a skill no less than operating the camera proficiently.

Getting a PnS and PP all the way also cannot work, a PnS jpeg file cannot tolerate manipulation. and it's internal PP is not what you want all the time. since no technology can read your mind, it's necessary to use a dslr and maximize it's greater output workability.

 

[astrorion]

I shot thousands of photo from Pns, Semi-pro, DLSR. I just add frame thats all. I dont PP my photo. I love the way it look, and in other case maybe I am not good at PP.

 

[Madmax]

I find the most successful way of getting the correct exposure is to do an exposure lock on a neutral colour. Eg. If the scene is too white and you do not do an exposure lock on a neutral colour, the camera will automatically tone it down darker, and vice-versa.

Unfortunately, sometimes such neutral colour is just not available. Hence, pp just has to be carried out.

 

[Anson]

Personally I feel that if you don't intent to PP your shots, a PnS would be more suitable than a dslr. Anyone disagree? :dunno:

 

[CYRN]

Personally I feel that if you don't intent to PP your shots, a PnS would be more suitable than a dslr. Anyone disagree? :dunno:

I disagree.

 

[mabmy]

Personally I feel that if you don't intent to PP your shots, a PnS would be more suitable than a dslr. Anyone disagree? :dunno:

I disagree to this as well. Honestly, i pp any picture i took irregardless of which camera i'm using, and yes this applies to my camera phone as well. Not extreme pp, but those simple brightening, sharpening and contrast thingy.

 

[heshanj]

i rarely used to post-process my photos, but i started to learn to use lightroom 2, and i think some of my photos look much better after a simple bit of editing.. nothing to drastic - it just seems to make a good shot better, i guess.. i guess its also important not to get carried away i realised i was screwing up some simple photos i took, with too much editing, so i just reset it all, and it looked better..

 

[yun10]

for me, I do pp.. is more like an interest. Cos all along, I'm interested in picking up photoshop as a skill and I feel photoshop is part of digital photography too.

 

[Darts]

this has been discussed to death.

my view, that i will push forth again and again.. if you are happy with in-camera processing, that's your choice. if you are happy to customise the processing and spend 8 hours on the image, that's also your choice. what people will only care about is the end result. no one is going to look at a really good piece and say "oh wow, that is just photoshop magic", unless it is a pure digital piece with no composition in the picture to begin with that you took down or recorded.

why do i say there is no difference? because in camera, adjustments are made. just because you don't see them doesn't mean the image isn't cooked. if you are FINE AND HAPPY with the camera cooking it for you, fine! if you'd rather bring it home to cook yourself , that's fine too. it is just like making a pizza. some people like to make pizza with raw ingredients themselves, some people like to buy ready made from supermarket.. both can be delicious, and no one really cares where it came from.

the people who tell you that post processing is 100% necessary are deluded. sometimes the camera cooks it well enough. the people who tell you that post processing is 100% unnecessary are equally deluded. if the camera doesn't cook it well, of course people wnat to cook it themselves.

what is the main goal? establishment of a vision, and accomplishing it through proper execution.

some of my photos i do USM only, i am happy with them being cooked by camera. people think it is UNCOOKED, that is nonsense. some of my photos, need something more, that extra mile to bring out what i saw, because the camera is not 100% true to reality.. then i can spend more time on it.

Totally agreed, but imho too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

[weegk]

i don't mind a bit of PP to do a bit of cropping, level etc . . . but not to the extend of moving an object from one place to another . . .

 

[OoStarDustoO]

It's a skill to do PP. Not everyone can do it well.

U may have the same software, but outcome will be different, just like person A and B can have exactly the same camera equipment but the output of photos are totally different.

 

[sinned79]

Personally I feel that if you don't intent to PP your shots, a PnS would be more suitable than a dslr. Anyone disagree? :dunno:

i disagree.

there is cases whereby good shoots can be done straight from cam.

at the right time and hour, this is one of my satisfying photo which is straight from cam:

but of cos u can argue this photo is not good enough to you but for me, i feel that it is good enough without any PP.

 

[OoStarDustoO]

i disagree.

there is cases whereby good shoots can be done straight from cam.

at the right time and hour, this is one of my satisfying photo which is straight from cam:

but of cos u can argue this photo is not good enough to you but for me, i feel that it is good enough without any PP.

And after i have taken this shot, i realise i wanted to instill a kind of mood into this photo. Maybe a black and white, or sepia mode. Then how? Still got to PP.

But of course, i have a choice to go back to this same location, at the same time and same moment. But this time, i set black and white mode in my can to take a black & white photo. No pp then.

But i think majority will go for first choice. PP will do.

Even if u set black and white mode in ur cam, it's already processed within the camera.

It's only a matter of was it processed - within or outside ur cam. So why does it matter where it was processed?

 

[sinned79]

And after i have taken this shot, i realise i wanted to instill a kind of mood into this photo. Maybe a black and white, or sepia mode. Then how? Still got to PP.

But of course, i have a choice to go back to this same location, at the same time and same moment. But this time, i set black and white mode in my can to take a black & white photo. No pp then.

But i think majority will go for first choice. PP will do.

Even if u set black and white mode in ur cam, it's already processed within the camera.

It's only a matter of was it processed - within or outside ur cam. So why does it matter where it was processed?

i wun go for b/w in this case. why i shot this in the first place is the bluish color of the sky (no clouds) and the color contrast of the building against the sky. by going b/w, it will lose its meaning and i can take anytime of the day if i want to do a b/w.

but of cos i can still use PP to edit the color of the sky, saturate the building colors, but what'sthe point when u can get it done right at first shot without PP?

so PP to me is only to enhance a photo and not a must.

 

[OoStarDustoO]

i wun go for b/w in this case. why i shot this in the first place is the bluish color of the sky (no clouds) and the color contrast of the building against the sky. by going b/w, it will lose its meaning and i can take anytime of the day if i want to do a b/w.

Erm.. i am not specifically saying that it applies only for this photo. It can be for any, in general.

 

[sinned79]

Erm.. i am not specifically saying that it applies only for this photo. It can be for any, in general.

like i say, PP to me is only supposed to enhance and not a must.

u cannot expect PP to turn a wrongly taken photo into a correct photo but with PP u can turn an ok looking photo to a better looking photo.

so back to Anson's words, he mentioned that if using DSLR without PP, might as well use a pns, so i disagree with him cos there is still many others like me out there who dun really rely too much on PP to enhance the photos most of the time.

so if accordingly to him, if i were to dump my 5DMKII+35mm f1.4 (which i used to take this photo) and go back to my panasonic FX01 point and shoot, i dun think i can get this result (the color constrast, the deep blue and the building colors). Then end up i had to use PP to enhance the colors.

 

[OoStarDustoO]

like i say, PP to me is only supposed to enhance and not a must.

u cannot expect PP to turn a wrongly taken photo into a correct photo but with PP u can turn an ok looking photo to a better looking photo.

so back to Anson's words, he mentioned that if using DSLR without PP, might as well use a pns, so i disagree with him cos there is still many others like me out there who dun really rely too much on PP to enhance the photos most of the time.

Ok. Understood. :thumbsup:

Actually i agree with u. I PP even when i am using P&S. :bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[ovaltinemilo]

i disagree.

there is cases whereby good shoots can be done straight from cam.

at the right time and hour, this is one of my satisfying photo which is straight from cam:

but of cos u can argue this photo is not good enough to you but for me, i feel that it is good enough without any PP.

If my cam has this kinda DR to give this kinda contrast straight, I will PP minimally:bsmilie:
some cameras(like my old Nikon) really got to shoot raw and pp...moire effect/white balance crazy(greenish tint)/flat image...imagine if shoot jpg, it would be hard to correct...

this is really old questions...if you can PP excessively and the results is good, why not? (someone posted Chase Jarvis's thread...his pp makes the sky nice...)

 

[sinned79]

If my cam has this kinda DR to give this kinda contrast straight, I will PP minimally:bsmilie:
some cameras(like my old Nikon) really got to shoot raw and pp...moire effect/white balance crazy(greenish tint)/flat image...imagine if shoot jpg, it would be hard to correct...

this is really old questions...if you can PP excessively and the results is good, why not? (someone posted Chase Jarvis's thread...his pp makes the sky nice...)

no u got me wrong.

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5718602&postcount=84

according to Anson from the above post, he said that if you are using DSLR and not doing any PP might as well don't use a DSLR and use a point and shoot instead. So in another words, is he trying to say that DSLR is not good enough to take straight out of cam photos and needs to rely on PP to make the photo look nice? And only point and shoot is capable to take straight out of cam photo? Sound ridiculous right since DSLR is suppose to be 'higher end' then a pns.

so I disagree with him cos i feel that any DSLR (new or old model), is still capable of taking good photos without any PP.

 

[Lionheart86]

Totally agree with u Del_. This is way beyond PP....:dunno:

putting fire & ice balls = digital art manipulation... not post processing...

non post processed image below... no digital effects...