| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2005 04:28:55 PM · #76 |
I think the best way is to play with the custom mode. People may be surprised to see how well colour can be enhanced by using different settings of the camera. This is particularly true when applying different type of light sources. But this enhancement is generally not dramatic, but still, it brings a nice additional 'touch'.
About the raw files, sorry, I cannot answer your question. I only shoot in JPG. Maybe something I will need to learn in a near future.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:36:29 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
Something I've always wondered is whether the camera settings do the exact same thing Nikon Capture does to RAW photos? |
I don't know and it's certainly possible but, The programmer in me says that the RAW converter has the ability to make a better JPG file because it's not under the resource and time constraints that the camera is. A big selling point of cameras is the frame rate so there must be a compromise between the camera processing the JPG and getting it to the memory card vs. processing the next image. I also doubt the camera has anything like the proportional CPU power of a PC most of us run so again there must be some sort of compromise. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 04:36:42 PM · #78 |
I personally take the opposite approach. I want my images to be as bland and unprocessed out of the camera as possible because I feel it gives me the greatest flexibility of which way to go with the photo once I can see it larger.
I'd be too afraid of bumping up the contrast in the camera only to find I wish it had less contrast on my computer. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 05:49:18 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by megatherian:
Something I've always wondered is whether the camera settings do the exact same thing Nikon Capture does to RAW photos? |
I don't know and it's certainly possible but, The programmer in me says that the RAW converter has the ability to make a better JPG file because it's not under the resource and time constraints that the camera is. A big selling point of cameras is the frame rate so there must be a compromise between the camera processing the JPG and getting it to the memory card vs. processing the next image. I also doubt the camera has anything like the proportional CPU power of a PC most of us run so again there must be some sort of compromise. |
Not so much really, as there is a typically a custom processor in the camera that is extremely good at doing that one thing, very well. Your desktop computer is quite good at processing images, and writing documents and sending email and a whole host of other things. But it isn't very good at anything at all, really. Your camera processor is very good at creating JPEGs from RAW data, but nothing else.
So there isn't as much of a trade-off as people would initially think, in fact most desktop CPUs are going to be slower at converting a RAW file than doing the exactly equivalent conversion in the camera.
However, what there is when you do it later is a whole lot more control of the process available. And that's what this really boils down to - control.
One of the major parts of the craft of photography in the past was darkroom work. It still is the major part of the craft of photography in the digital age - photoshop usage is the major craft part of digital photography. In the past Ansel Adams was held up as a master photographer, mainly because of his mastery of the darkroom craft. The art is mostly in what you point at and what you visualise the end result will look like, the craft is in how you realise that vision in the darkroom, digital or otherwise.
Shooting JPEGs and using resize and not much else is the digital equivalent of getting all of your development done at walmart. Nothing wrong with it, but certainly the simpler way, and also the way that involves the photographer, the photographer's craft and the photographer's vision less in the final result. In part, you are employing someone else's experience to create the final result - at walmart, you are collaborating with the technician that runs the machine, with the JPEGs you are using the experience of the designers of the camera to 'develop' your image and trusting that they'll have made the right choices for your particular shot. With a RAW file and later post processing, its as if you were standing over the technician's shoulder and making suggestions along the way.
Message edited by author 2005-12-08 17:55:44. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 08:55:19 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Alienyst:
Point and shoot digital cameras, in general, are set up at the factory to produce pics that need very little or no post processing at all. On the other side, if you read Canon and Nikon websites about their digital image processors, they tell you that from the factory the cameras are set up to take pictures a little on the 'flat' side because you are EXPECTED to post process them (just as a lab would). |
Again with the funny. :) I do more editing on digital photos than I do on film. Mind you, it's an automated set of parameters. Suffice to say, no camera takes prnt ready shots out of the box. Period. :)
(says the woman who spent two hours tweaking horrible wedding shots from a digital point and shoot on "auto" mode today. ) |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 09:04:29 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by megatherian:
I'm not trying to redefine Art just trying to take your restrains off of it which are based upon your personal opinion. |
Please don't misunderstand. They are not MY restraints. This is not MY battle. I don't give a rat's heinie what anyone calls it. But this is a perennial deabte, crops up everywhere you go in the "art world", not just here in DPC (where it crops up every couple months).
Clearly, to a significant number of DPCers, "Art" is different from "craft" and they want this site to be about craft more than about art. To this mindset, for example, much of what passes for photography in other sites is "digital art" and would not belong in a place like this.
In this context it makes no sense to try to eliminate the barrier between craft & art and lump them all together. That's just what the debaters do NOT want to see happen.
I completely understand your point in the larger, philosophical context. OK? I'm even in agreement with it.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/08/2005 09:16:39 PM · #82 |
I'm not sure why some people have such a hard time seeing this:
Whether the basic PP is done in camera or in PS it is post-exposure and before print. It is "post-exposure-processing". An image that has NO post-exposure processing, by definition, is a RAW image. EVERY time you get an acceptable image out of a digital camera ready-to-print that image has been post-processed to what you consider to be an acceptable degree by the camera. Period.
Your choices, basically, if you want to produce as nearly optimum as possible an image of a given scene without using RAW, are to adjust your in-camera parameters specifically for that scene, or to leave the in-camera parameters as neutral as possible and do the same thing afterwards in photoshop. Anyone who sets their camera to what they think are the "right" settings and then never changes it and never post-processes in an image editor is fooling him/herself. These are not optimized images.
If "real" photography means settling for less-than-optimum results, then I'm not a photographer.
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/09/2005 09:22:20 AM · #83 |
. Anyone who sets their camera to what they think are the "right" settings and then never changes it and never post-processes in an image editor is fooling him/herself. These are not optimized images.
That is your personal opinion. It depends on many situations and it also depends on what kind of effect you want to create with your pictures. I personally think that the most important aspect of photography is the caracteristics of real light (when you are actually shooting the picture). I always thought that the most attracting pictures are the most simple one. Maybe I have this tendency to associate optimization with sophistication. Maybe I am trying to look for 'pseudo-perfection' in a single shot. It might be a hard work, but I know it is possible.
Message edited by author 2005-12-09 09:33:34.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2005 09:24:40 AM · #84 |
UGH! Kills this ridiculous thread. Anyone else see dead-horse beating going on here?
|
|
|
|
12/09/2005 09:26:16 AM · #85 |
|
|
|
12/09/2005 09:49:49 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
I personally think that the most important aspect of photography is the caracteristics of real light (when you are actually shooting the picture). I always thought that the most attracting pictures are the most simple one. Maybe I have this tendency to associate optimization with sophistication. Maybe I am trying to look for 'pseudo-perfection' in a single shot. It might be a hard work, but I know it is possible. |
What I think we have happening to photography is the same thing we have always have had.....a debate of technique.
Imagine the arguments when the first impreesionists turned out their paintings...or better yet..go back to cave men days.
Caveman #1 (The audience or the critic) "Rour, Urmememm memme ioottoto ik ik" Rough translation "Rour, I do not understand why you have the sabertooth tiger so orange and with such long teeth..that is not what they look like"
Caveman #2 (The artist) " Ip haerm emem, Rourok inenn irirpo dwwimmmn otoowom ....jeesh...uetiids"
Rough Translation "I am the artist, My rendition of the tiger represents the surreal existence of the tiger to the hunt...plus..I was trying out a new grunge effect...jeesh..critics"
|
|
|
|
12/09/2005 09:51:35 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Imagine the arguments when the first impreesionists turned out their paintings...or better yet..go back to cave men days.
Caveman #1 (The audience or the critic) "Rour, Urmememm memme ioottoto ik ik" Rough translation "Rour, I do not understand why you have the sabertooth tiger so orange and with such long teeth..that is not what they look like"
Caveman #2 (The artist) " Ip haerm emem, Rourok inenn irirpo dwwimmmn otoowom ....jeesh...uetiids"
Rough Translation "I am the artist, My rendition of the tiger represents the surreal existence of the tiger to the hunt...plus..I was trying out a new grunge effect...jeesh..critics" |
ROFL! Good one!
|
|
|
|
12/09/2005 10:59:45 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
. Anyone who sets their camera to what they think are the "right" settings and then never changes it and never post-processes in an image editor is fooling him/herself. These are not optimized images.
That is your personal opinion. It depends on many situations and it also depends on what kind of effect you want to create with your pictures. I personally think that the most important aspect of photography is the caracteristics of real light (when you are actually shooting the picture). .. |
I quite agree wiuth you that the "most important characteristic" of photography is "reallight". I have always been a natural-light photographer. In fact, this is WHY I made the statement I did; to capture light faithfully requires understanding of things like exposure and contrast, and setting your parameters up to display the light properly. You need a different contrast setting for shooting in the fog than you do when shooting a sunset, for example, to render each "faithfully".
R. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/27/2024 11:09:18 PM EDT.
