Reading mode: Light Dark

Best DSLR for no post processing

Go to last post
The fact of the matter is, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting in any way by saying this.....but if nicey looking pictures straight out of the cam are what you are after, then, again, a point and shoot camera is what you are looking for!

Now, before anybody gets thier panties in a ruffle again over that statement, let me clarify. The only way you are going to get images straight out of the camera that will need no "obvious" post processing done on them is if the camera applies a large amount of processing to the images itself in it's output. Now, this of course begs SEVERAL important questions.....and I'm not trying to be a "computer nerd" by saying this.....so get real for a minute.

The questions it begs are, to begin, what color space are you wishing to output in for print? If you are looking for an instant gratification camera, then most likely it will be outputting in sRGB, a very dubious and questionable color space for high quality print work for several reasons that I won't go into here. Do you plan on taking your files to Walmart for printing? Or a high quality lab whom will almost certainly request files be in Adobe RGB? Aside from that, how will any camera get color and saturation levels spot on every single time without the need for at least a little balancing to taste, unless assembly line style shooting really is your cup of tea without any regard whatsoever to quality? This leads me to point out that if ANY of those images from a supposed camera which is applying more than usual processing on it's output are needing to be edited further in PS, they will be that much harder to edit appropriately becuase you have already lost a significant amount of gamut and range from the camera's over-saturation of color and you will not get it back, ever. Big reason why most DSLR's do NOT over-saturate, over-sharpen and apply minimal contrast to thier files.....the results of these tweaks will be much easier to accomplish with much greater control, flexibility and quality if done in POST.

The entire question is vague and obtuse in the extreme, and the drawbacks of cameras that apply overdue processing on thier files are'nt even being mentioned so far here. Over-sharpening of files can lead to CA, noise, banding, and any of a number of other anomalies. Do you care? Would'nt you rather have control over these issues than to let some dumb micro-processor decide what's acceptable for you and your client?

The fact of the matter is, the reason most point and shoot cameras SEEM to have nicer output at first glance to the casual observer is due to this processing in-camera. But to the more enlightened PS user, they are garbage, because if they do happen to posess any need for additional corrections they will present real problems for it over the un-processed RAW image file which has much broader range and color gamut within which to work. So, no offense intended, but this is the reason most pro-level DSLR's do not do it......it is assumed that the working professional knows how to process thier own files, and needs that extra gamut within the files to work. No offense intended again, but that is why I recommended a point and shoot happy-cam. That's what they are made for.....people who don't want to be "computer geeks", don't want to spend any time editing thier own work, and just want to shoot and be happy.

Good luck finding a pro level DSLR that does all the work for you. It would'nt be a professional tool if it did.....too many variables involved, and there is no camera in existence yet which has built in mind reading abilities as yet.
I'm done with this rather silly thread.
 
If you are working in a controlled lighting environment and you know what you are doing...there is no reason you can't get good quality files right out of the camera, get the white balance right, lighting ratio, and exposure and just fire away! I do portrait sessions with my D60 where the files are so good, I don't need to touch them. Even if you do, correct the first one and then just batch the other 159 with an action while you go off and have a glass of wine. I even do weddings with this camera and it usuallly only takes me about 45 min. to batch correct 400+ files taken under varied lighting conditions.

I also have a lab that will do this for me at .40 per 4x6 and 2.50 per 8x10.
Its the dame with film
David M. said:
Good game plan.
This is a pro DIGITAL photography forum. As such, I would expect
that some members here would automatically recognize that most
professional level DSLR's (at least ones worth considering) have
outputs that are not optimised for final processing, in other
words, it is generally expected that users of these cams will be
doing post processing on thier image files regardless. Hence, most
of thier putputs may seem "flat", not extremely sharp, and so on.
This is due to a minimum of processing done on the files in-camera,
as well as a broader color gamut in which to post process in. If
you are truly as educated in Photoshop technique as you claim, then
you should realize that cameras which apply a larger amount of
processing to thier files are harder to color balance and adjust
for contrast/sharpness than ones that are minimally corrected, as
it leaves a broader range within which to work.
That said, no offense intended. I just took your post as someone
would take a similar posting in a film developers forum.....asking
which camera that would minimise processing I assume would beg the
same or similar type of response.
And no, I don't use point and shoot cams of any kind. I enjoy post
processing and find ways to expedite my workflows, rather than look
for easy ways out of it by settling for images processed by a
camera which thinks it's smarter than I am.
Poser said:
Just to clear things up... My Photoshop skills are not the
question, I am perfectly versed when it comes to any editing needed
by photoshop. Thats probably why I used to give seminars on the
prog. So afraid of it....nah thats not it :) But concerned over
the out of camera pic, yes. Like I said 160+ pics a day after the
shoot to correct even batched is not my idea of a well spent
afternoon. If it comes down to Point & shoot cam(Like you
suggested) to do the job that a DSLR should do, I think I will
continue shooting with my RB, Hasselblad, Bronica, or whatever
other cam I have on my shelf.

BTW: Do you really photograph your portraits with a point & shoot cam?

B
David M. said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
Excellent post.

"and you know what you are doing"> > >

It does really boil down to that, does'nt it? ;-P
Andrew Chiciak said:
I also have a lab that will do this for me at .40 per 4x6 and 2.50
per 8x10.
Its the dame with film
David M. said:
Good game plan.
This is a pro DIGITAL photography forum. As such, I would expect
that some members here would automatically recognize that most
professional level DSLR's (at least ones worth considering) have
outputs that are not optimised for final processing, in other
words, it is generally expected that users of these cams will be
doing post processing on thier image files regardless. Hence, most
of thier putputs may seem "flat", not extremely sharp, and so on.
This is due to a minimum of processing done on the files in-camera,
as well as a broader color gamut in which to post process in. If
you are truly as educated in Photoshop technique as you claim, then
you should realize that cameras which apply a larger amount of
processing to thier files are harder to color balance and adjust
for contrast/sharpness than ones that are minimally corrected, as
it leaves a broader range within which to work.
That said, no offense intended. I just took your post as someone
would take a similar posting in a film developers forum.....asking
which camera that would minimise processing I assume would beg the
same or similar type of response.
And no, I don't use point and shoot cams of any kind. I enjoy post
processing and find ways to expedite my workflows, rather than look
for easy ways out of it by settling for images processed by a
camera which thinks it's smarter than I am.
Poser said:
Just to clear things up... My Photoshop skills are not the
question, I am perfectly versed when it comes to any editing needed
by photoshop. Thats probably why I used to give seminars on the
prog. So afraid of it....nah thats not it :) But concerned over
the out of camera pic, yes. Like I said 160+ pics a day after the
shoot to correct even batched is not my idea of a well spent
afternoon. If it comes down to Point & shoot cam(Like you
suggested) to do the job that a DSLR should do, I think I will
continue shooting with my RB, Hasselblad, Bronica, or whatever
other cam I have on my shelf.

BTW: Do you really photograph your portraits with a point & shoot cam?

B
David M. said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
 
Considering 34 years in the biz (not a weekend warrior), I guess you could say I know what I'm doing :) So no advice from you is needed on photographing my clients or trying to get a business plan started. Thanks though I'm sure you would have great ideas especially with your helpful insights on my original post ;)

B
David M. said:
"and you know what you are doing"> > >

It does really boil down to that, does'nt it? ;-P
Andrew Chiciak said:
I also have a lab that will do this for me at .40 per 4x6 and 2.50
per 8x10.
Its the dame with film
David M. said:
Good game plan.
This is a pro DIGITAL photography forum. As such, I would expect
that some members here would automatically recognize that most
professional level DSLR's (at least ones worth considering) have
outputs that are not optimised for final processing, in other
words, it is generally expected that users of these cams will be
doing post processing on thier image files regardless. Hence, most
of thier putputs may seem "flat", not extremely sharp, and so on.
This is due to a minimum of processing done on the files in-camera,
as well as a broader color gamut in which to post process in. If
you are truly as educated in Photoshop technique as you claim, then
you should realize that cameras which apply a larger amount of
processing to thier files are harder to color balance and adjust
for contrast/sharpness than ones that are minimally corrected, as
it leaves a broader range within which to work.
That said, no offense intended. I just took your post as someone
would take a similar posting in a film developers forum.....asking
which camera that would minimise processing I assume would beg the
same or similar type of response.
And no, I don't use point and shoot cams of any kind. I enjoy post
processing and find ways to expedite my workflows, rather than look
for easy ways out of it by settling for images processed by a
camera which thinks it's smarter than I am.
Poser said:
Just to clear things up... My Photoshop skills are not the
question, I am perfectly versed when it comes to any editing needed
by photoshop. Thats probably why I used to give seminars on the
prog. So afraid of it....nah thats not it :) But concerned over
the out of camera pic, yes. Like I said 160+ pics a day after the
shoot to correct even batched is not my idea of a well spent
afternoon. If it comes down to Point & shoot cam(Like you
suggested) to do the job that a DSLR should do, I think I will
continue shooting with my RB, Hasselblad, Bronica, or whatever
other cam I have on my shelf.

BTW: Do you really photograph your portraits with a point & shoot cam?

B
David M. said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Sd,

So back to the origonal post..

I have a 10D, and the first 500 or so pics from it were awesome, best iv ever seen straight out of the camera...

Then i decided to get creative, and the next 1000 were disapointing, i needed long hours hunched over my PC monitor to get acceptable results.

So in the various forums here (but mainly the Pro forum) i noticed time and time again people remarking how -0.3 stop or -0.7 stop helped there photos no end especialy with highlights..

Then it all came back to me, before i was a 'slide film' man and exposed naturaly for the highlights (without any -0.3 stop comp etc), which is what i first did with the 10D when it was new! and had 500 or so good photos..

I now shoot with the 10D (and also by the way my D1x) only in 'low contrast light' avoiding harsh middle of the day contrast.
early in the morning or after 5pm or so.
Useing a 2 or 3 stop ND grad filter if i must shoot in high contrast.

And the 10D is again is giving great photos (Raw images) which need very little post processing other than mostly a slight Levels tweak, result is less time over a PC monitor and more time outside..

so i think low contrast light would help ease the post workflow to a minimal amount.

This has also been true for my D1x which has far more lattitude with highlights it seems to me, the D1x in particular is stunning in Low Contrast Light, just a tweak here and there in Capture 3.5, a few moments realy and im done!
maybe the D100 is the same, but i dont have any experiance with that DLSR..

hope this helps!

regards Mike.
Ed Scherin said:
it is the reason i stopped in my tracks and read this thread.

what the original poster got for "advice" was a bunch of nonsense
about the "need" to spend hours of post-processing time.

certainly you can spend the time behind a computer screen to tweak
your images to the "nth" degree. but that is (apparently) not what
the poster wants to do---this poster is more like me---someone who
wants to be out in the world making new images, not "fixing" images
created by a high-speed camera.

i put about a half million images on my original nikon d1 before i
put it on ebay---and i'll tell you i spent COUNTLESS hours of
photoshop and bibble time correcting images.

i now have about 30000 images out of a d1x---with still COUNTLESS
hours of photoshop and bibble time.

i actually make a living with my cameras, i put kids through
college, and pay mortgages, and it is a full-time gig. you guys
that want to be computer nerds can play with a computer.

i NEED a high-end, high speed camera, that gives acceptable images
just about straight out of the camera. any shoot i do brings home
thousands of images---and i know the difference between a consumer
digicam and a DSLR.

and i suspect there are many others just like me.

i would WELCOME a straight answer to the original poster's question
if anyone has solid advice.
Poser said:
Just to clear things up... My Photoshop skills are not the
question, I am perfectly versed when it comes to any editing needed
by photoshop. Thats probably why I used to give seminars on the
prog. So afraid of it....nah thats not it :) But concerned over
the out of camera pic, yes. Like I said 160+ pics a day after the
shoot to correct even batched is not my idea of a well spent
afternoon. If it comes down to Point & shoot cam(Like you
suggested) to do the job that a DSLR should do, I think I will
continue shooting with my RB, Hasselblad, Bronica, or whatever
other cam I have on my shelf.

BTW: Do you really photograph your portraits with a point & shoot cam?

B
David M. said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Nature love it or leave it - you cant ignore it.
 
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.
Click to expand...
I don't have an S2 Pro (had a great deal of interest in one), I have a 10D, and I follow this "A" versus "B" stuff carefully. For a properly setup studio lighting situation, there is no doubt in my mind the S2 Pro is better ROOTC if your criteria is "minimum post production work".

Regardless of "my mind", I think it still boils down to what lens system are you using today. In spite of differences in ROOTC performance, you can always (with a little work) tailor your digital workflow to make anything work VERY well for both you and your customers.

Now I have to admit there is a lot of confusion in my mind regarding many of the "pros" in this forum. I'm not a pro, but have a little experience in this arena. A long time ago, I shot enough weddings to pay off a huge collection of Canon prime lenses (the old FD and Fl lenses). I lived in Phoenix, AZ. I sent all my film off to Primary Color (in Louisanna) for processing, proofs, and final prints (because they are top notch). All 8x10s were done in my darkroom (naturally, to pay off my darkroom equipment). I wanted good quality for my customers and I'm a very fussy person. Well, all that wedding stuff was a LOT of work. My wife helped with the weddings by posing folks and helping with my flash meter. Had to spend time with customers before and after the event. I could not believe how much time it took to do all this.

Digital and time - now here is where things get interesting regarding the "Pros" in this forum. I know how much time and effort is required to get a good print regardless of how good the picture ROOTC is. Well, honestly, I don't know how some of the guys in this forum can take 500 pictures in a wedding shoot, process them, make prints by whatever means they choose, and still have time to eat.

I swear by everything that is holy to me, if I had to make a living at "wedding photography", I would definitely stick to film and send the canister to a top notch lab. I know there are many Pros that do a lot of studio work. Still, they had do invest a lot of time to get their workflow smooth (read profitable). I always thought Stanton (a long time poster to this forum) was a REAL sharp guy and (I think) it took him about a year to get everything digital working smoothly to his personal satisfaction (he is a superb photographer).

I love digital. I shoot digital, scan film, and edit images all for my personal satisfaction and without a doubt, I can beat any service out there when it comes down to the final output (of course, I may do it over and over again until I get it just right). At his point in time, in general, digital provides me with the best overall performance (versus 35 mm film which I still shoot BTW). From a business standpoint, digital could do well for you once you get above around 25 percent of the "hill to climb". Until then, don't sell your film equipment.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
 
well, i don't think it's a silly thread, and everything you say is true.

some of us own fast "pro" digicams for their speed of use. i have a 60 watt digital camera battery in a holster and many times i will be at an outdoor event and rackup 4 or 5 thousand images in an afternoon shooting non-stop.

and the images from the d1x will be 99% spot on focus, and exposures will be acceptable.

but IF you are working fast and furious in a rapidly-changing environment where machine gun shooting is necessary, and you are working outdoors and a few clouds, etc. will change your white balance, and if you are the least bit finicky about how your images look you will have a huge task with photoshop.

i shot 15000 images at mardi gras with my d1x---all with different ambiant lighting conditions, and rapidly changing weather. it took about 2 weeks of an assistant's time to tweak the images to my satisfaction so they were ready for sale.

a high speed camera speeds work flow, a high speed camera creates lots of files, lots of files demand lots of post production.

sure the consumer digicam can make ok looking files, but it cannot shoot fast action.

so that's the reason a high end camera with some sort of "fuzzy" logic is needed when you NEED to get the work out fast.

and when it is available it i will buy it.
David M. said:
The fact of the matter is, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting
in any way by saying this.....but if nicey looking pictures
straight out of the cam are what you are after, then, again, a
point and shoot camera is what you are looking for!
Now, before anybody gets thier panties in a ruffle again over that
statement, let me clarify. The only way you are going to get
images straight out of the camera that will need no "obvious" post
processing done on them is if the camera applies a large amount of
processing to the images itself in it's output. Now, this of
course begs SEVERAL important questions.....and I'm not trying to
be a "computer nerd" by saying this.....so get real for a minute.
The questions it begs are, to begin, what color space are you
wishing to output in for print? If you are looking for an instant
gratification camera, then most likely it will be outputting in
sRGB, a very dubious and questionable color space for high quality
print work for several reasons that I won't go into here. Do you
plan on taking your files to Walmart for printing? Or a high
quality lab whom will almost certainly request files be in Adobe
RGB? Aside from that, how will any camera get color and saturation
levels spot on every single time without the need for at least a
little balancing to taste, unless assembly line style shooting
really is your cup of tea without any regard whatsoever to quality?
This leads me to point out that if ANY of those images from a
supposed camera which is applying more than usual processing on
it's output are needing to be edited further in PS, they will be
that much harder to edit appropriately becuase you have already
lost a significant amount of gamut and range from the camera's
over-saturation of color and you will not get it back, ever. Big
reason why most DSLR's do NOT over-saturate, over-sharpen and apply
minimal contrast to thier files.....the results of these tweaks
will be much easier to accomplish with much greater control,
flexibility and quality if done in POST.
The entire question is vague and obtuse in the extreme, and the
drawbacks of cameras that apply overdue processing on thier files
are'nt even being mentioned so far here. Over-sharpening of files
can lead to CA, noise, banding, and any of a number of other
anomalies. Do you care? Would'nt you rather have control over
these issues than to let some dumb micro-processor decide what's
acceptable for you and your client?
The fact of the matter is, the reason most point and shoot cameras
SEEM to have nicer output at first glance to the casual observer is
due to this processing in-camera. But to the more enlightened PS
user, they are garbage, because if they do happen to posess any
need for additional corrections they will present real problems for
it over the un-processed RAW image file which has much broader
range and color gamut within which to work. So, no offense
intended, but this is the reason most pro-level DSLR's do not do
it......it is assumed that the working professional knows how to
process thier own files, and needs that extra gamut within the
files to work. No offense intended again, but that is why I
recommended a point and shoot happy-cam. That's what they are made
for.....people who don't want to be "computer geeks", don't want to
spend any time editing thier own work, and just want to shoot and
be happy.
Good luck finding a pro level DSLR that does all the work for you.
It would'nt be a professional tool if it did.....too many variables
involved, and there is no camera in existence yet which has built
in mind reading abilities as yet.
I'm done with this rather silly thread.
Click to expand...
 
Hey J A K,

Yes indeed i often wonder how a Pro Photog post edits 500 RAW files in between other shoots in an average week!

Maybe they eat and sleep by there computer!....

they have my respect though for the sheer amount of work they must get through.

hmm i suppose they have a P.Shop Action which automatically does the batch work, cant think of any other way...

regards Mike..
J A K said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.
Click to expand...
I don't have an S2 Pro (had a great deal of interest in one), I
have a 10D, and I follow this "A" versus "B" stuff carefully. For
a properly setup studio lighting situation, there is no doubt in my
mind the S2 Pro is better ROOTC if your criteria is "minimum post
production work".

Regardless of "my mind", I think it still boils down to what lens
system are you using today. In spite of differences in ROOTC
performance, you can always (with a little work) tailor your
digital workflow to make anything work VERY well for both you and
your customers.

Now I have to admit there is a lot of confusion in my mind
regarding many of the "pros" in this forum. I'm not a pro, but
have a little experience in this arena. A long time ago, I shot
enough weddings to pay off a huge collection of Canon prime lenses
(the old FD and Fl lenses). I lived in Phoenix, AZ. I sent all my
film off to Primary Color (in Louisanna) for processing, proofs,
and final prints (because they are top notch). All 8x10s were done
in my darkroom (naturally, to pay off my darkroom equipment). I
wanted good quality for my customers and I'm a very fussy person.
Well, all that wedding stuff was a LOT of work. My wife helped
with the weddings by posing folks and helping with my flash meter.
Had to spend time with customers before and after the event. I
could not believe how much time it took to do all this.

Digital and time - now here is where things get interesting
regarding the "Pros" in this forum. I know how much time and
effort is required to get a good print regardless of how good the
picture ROOTC is. Well, honestly, I don't know how some of the
guys in this forum can take 500 pictures in a wedding shoot,
process them, make prints by whatever means they choose, and still
have time to eat.

I swear by everything that is holy to me, if I had to make a living
at "wedding photography", I would definitely stick to film and send
the canister to a top notch lab. I know there are many Pros that
do a lot of studio work. Still, they had do invest a lot of time
to get their workflow smooth (read profitable). I always thought
Stanton (a long time poster to this forum) was a REAL sharp guy and
(I think) it took him about a year to get everything digital
working smoothly to his personal satisfaction (he is a superb
photographer).

I love digital. I shoot digital, scan film, and edit images all
for my personal satisfaction and without a doubt, I can beat any
service out there when it comes down to the final output (of
course, I may do it over and over again until I get it just right).
At his point in time, in general, digital provides me with the best
overall performance (versus 35 mm film which I still shoot BTW).
From a business standpoint, digital could do well for you once you
get above around 25 percent of the "hill to climb". Until then,
don't sell your film equipment.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
Click to expand...
--
Nature love it or leave it - you cant ignore it.
 
I've been on both sides of this fence. Yes, labs do a LOT for the professional photographer. That said, most have workflow/equipment that handles much of the work with very good quality and little human involvment. Retouching is where non digital pro labs slow way down and get very expensive.

Enter digital, and that is a mute point. Pro digital labs can do color correction, even retouching, in the blink of an eye, and get a print out the door FAST. So for the digital photographer, there are pro labs that produce high quality output inexpensively and will require the photog to do....nothiing other than order and upload the images.

If the client base is upscale, and demanding, graphic artists are still in demand, and it can take days of back and forth before an image is approved. A large marketing firm was doing a billboard for a famous country (male) artist. A friend who was doing all the work said this vain (and rather ugly) guy spent weeks, and put the project behind schedule with a complete digital makeover that rivaled Michael Jacksons entire carreer of plastic surgury, and then some!

For the photographer doing their own post processing....l. A good photographer, who is used to shooting in camera (good expoures, good composition) can get away with doing VERY little post processing using digital.

I can not speak to the S2, but with my D1x, I can get VERY accurate color and exposure in camera. In fact, as good, and most often better then with any film equipment.

I can and do produce quality prints for cleents in a 15 minutes with my setup using the Espon 2200, and photoshop. For most portrait type work, I can adjust color, contrast, remove a blimish or two, resize, sharpen and print out an 8x10 in under fifteen minutes. The majority of that used by in print time (2200!=super fast). If I screw up the expousures, or a lot of touch-up is required, the time spent can be much greater.

That's a far cry from the days of even 1 hour turnaround on proofs, and generally a few hours to days on enlargements...

Ron
JohnM. said:
...after all, the things the film lab did for you previously, you
have to do
yourself now on the computer. Exposure error compensations,
contrast corrections, color corrections...... you name it. If you
have ever developed and copied your films in the darkroom, you
certainly knew that pictures didn't come perfect out of the camera.

The film was only a starting point. If you had a lab do the work,
you never saw this. Likewise with digital pictures. What you get
out of the camera is often just a starting point.
Click to expand...
 
You seem to have a penchant for proclaiming over and over again your experience in the field. Which begs the question.....why ask anything here then if you already know it all?

P.S.
I have a sneaky suspicion your nickname fits you very well. ;-P
Poser said:
B
David M. said:
"and you know what you are doing"> > >

It does really boil down to that, does'nt it? ;-P
Andrew Chiciak said:
I also have a lab that will do this for me at .40 per 4x6 and 2.50
per 8x10.
Its the dame with film
David M. said:
Good game plan.
This is a pro DIGITAL photography forum. As such, I would expect
that some members here would automatically recognize that most
professional level DSLR's (at least ones worth considering) have
outputs that are not optimised for final processing, in other
words, it is generally expected that users of these cams will be
doing post processing on thier image files regardless. Hence, most
of thier putputs may seem "flat", not extremely sharp, and so on.
This is due to a minimum of processing done on the files in-camera,
as well as a broader color gamut in which to post process in. If
you are truly as educated in Photoshop technique as you claim, then
you should realize that cameras which apply a larger amount of
processing to thier files are harder to color balance and adjust
for contrast/sharpness than ones that are minimally corrected, as
it leaves a broader range within which to work.
That said, no offense intended. I just took your post as someone
would take a similar posting in a film developers forum.....asking
which camera that would minimise processing I assume would beg the
same or similar type of response.
And no, I don't use point and shoot cams of any kind. I enjoy post
processing and find ways to expedite my workflows, rather than look
for easy ways out of it by settling for images processed by a
camera which thinks it's smarter than I am.
Poser said:
Just to clear things up... My Photoshop skills are not the
question, I am perfectly versed when it comes to any editing needed
by photoshop. Thats probably why I used to give seminars on the
prog. So afraid of it....nah thats not it :) But concerned over
the out of camera pic, yes. Like I said 160+ pics a day after the
shoot to correct even batched is not my idea of a well spent
afternoon. If it comes down to Point & shoot cam(Like you
suggested) to do the job that a DSLR should do, I think I will
continue shooting with my RB, Hasselblad, Bronica, or whatever
other cam I have on my shelf.

BTW: Do you really photograph your portraits with a point & shoot cam?

B
David M. said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have an Olympus E20. I can't imagine it's output being very much different from the 10's other than an extra mp of res.

I find that many of the Oly's files do need some amount of processing, at least for saturation and color balance. But that leads me to reiterate my previous postings about pro level output......the color space in which the Oly outputs in is very neutral, and hence it posesses a wider gamut in which to work over other more processed files straight out of the cam. They are hence much easier to work on, and don't blow out as soon, and can be tweaked with flexibility.

Many inexperienced photogs will compare such output from a cam and say it looks terrible as opposed to the output of, say a point and shoot. What they don't realize is that the point and shoot cam is over-processing the images, adding too much of the red channel levels or what have you, and over-sharpening the files. They can't be manipulated with as much flexibility or accuracy as the more neutral, wider space file.
Phil Vouers said:
olympus e10 and nikon d100
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
--
Phil Vouers
Professional Photographer
http://www.goochs.com
Click to expand...
 
Never said I know everything. If I did, I would not be asking for advice. As I said, I don't shoot digital so I have no experience in this realm of photography. I'm just looking out for my best interest in a new investment from those who are qualified to answer my original post.

BTW: I do like your comment on my nick. Did bring a smile to my face after a sucky day. :) Later bro

Bradley
David M. said:
P.S.
I have a sneaky suspicion your nickname fits you very well. ;-P
Poser said:
B
David M. said:
"and you know what you are doing"> > >

It does really boil down to that, does'nt it? ;-P
Andrew Chiciak said:
I also have a lab that will do this for me at .40 per 4x6 and 2.50
per 8x10.
Its the dame with film
David M. said:
Good game plan.
This is a pro DIGITAL photography forum. As such, I would expect
that some members here would automatically recognize that most
professional level DSLR's (at least ones worth considering) have
outputs that are not optimised for final processing, in other
words, it is generally expected that users of these cams will be
doing post processing on thier image files regardless. Hence, most
of thier putputs may seem "flat", not extremely sharp, and so on.
This is due to a minimum of processing done on the files in-camera,
as well as a broader color gamut in which to post process in. If
you are truly as educated in Photoshop technique as you claim, then
you should realize that cameras which apply a larger amount of
processing to thier files are harder to color balance and adjust
for contrast/sharpness than ones that are minimally corrected, as
it leaves a broader range within which to work.
That said, no offense intended. I just took your post as someone
would take a similar posting in a film developers forum.....asking
which camera that would minimise processing I assume would beg the
same or similar type of response.
And no, I don't use point and shoot cams of any kind. I enjoy post
processing and find ways to expedite my workflows, rather than look
for easy ways out of it by settling for images processed by a
camera which thinks it's smarter than I am.
Poser said:
Just to clear things up... My Photoshop skills are not the
question, I am perfectly versed when it comes to any editing needed
by photoshop. Thats probably why I used to give seminars on the
prog. So afraid of it....nah thats not it :) But concerned over
the out of camera pic, yes. Like I said 160+ pics a day after the
shoot to correct even batched is not my idea of a well spent
afternoon. If it comes down to Point & shoot cam(Like you
suggested) to do the job that a DSLR should do, I think I will
continue shooting with my RB, Hasselblad, Bronica, or whatever
other cam I have on my shelf.

BTW: Do you really photograph your portraits with a point & shoot cam?

B
David M. said:
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I find it interesting in the film world that the output of a p&s or slr require the same degree of post processing. In fact the p&s may require more to try to make up for difficiencies in the lens and/or auto-metering.

But in the digital world many p&s cameras output 'auto processed' photos that require less post processing (or post processing to undo the overprocessing - unless you like the effect) than most dSLRs. But of course there are grey areas - some P&S cameras let one reduce sharpening, contrast, saturation - but in most(all?) not to the degree of dSLRs.

So why don't some dSLRs have a simple adjustment or setting to bump up these factors that help contribute to a print ready (but often over processed) image? I haven;t done the research, but don't dSLRs have options for increase sat, contrast, sharpen, etc?

So getting to my main thought.... For years folks used SLRs as P&S cameras when the need was there or because SLRs were so common, why is this option wrong for dSLRs?

Al
 
I believe that all of the current DSLRs have adjustments to deal with saturation/sharpening/color mode/etc.. The new Canon 300D may have less than others, I know that it does vary between some of the other DSLRs, so this can give you the same "effect".

The other thing that I belive goes on here is that many people do not realize just how much post-processing goes into an image from film. We are used to dropping off a roll of exposed film and getting "proper" prints back. Now, in the digital world, we do this ourselves.

So, no, I don't think you are wrong at all. In the DSLR world you just have many options that you can tweak, either pre- or post-processing. The disadvantage of pre-processed tweaking is that you can't go back and "fix" as much.
noisebeam said:
I find it interesting in the film world that the output of a p&s or
slr require the same degree of post processing. In fact the p&s
may require more to try to make up for difficiencies in the lens
and/or auto-metering.

But in the digital world many p&s cameras output 'auto processed'
photos that require less post processing (or post processing to
undo the overprocessing - unless you like the effect) than most
dSLRs. But of course there are grey areas - some P&S cameras let
one reduce sharpening, contrast, saturation - but in most(all?) not
to the degree of dSLRs.

So why don't some dSLRs have a simple adjustment or setting to bump
up these factors that help contribute to a print ready (but often
over processed) image? I haven;t done the research, but don't
dSLRs have options for increase sat, contrast, sharpen, etc?

So getting to my main thought.... For years folks used SLRs as P&S
cameras when the need was there or because SLRs were so common, why
is this option wrong for dSLRs?

Al
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
 
J A K said:
I swear by everything that is holy to me, if I had to make a living
at "wedding photography", I would definitely stick to film and send
the canister to a top notch lab. I know there are many Pros that
do a lot of studio work. Still, they had do invest a lot of time
to get their workflow smooth (read profitable). I always thought
Stanton (a long time poster to this forum) was a REAL sharp guy and
(I think) it took him about a year to get everything digital
working smoothly to his personal satisfaction (he is a superb
photographer).
Click to expand...
Well, you are comparing the idea of bringing all processing in house vs. NOT bringing it inhouse.

This was not even an option for any small photographer until digital IMO.

So if no post processing is the goal, find a good digital lab! In fact, most professioinal labs now do digital. They can post process digital easier then film as there is NO up front processing, and digital previewing is a snap.

Another advantage to digital is that one can edit right away, and then just send the images that need printing to the lab. There has basically been a huge step removed.

So while I would agree bringing the ENTIRE workflow inhouse digital is not an overnight process, it's possible. Photographers are doiing it all the time, and saving processing costs in the long run.

But let's not just say film is the way to go because there is not post processing. There is HUGE post processing, and just because film shooters do not consider inhouse processing with film does not mean there is not a cost or process involved.

As one who has worked extensively in the darkroom in both color and B&w, I'd say digital is MUCH easier. This is a big reason why Ilfochromes still cost a fortune to have done, and I can get a digital 16x20 of excellent quality for around $20.

Ron
J A K said:
I love digital. I shoot digital, scan film, and edit images all
for my personal satisfaction and without a doubt, I can beat any
service out there when it comes down to the final output (of
course, I may do it over and over again until I get it just right).
At his point in time, in general, digital provides me with the best
overall performance (versus 35 mm film which I still shoot BTW).
From a business standpoint, digital could do well for you once you
get above around 25 percent of the "hill to climb". Until then,
don't sell your film equipment.

Regards,

Joe Kurkjian, Pbase Supporter

http://www.pbase.com/jkurkjia
Click to expand...
 
Poser,

I've gone through much of the same researching that you appear to be in the middle of...grrrr. It can be a pain.

For what it's worth I do portrait work too and ended up deciding to go with the Sigma SD-9. The Foveon sensor appears to be more ideally suited for portrait work than do the Bayer pattern sensors. Skin tones appear to come out better and resolution is excellent.

There are several other reasons why I went with the SD-9, but I just got back from a 9 hour drive - I'm just about brain dead. Check out the Sigma forum. It's a pleasant surprise.

Using a dSLR gives you the ability to set yourself apart from the "thundering herd" in that you can shoot RAW and do your own postprocessing - that's the name of the game for some of us who object to shooting "flat" flash images.

Good luck,

Cliff.
Poser said:
Between the 10D and the S2, which would deliver pictures that do
not need post production work? In studio Portrait pics. Thanks for
your time and comments.

B
Click to expand...
--
Cliff. Johnston
 
Some of us need DSLR features like quick shot to shot but are waiting for a cam with a user definable set for at least eliminating the effects of its own anti-aliasing filter. And that is very possible, or will be.

Post process eats into shooting time and/or necessitates hiring assistants to handle the enormous workload produced. As DSLRs evolve, there will be more and better ways to bump a simple "Levels" histogram or run USM in camera.
David M. said:
The fact of the matter is, and I don't mean to be rude or insulting
in any way by saying this.....but if nicey looking pictures
straight out of the cam are what you are after, then, again, a
point and shoot camera is what you are looking for!
Now, before anybody gets thier panties in a ruffle again over that
statement, let me clarify. The only way you are going to get
images straight out of the camera that will need no "obvious" post
processing done on them is if the camera applies a large amount of
processing to the images itself in it's output. Now, this of
course begs SEVERAL important questions.....and I'm not trying to
be a "computer nerd" by saying this.....so get real for a minute.
The questions it begs are, to begin, what color space are you
wishing to output in for print? If you are looking for an instant
gratification camera, then most likely it will be outputting in
sRGB, a very dubious and questionable color space for high quality
print work for several reasons that I won't go into here. Do you
plan on taking your files to Walmart for printing? Or a high
quality lab whom will almost certainly request files be in Adobe
RGB? Aside from that, how will any camera get color and saturation
levels spot on every single time without the need for at least a
little balancing to taste, unless assembly line style shooting
really is your cup of tea without any regard whatsoever to quality?
This leads me to point out that if ANY of those images from a
supposed camera which is applying more than usual processing on
it's output are needing to be edited further in PS, they will be
that much harder to edit appropriately becuase you have already
lost a significant amount of gamut and range from the camera's
over-saturation of color and you will not get it back, ever. Big
reason why most DSLR's do NOT over-saturate, over-sharpen and apply
minimal contrast to thier files.....the results of these tweaks
will be much easier to accomplish with much greater control,
flexibility and quality if done in POST.
The entire question is vague and obtuse in the extreme, and the
drawbacks of cameras that apply overdue processing on thier files
are'nt even being mentioned so far here. Over-sharpening of files
can lead to CA, noise, banding, and any of a number of other
anomalies. Do you care? Would'nt you rather have control over
these issues than to let some dumb micro-processor decide what's
acceptable for you and your client?
The fact of the matter is, the reason most point and shoot cameras
SEEM to have nicer output at first glance to the casual observer is
due to this processing in-camera. But to the more enlightened PS
user, they are garbage, because if they do happen to posess any
need for additional corrections they will present real problems for
it over the un-processed RAW image file which has much broader
range and color gamut within which to work. So, no offense
intended, but this is the reason most pro-level DSLR's do not do
it......it is assumed that the working professional knows how to
process thier own files, and needs that extra gamut within the
files to work. No offense intended again, but that is why I
recommended a point and shoot happy-cam. That's what they are made
for.....people who don't want to be "computer geeks", don't want to
spend any time editing thier own work, and just want to shoot and
be happy.
Good luck finding a pro level DSLR that does all the work for you.
It would'nt be a professional tool if it did.....too many variables
involved, and there is no camera in existence yet which has built
in mind reading abilities as yet.
I'm done with this rather silly thread.
Click to expand...
 
The problem with DSLRs is that these "adjustment" settings for contrast, saturation, etc are fairly marginal. The feature is there, but it won't save you from Photoshop. And none of these user adjustments are "smart filters" which would (ideally) vary their intensity from photo to photo, according to some math, within a user defined range. In other words, for example, the in-camera sharpening might vary based on distance from subject (defined by point of focus lock), and you could decide how much the min and max would be-- 2 to 7, or maybe 0 to 3, whatever you want.
Bill Dewey said:
The other thing that I belive goes on here is that many people do
not realize just how much post-processing goes into an image from
film. We are used to dropping off a roll of exposed film and
getting "proper" prints back. Now, in the digital world, we do
this ourselves.

So, no, I don't think you are wrong at all. In the DSLR world you
just have many options that you can tweak, either pre- or
post-processing. The disadvantage of pre-processed tweaking is
that you can't go back and "fix" as much.
noisebeam said:
I find it interesting in the film world that the output of a p&s or
slr require the same degree of post processing. In fact the p&s
may require more to try to make up for difficiencies in the lens
and/or auto-metering.

But in the digital world many p&s cameras output 'auto processed'
photos that require less post processing (or post processing to
undo the overprocessing - unless you like the effect) than most
dSLRs. But of course there are grey areas - some P&S cameras let
one reduce sharpening, contrast, saturation - but in most(all?) not
to the degree of dSLRs.

So why don't some dSLRs have a simple adjustment or setting to bump
up these factors that help contribute to a print ready (but often
over processed) image? I haven;t done the research, but don't
dSLRs have options for increase sat, contrast, sharpen, etc?

So getting to my main thought.... For years folks used SLRs as P&S
cameras when the need was there or because SLRs were so common, why
is this option wrong for dSLRs?

Al
Click to expand...
--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com
Click to expand...
 
Ron Frank said:
Enter digital, and that is a mute point.
Click to expand...
mute means unable to speak, like a deaf-mute.

The word you meant to use is "moot" - a "moot point" (the only phraseology I ever heard of with the word) means the point no longer has meaning given the (new) conditions. Sometimes it is shortened to "that is moot", same meaning.

Not criticism, trying to be helpful. English is a very difficult and irregular language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kkardster
*** New Wildlife Thread Begins 05 November 2025 ***
Replies
7
Views
16K
bluzman
bluzman
kkardster
*** New Wildlife Thread Begins 18 October 2025 ***
Replies
19
Views
3K
bluzman
bluzman
kkardster
*** New Wildlife Thread Begins 05 October 2025 ***
Replies
9
Views
2K
Vaidotas Smelte
Vaidotas Smelte
R
JPEG or RAW, when/where/why
6 7 8
Replies
150
Views
5K
ishwanu
I
kkardster
*** New Wildlife Thread Begins 20 September 2025 ***
Replies
3
Views
611
Sactojim
S

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top