Why do people show us un-post-processed photos

n.t.

DavidP said:

Roger Bloemers said:

David.........all women without makeup? all of them? really?

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

--
Roger Bloemers

Well, personbally I feel that photoshop is to digital images what retouching is to film. A part of the art? Well, maybe, maybe not. To me it's cheating. But I'm a newbie, so my $.02 probably don't count for much.

gdsf2 said:

How many times have you seen folks post a nice photo and then brag
that "no post processing was done," or "right out of the camera,"
or "the only thing I did in photoshop was..."

I don't know about you, but I would rather see the photo AFTER they
have done EVERYTHING they can do to make it look its best.

Somewhere among the cereal box tests and the lens cap tests, folks
on this forum have forgotten the difference between photographs and
test shots.

Post processing is part of the art and science of digital
photography, not a way to cheat to make your pictures look better.
Be proud of your post processing skills and share them!

Jerry

Click to expand...

Well it's kinda like a naturally pretty woman who wears jeans and a T-shirt who when she walks in a room her presence is felt. Verses a woman who is made up pretty and underneath it all isn't all that.

I like seeing unprocessed images as I like to see the capabilities of the camera rather than the capabilities of the artist.

How can you tell if you like the color, contrast, sharpness etc if you're masking it with someone else's perfection of perfect?

Unprocessed images allow me to see the real deal.

Roger Bloemers said:

gdsf2 said:

How many times have you seen folks post a nice photo and then brag
that "no post processing was done," or "right out of the camera,"
or "the only thing I did in photoshop was..."

I don't know about you, but I would rather see the photo AFTER they
have done EVERYTHING they can do to make it look its best.

Somewhere among the cereal box tests and the lens cap tests, folks
on this forum have forgotten the difference between photographs and
test shots.

Post processing is part of the art and science of digital
photography, not a way to cheat to make your pictures look better.
Be proud of your post processing skills and share them!

Jerry

Click to expand...

--
Roger Bloemers

Click to expand...

--
Sean
http://www.mmsean.com
http://pbase.com/slowrey

Canon EOS-10D, Tokina 19-35mm, 50mm, 85/1.8 USM, 100/2.8 Macro USM, 100-400L USM IS, ST-E2, 550ex, Bogen Tripod & Monopod, Microdrives, Transcend, LowePro and Tamrac Bags.

you will learn. The question you have to ask is: who do you think is being cheated? Was Ansel Adams cheating when he would use dodge and burn techniques while developing? This is now done in photoshop. Are photographers cheating when they choose a film for its color cast, this is now done in photoshop.

See...

Jerry

Ole Petter Rønningen said:

gdsf2 said:

How many times have you seen folks post a nice photo and then brag
that "no post processing was done," or "right out of the camera,"
or "the only thing I did in photoshop was..."

I don't know about you, but I would rather see the photo AFTER they
have done EVERYTHING they can do to make it look its best.

Somewhere among the cereal box tests and the lens cap tests, folks
on this forum have forgotten the difference between photographs and
test shots.

Post processing is part of the art and science of digital
photography, not a way to cheat to make your pictures look better.
Be proud of your post processing skills and share them!

Jerry

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

the POINT was that ther eis no such thing as an un processed image, anywhere. and if you think you should be able to take the file right out of the camera and get a beautifully sharp, contrasty, colorful photo who's the dork?

sure as hell ain't me, it's you folks that just LOOOOOVE konica 100 speed film.

Murphy said:

JRG_Imaging said:

and i bet you consider what wal-mart does with your film wizardry
too? negative printing is altered in some form or another every
time the operator presses the big green 'print' button. custom
profiled channels, operator taste, contrast/brightness changes, a
little nose grease on the scratched part of the negative...

Click to expand...

Wal-Mart?? LOL.. I have an epson 2200 that does just as good of
a job as walmart..

I never take photos to be processed anymore.. That's what this $800
printer is for..

I learned along time ago not to put my special photo's into the
hands of a person who earns $8.50 an hour. This was the reason for
my investment in the "do it yourself" equipment.

As far as me being a "dork".. Thank you And that's MR. DORK
to you lol

Murphy

Click to expand...

JRG_Imaging said:

the POINT was that ther eis no such thing as an un processed image,
anywhere

Click to expand...

Well, even RAW conversion is a processing which bears somebody's preferences:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4701245

But the "rawer" the image, the more objective comparison is.

Mishkin said:

JRG_Imaging said:

the POINT was that ther eis no such thing as an un processed image,
anywhere

Click to expand...

Well, even RAW conversion is a processing which bears somebody's
preferences:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4701245

But the "rawer" the image, the more objective comparison is.

Click to expand...

I think your beating a dead horse....

The guy wants the jazzed up, fixed up and manipulated image for some reason.
I understand his position, I just dont agree with it..

Murphy

Broken Head said:

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

Broken Head said:

Doesn't it depend on what you are trying to show? If you want
to see the qualities of the camera, you'd want to see the unprocessed
"negative".

Click to expand...

No, you do not. Because you never know whether a dull, soft image
is dull because of the camera's shortcomings or because of lack of
processing. In the dark, all cats are grey.

If the photographer has made a truly brilliant picture we all know
at once that it would not have been possible without an image file
containing quality information to start with.

Per Inge Oestmoen
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. If the processed image is a dud, I don't
know if it is the fault of the photographer, camera, or processing.
If the processed image is great, I don't know if credit is due to the
photographer, camera, or processing.

If an unprocessed image is bad, it could be the photographer or the
camera. If I can make it look good myself with processing, then I
know that I CAN MAKE the camera's photos look good with my
processing skills.

If an unprocessed image is good, I know that (in the hands of a good
photographer) the camera can produce great images.

Click to expand...

--
JMu

Per Inge Oestmoen said:

Simon-Ph said:

When I want to see what a camera/lens is capable of, I want the
photos untouch.

Click to expand...

Please, understand that this is not the way it works. A
unprocessed, soft and incomplete image cannot show you what that
camera can do.

Per Inge

Click to expand...

Processed image shows to us what camera and you can do.

When I was choosing lenses, I digged web sites that compared lenses. What if their images were post processed? What would it tell to me? Maybe I could see that they are different performers, but how much.

If I see post processed images from two different cameras with same lenses from same spot, I would like to see them taken with the best lenses to see the difference of the cameras. With bad lenses the difference is not shown. They look more or less equal. Post processing shows capabilities of the user.

Down sampling is an another issue. When you down sample two images, the soft and the sharp, the results may look quite identical.

I would like to see both too - for different purposes.

One for showing the capabilities of the lens and camera. All the relevant data should be available for example lens, tripod/hand held, etc. Original image or 100% crop of the image saved as good JPEG as possible.

And other with the final result. Usually they are down sampled, but it would be good if there are full size image available to see the whole quality since down sampling hides things.

--
JMu

Ole Petter Rønningen said:

Well, personbally I feel that photoshop is to digital images what
retouching is to film. A part of the art? Well, maybe, maybe not.
To me it's cheating. But I'm a newbie, so my $.02 probably don't
count for much.

Click to expand...

Please understand that post processing is an integral part of digital imaging, whether one uses a scanner or a camera.

Also, there is no such thing as a good digital image straight out from the camera, and since it simply is not possible to create a sharp image unless the detail is there a well processed and detailed picture tells much more about the equipment than unprocessed, dull images.

Apart from the fact that there are many other programs than Photoshop that do the same, image editing and sharpening is not cheating, but a necessity for good digital images.

Photographers have always used functional techniques in order to bring out the best in their pictures. This has nothing with "cheating" to do, and it is part of the art.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

no photographer, especially if he considers himself/herself an artist, is ever happy with what's right out of the camera.

amateurs, however, dont know any better.

so put up, or shut up. show me some pictures to prove me wrong.

Murphy said:

Mishkin said:

JRG_Imaging said:

the POINT was that ther eis no such thing as an un processed image,
anywhere

Click to expand...

Well, even RAW conversion is a processing which bears somebody's
preferences:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4701245

But the "rawer" the image, the more objective comparison is.

Click to expand...

I think your beating a dead horse....

The guy wants the jazzed up, fixed up and manipulated image for
some reason.
I understand his position, I just dont agree with it..

Murphy

Click to expand...

gdsf2 said:

How many times have you seen folks post a nice photo and then brag
that "no post processing was done," or "right out of the camera,"
or "the only thing I did in photoshop was..."

I don't know about you, but I would rather see the photo AFTER they
have done EVERYTHING they can do to make it look its best.

Click to expand...

Depends on whether you want to see the picture or understand the camera, I guess. There is an argument for each way. However, it is a good idea to TELL us what was or was not done unless the exif data is available.