EDIT vs. Straight From Camera - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/09/2006 02:40:45 PM · #1

It would be fun to see some posts of originals vs. post editing. Here are a couple of mine from this weekend at Garden of the Gods (it was very overcast and rained some):

JD

Message edited by author 2006-10-09 14:41:00.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

10/09/2006 02:53:32 PM · #2

DPC Entry:

Original (at pBase):

DPC Entry:

Original:

My oldest:

Link to the original (scan of a B&W print):

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

10/09/2006 03:06:43 PM · #3

Wow... That dusty car made a really nice abstract! I never would have guessed!
JD

LERtastic

Nikon D200

10/09/2006 03:09:13 PM · #4

Here are a couple of mine.

and the original:

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/09/2006 03:13:05 PM · #5

A question for those shooting RAW - is "straight from camera" same as "original"? Are "originals" produced after adjustments made in RAW considered "straight from camera" or not? Are they even "originals"?

Just curious about how people might think about this.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/09/2006 03:29:47 PM · #6

Originally posted by ursula:

Well, RAW with various adjustments are considered "originals" as far as DPC is concerned with validation.

I'm using RawShooter essentials and you can make so many adjustments to a RAW file that you'd be hard pressed to know it was the same photo sometimes if you were to get carried away. Personally, if it's been modified at all, even in RAW, then I don't see how it can be called "straight from the camera" anymore. As for being "original", that's very subjective.

Good food for thought Ursula, with strong opinions from several camps to come forth I'm sure.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

10/09/2006 03:33:28 PM · #7

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Personally, if it's been modified at all, even in RAW, then I don't see how it can be called "straight from the camera" anymore.

But... you can, of course, boost contrast or color or change white balance all in camera. All the raw converters are doing is letting you make the decision after the capture.

Now if the raw converters started having layers and blend modes or filters or editing, etc, then the lines will really start to get blurry.

Good subject for debate. :-)

10/09/2006 03:36:47 PM · #8

DrAchoo sees this post, please don't think I'm picking on you, it's just that your recent ribbon winner made me think about all of this.

10/09/2006 03:44:14 PM · #9

Originally posted by ursula:

I shoot all RAW. For the purpose of this thread, I converted from RAW to PSD using the default settings. As for challenge submission validations, I'm not sure what they want for an 'original' from a RAW shot.

JD

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/09/2006 03:47:54 PM · #10

Originally posted by ursula:

Anymore, RAW conversion software allows for a lot more than what can be done in camera (unless I'm totally wrong). ...

The shadow and highlight contrast sliders in RawShooter essentials push the image much farther than my in-camera settings do.

Some other RAW items that aren't there (for me anyway) in-camera are Fill, Exposure compensation after the capture, various Noise reduction items, Sharpen, Detail extraction, etc...

I guess the biggest thing is that using a RAW editor I can adjust and move various image controls AFTER the photo is taken. In-camera I can boost contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc...but not know the results really until pulled up on a monitor.

This is a good item for debate. I do know this - after shooting RAW it would be hard to go back to anything else now. So much more flexibility with the RAW editors.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/09/2006 03:50:31 PM · #11

Originally posted by glad2badad:

This is a good item for debate. I do know this - after shooting RAW it would be hard to go back to anything else now. So much more flexibility with the RAW editors.

Yeah, I like RAW, very much. I wonder though if sometimes it allows me to be more lazy than I should be. This past week I forced myself to shoot all JPG, so I wouldn't get lazy - now I'm back to RAW :)

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/09/2006 04:09:30 PM · #12

Originally posted by ursula:

Anymore, RAW conversion software allows for a lot more than what can be done in camera (unless I'm totally wrong).

Thus, when we present images for comparison, is it fair to produce a converted (with adjustments) RAW image, and call it "original"? I know that for DPC purposes it is, but is it really?

And if DrAchoo sees this post, please don't think I'm picking on you, it's just that your recent ribbon winner made me think about all of this.

Ha. That's also the first thing that crossed my mind when reading DrAchoo's comments. However, I think he said "No PS-edit original", which is different then saying "no-edit original". I would consider adjusting anything in RAW to be part of post processing as well. Also, my "default" settings in RAW applies an S-Curve among other things so I doubt anybody is posting a true "original-like" version when they post these things in their photographer comments. I say "original-like" because with digital there is no true negative.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/09/2006 04:36:02 PM · #13

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by ursula:
Anymore, RAW conversion software allows for a lot more than what can be done in camera (unless I'm totally wrong).

Thus, when we present images for comparison, is it fair to produce a converted (with adjustments) RAW image, and call it "original"? I know that for DPC purposes it is, but is it really?

And if DrAchoo sees this post, please don't think I'm picking on you, it's just that your recent ribbon winner made me think about all of this.

Ha. That's also the first thing that crossed my mind when reading DrAchoo's comments. However, I think he said "No PS-edit original", which is different then saying "no-edit original". I would consider adjusting anything in RAW to be part of post processing as well. Also, my "default" settings in RAW applies an S-Curve among other things so I doubt anybody is posting a true "original-like" version when they post these things in their photographer comments. I say "original-like" because with digital there is no true negative.

If RAW adjustments are not post-processing, then pretty soon many of us are not going to be doing much of any post-processing. Yet, drastic colour shifts make for very different images than what was there originally, and for learning purposes I personally would think (and prefer) to compare the final product to the recorded image rather than to a colour-shifted image. I think I (and others) would learn more that way.

It is semantics. But words and what they convey are important. I guess I've been thinking about all of this lately.

Edited wording.

Message edited by author 2006-10-09 16:37:30.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

10/09/2006 04:40:12 PM · #14

Original

Entry

2002 Entry

rex

Canon PowerShot SD780

10/09/2006 04:44:52 PM · #15

wasn't there a thread similar to this a while back? I need to find it

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

10/09/2006 04:54:08 PM · #16

Well, when you can go from
this

(no adjustments in RAW)
to this

to this

in RawShooters ONLY, then what might you consider undedited? Straight from the camera, to me anyway, means just what it says......straight from the camera, no adjustments. Just because someone might have certain default settings changed to their specifications, doesn't make it SFC.

Not that any in itself is good, just did that to show the extremes that can be done BEFORE converting to JPG (or TIFF).

Added: I really like that middle version Konador.

Message edited by author 2006-10-09 16:55:13.

spydr

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4.0G IF-ED

10/09/2006 05:22:58 PM · #17

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

10/09/2006 05:23:25 PM · #18

Originally posted by Konador:

Original
Entry

2002 Entry

That's a great transformation. You changed it from a flat, uninspiring shot to something dramatic and wonderful!
JD

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

10/09/2006 05:47:23 PM · #19

Originally posted by smellyfish1002:

Originally posted by Konador:
Original
Entry

2002 Entry

That's a great transformation. You changed it from a flat, uninspiring shot to something dramatic and wonderful!
JD

RAW files will always look flat unless your RAW converter's is set to automatically fix that.

obsidian

Nikon D80

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Nikon

10/09/2006 06:08:41 PM · #20

I think the whole straight from camera thing is likely to become more muddied with the introduction of some of the modifiers found on cameras like the Nikon D80. D-lighting in particular allows you to "bend" the picture in camera before it ever leaves the SD card.

With the possibility of even faster processors and more on-board memory in a dSLR, the ability to choose custom camera settings across a wide range of features and then the usual white balance controls then in-camera processing may truly blur what it means to be "straight from camera".

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/09/2006 06:10:16 PM · #21

What is an "original"? Because of the advances of computer technology even that simple question becomes muddled given RAW processors.

I find this a particularly fascinating question, especially since I submitted my very first RAW converted image and it is doing very well. Admittedly, I did not do much with the converter, but can easily see what they are capable of.

A fundamental DPC question might be this... Should RAW converters outside 'camera settings' options be allowed in basic editing?

When thinking of RAW conversion the first thought that comes many people's mind is white balance. The RAW converter allows us to correct WB should we have it set wrong when we took the picture. The question here is should that be allowed in basic editing? If it's purpose is to teach fundamental photography should we make the photographer live with that error in basic editing? I don't know.

But RAW converters allow much more than that. So what really is an "original"?

10/09/2006 06:52:41 PM · #22

Originally posted by stdavidson:

But RAW converters allow much more than that. So what really is an "original"?

Yep. That's the question.

pianomom