Sample galleries question.

Started May 30, 2012 | Discussions
Scrivener
Forum MemberPosts: 59
Like?
Sample galleries question.
May 30, 2012

I just want to verify: the sample gallery photos here at dpreview are straight out of camera, right?
No post processing?

(anyone know about DCResource galleries as well?)

Thanks everyone!

(Yes, I checked faq, even did the google thing with the website, no luck.

Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
Re: Sample galleries question.
In reply to Scrivener, May 30, 2012

Scrivener wrote:

I just want to verify: the sample gallery photos here at dpreview are straight out of camera, right?
No post processing?

(anyone know about DCResource galleries as well?)

Thanks everyone!

You're probably not going to find anything about that because it doesn't really make any sense. If it is straight out of the camera with zero processing then it's just a RAW file or a compilation of red, green and blue dots. That's all the sensor knows how to do.

Any kind of image is processed and edited whether on a computer away from the camera or on a computer in the camera. No difference. There's no way for someone or something to know whether a photographer used software on their computer or the software in their camera to edit an image. Moreover, I'm not sure why it would matter. The software built into the camera is usually not as robust nor as detailed so you're at a disadvantage if you stick to that.

Now there's some folks who have never learned how to process their own and don't even know how to use the software in their camera to do those things for them. They are stuck with whatever setting choices the factory made for them. That's the worst of both worlds, I would think.

All the camera knows how to do without editing and processing with software is to take those red, green and blue dots. After that you have two choices. You let the camera's settings and RAW converter turn it into a Jpeg or you put the RAW file into your computer and turn it into a JPeg. As far as the process goes, it's the same. The computer way just allows the photographer more control in the creation of his image. After all, that is the point, is it not?

I think the problem is that some new photographers think the camera outputs some pure image and that Post Processing is somehow cooking that image. That idea is far from the truth as you can tell if you've been reading the above. So, I doubt you will find any gallery where they claim that the images have not been processed. It might be impossible and irrelevant at the same time.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Scrivener
Forum MemberPosts: 59
Like?
Re: Sample galleries question.
In reply to Guidenet, May 30, 2012

You're probably not going to find anything about that because it doesn't really make any sense. If it is straight out of the camera with zero processing then it's just a RAW file or a compilation of red, green and blue dots. That's all the sensor knows how to do.

Um, actually I meant post processing, as in using a photo editor, not zero processing, which I agree wouldn't make sense.

I just wanted to know if the sample gallery images were 'straight off the memory card', as opposed to 'well, we sharpened it up a might, played with the levels..' and so on.

There's no way for someone or something to know whether a photographer used software on their computer or the software in their camera to edit an image.

I wouldn't bet on that.

Now there's some folks who have never learned how to process their own and don't even know how to use the software in their camera to do those things for them. They are stuck with whatever setting choices the factory made for them. That's the worst of both worlds, I would think.

The epitome of 'point and shoot'?

I think the problem is that some new photographers think the camera outputs some pure image and that Post Processing is somehow cooking that image. That idea is far from the truth as you can tell if you've been reading the above. So, I doubt you will find any gallery where they claim that the images have not been processed. It might be impossible and irrelevant at the same time.

Processed, no, post processed, well, I've seen variations of that stated all over the place, "no post-processing other than minor sharpening" and such.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
Re: Sample galleries question.
In reply to Scrivener, May 30, 2012

I call it processed instead of post processed for a reason. I try to get people to understand that there is no difference. Again, you can add a little sharpening in the camera or in the computer. You can change levels in the camera or in the computer. It's the same exact thing. No difference. Just because you choose to let the camera do it doesn't mean it is somehow more pure or more natural than if you do it in the computer. In fact, chances are its less natural because the camera software is lest robust.

How in the world could you create a website that could determine how or where a person processes or post processed an image? All sidecar information is editable. If I wanted to claim my Canon S95 took an image taken by my Nikon D700, it would just be a matter of editing the EXIF and other metadata... or strip the data all together as many do.

The key here is understanding that there is no starter or pure or straight from something image to call a starting point except those red, green and blue dots. All else is processing or post processing if you choose to call it that. Putting that Post in there is just saying you processed it twice, maybe once at the RAW to RGB level and once at the RGB to JPeg point. I don't know. Pick the point. The image starts as a 12 bit or 14 bit file and becomes an 8 bit file, losing a lot of information in the process.

I know a lot of people say things like,"straight from the camera with no PP" and other such remarks, but they don't understand either. It's no use hijacking all those posts and telling them that a lot more PP was done than that and to check the software settings in their camera to see how much. What's the point, but you asked a specific question about it and so I thought I'd answer. It doesn't matter if you don't accept it or still believe there's some magic pure "out of the camera" unedited version of a picture. I did my best.

This is one reason it's fairly useless to look at sample images on a website to help determine a purchase of a particular camera or lens. Even if the shooter doesn't touch a setting, all that conversion and editing is still done, but at default levels. Those default choices might change from batch to batch. They might be completely different from camera to camera as one set of engineers might like more red than another set or marketing decides that buyers prefer more contrast. That's just the default setting and can be adjusted the moment you remove it from the box never to be used again. Your "straight from the camera" might be a heck of a lot different from my "straight from the camera." Combine this with the Web being a poor medium for the display of images and you have a situation where using those to make a decision is counter productive.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig

Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads