Say NO to Post processing!

[SwC]

I'm not sure that post-processing is a must on an entry-level DSLR. Surely it all depends on the application of the camera and the attitude of the photographer. I.e. what does the photographer use the camera for and what is the photographer's expectation?

I spend a lot of time reading this site and these forums and have made a particular observation which I think is also at the root of opinions on post processing:

Putting the absolute cost of the 300D or any other camera to one side and concentrating on the relative cost (to other digital cameras), it must be fairly obvious that the Canon 300D is not aimed at progessional photographers, no more than the Canon 300V film camera is. I think many people do view the 300D as such, probably because of the absolute price.

Taking this to the next stage, let's put it like this. As I have travelled around the world over the last few decades I have seen tourists snapping away happily with their 35mm SLRs. I know for a fact that some of them don't really care about the details they just want photos. Many will use negative film and others will use slides. My school teachers did (many moons ago) so that they could torture (well it wasn't that bad but we thought so at the time) us by showing their trips around the worlds in the Autumn term.

I used a Canon T70, and then an EOS 500N for many years to take general photos. They always had Fuji slide (transparency) film in them. I popped them up on the wall for friends and family who oohed and ahhed over them (probably to keep me happy) and I rarely had any printed. I have a good undertanding of the principles of photography, and never used the standard modes on my 500N (which replaced the T70 because I needed Av mode!).

What I'm trying to say is that the 300D today (and I own one) is like the 500N or the 300V of the 35mm world. They are aimed at people who can afford and want more than a point and shoot. Many of these people will stick with the old 28-80mm formula for their lenses and will happily snap away. They don't know or care about post processing. With the 300D in JPEG mode, there is no reason why it can't produce images similar to a 500N with slide film. Mine does! No post processing! The 300D is not a professional SLR. It's marketed at the average user, just as the AE-1, T70, 500N and now the 300V 35mm cameras are. A professional DSLR from someone like Canon would be the 1D series. I would class the 10D as being for the serious amateur or the less fussy professional. By virtue of its position in the market and it's features it is none of these. Its the digital version of the 300V, or the old 500N. However, the 300D is an excellent package for the money when compared to the 10D and 1D series.

The 300D and a good PC/Mac setup do allow post processing which used to be the reserve of labs (home or professional). That to me that is a bonus. But it's not a must.

I have a Canon S40 P&S. It's good. But the 300D, straight out of the camera, still produces better quality photos for me. You have to know what you are doing though. It has a better sensor (larger - which is very important - and more resolution), SLR metering, execellent auto focus, rapid shutter button response (little lag), and I can look through the lens and concentrate on composure, unlike on the S40. Every reason to buy the 300D. I use the 18-55mm kit and a 55-200mm Sigma lens and I'm happy. I rarely post process but will do if I want to print something out or attempt to improve a badly exposed frame.

gah1, yes, £800 is a lot for an SLR, but £200-400 is also lot for a point and shoot. There is more to the 300D than the ability, not the necessity, to post-process (my S40 even support RAW files). I have mentioned many of these above. I personally have a compromise solution for the post processing issue which you might wish to consider. I installed the famous firmware hack and have configured it to embed a large, HQ JPEG in the RAW file. Yes, it needs more memory and takes slightly longer to store the image, but... I can download onto my PC, use BreezeBrowser to batch extract the JPEGs and use them as normal. For any that I don't like I go back to the RAW, post-process and try to improve them. Any that I really like and would like to use for more than just a quick photo album I use the RAW to post-process. It's a great way to have the best of both worlds.

So don't be put off - go for an entry level DSLR. It will still knock spots off a point and shoot! )

Cheers,
SwC.

Ok. OK. I have decided that I dont want to spend hours on post
processing. I work in front of a PC all day, Why do I want to spend
my down time in front of one as well?
So, does this mean I shouldnt have an DSLR??
Some people tell me that PPS MUST be done, others say no. I
understand that in film cameras its done by the developers but
what about slide film? That isnt PPS is it? Surely not and that
always looked great.

I will only print say 5% of my shots - the rest I will view on my
PC so do I still need PPS or not?
If so I think that DSLRs sales will be limited in the mass market
unless this is sorted out. I just cannot see that most people are
gonna want to spend ages on this and if they buy a DSLR and then
find they have to there are gonna be a hell of a lot of
disappointed people out there!!

Or is this just a Canon/Nikon issue. Someone has told me that the
Fuji S2 doesnt need PPS at all.

I need to get this clear in my mind BEFORE I shell out £1000!!!

gah1

 

[Lucky Luc]

Or maybe it was made up before you asked this same question in this forum and the D70 forum a week ago. If you don't see the value in post processing or don't think you'll have the time, then get what you believe will allow you to avoid it.

If you really are interested in getting the best images you can, then maybe try listening to some of the comments you have gotten in the 4 posts you have made on this subject.

Its very interesting. I have posted this thread about No post
processing on both the Canon 300D and the Nikon D70 sites.
Invariably canon users all seem to think PPS is virtually
compulsory whilst D70 users are a bit more - only if you want to -
is this cos the Canon NEEDS it whilst the D70 doesnt quite as
much?Or is it that Canon users are more Techies and love playing
with PPS?

I still think that sales will suffer. Most people out there want to
take pics NOT to spend ages in front of a PC. As for 'its fun', it
may be but only if I feel like it - which is different from having
to do it. I think that this is the essential difference here.

There is a site that sadly I cannot find right now that shows pics
out of a Canon 300D on a Before and AFTER post processing basis.It
is NOT a good advert! If you took the Before pictures you would be
very disappointed. Canon must know this. Yes maybe some DSLR uses
would welcome the control over the pics but others will fill these
posts with stories of softness and blame bad lenses etc. Frankly it
is not a good sales pitch.

As for P & S - well although on the face of it there are a lot out
there in reality if you want one with a long zoom say 200mm there
are not that many and they all have problems according to these
pages!

Maybe the answer is that if you want a good all round camera with a
good lens of up to 200mm or more and dont want to spend your life
in front of a PC tweaking them for ever that you have to wait a few
years for technology to catch up? I dont think so. I think that
when sales suffer at beacause of this issue the manufacturers will
do something about it.

My friend with the Fuji S2 is adamant that PPS is NOT required.
thanks for all the replies
gah1

 

[DMahoney]

There is a site that sadly I cannot find right now that shows pics
out of a Canon 300D on a Before and AFTER post processing basis.It
is NOT a good advert! If you took the Before pictures you would be
very disappointed. Canon must know this. Yes maybe some DSLR uses
would welcome the control over the pics but others will fill these
posts with stories of softness and blame bad lenses etc. Frankly it
is not a good sales pitch.

To be quite honest, I don't post process 90% of my pics. Especially lately since I am a lot more consistent in getting good exposure, proper focus, etc. I take too many to process each and every one. For viewing on screen, most of them are just fine! For the odd one I might actually want to print, THEN I post process to make sure it is right, but they are just minor tweaks. I seem to spend a lot of time fiddling around with post, but that is just playing around and trying to learn new things, because I think it is neat. But at the end of the day, I take most of my pics and stick them in a directory somewhere and view them when I want them. For printing, I do some tweaking, sharpening, then I am good to go. Do a search on this forum, I am sure you will find many examples of untouched photos straight from the Rebel. Take a look at those and decide for yourself. I do most of my shooting with the 50/1.8 and am quite happy for screen viewing with what comes out of the camera these days.

As for the S2 Pro (I think that was the one you mentioned), what are your friends "standards" like? I know many people with 2M p&s cams that skew the white balance, have lots of artifacts, and generally look "aweful" compared to what I am used to, that are tickled pink with the pics they get. And they print these things like crazy. Knowing the type of processing done in a camera, and the flexibility and control you have in post, I would imagine that even pics from your friends S2 Pro would benefit from tweaking. I've never really looked at pics from that camera before though, so I don't know what it would do "different" or "better". But take a look at a bunch of your friends pics. If you find that it takes pics you like, and would be happy with, then the choice seems obvious. Get one of those! Because if your goal is to get absolutely amazing works of art out of the camera with every click without doing any post processing, then you better be one heck of a photographer, no matter what camera you get. I imagine even Ansel Adams did darkroom work on his photos to "tweak" them. If you just want pics that you can view on screen that still look good, as long as you are a decent photographer and can get your white balance and exposure and focus right, you will likely be happy with pics right out of the camera, no matter which DLSR you decide on.

Don

 

[PaulyOly]

No post processing, taken with canon 100mm macro



slight post processing, about 2 minutes start to finish.



it helps if you start out with a fairly sharp image. I would recommend all primes if you don't want to post process and still want your pics to look sharp, but it isn't necessary. I find both these images exceptable, but i didn't sharpen the processed one very much.

here's another example, taken with the 400 f5.6L

No post processing



post processed, sharpened a bit more than the dragonfly.



At first i was put off by post processing, but now i rather enjoy it and wish i was better at it. I need a good photoshop book.
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

 

[PaulyOly]

Its very interesting. I have posted this thread about No post
processing on both the Canon 300D and the Nikon D70 sites.
Invariably canon users all seem to think PPS is virtually
compulsory whilst D70 users are a bit more - only if you want to -
is this cos the Canon NEEDS it whilst the D70 doesnt quite as
much?Or is it that Canon users are more Techies and love playing
with PPS?

I still think that sales will suffer. Most people out there want to
take pics NOT to spend ages in front of a PC. As for 'its fun', it
may be but only if I feel like it - which is different from having
to do it. I think that this is the essential difference here.

There is a site that sadly I cannot find right now that shows pics
out of a Canon 300D on a Before and AFTER post processing basis.It
is NOT a good advert! If you took the Before pictures you would be
very disappointed. Canon must know this. Yes maybe some DSLR uses
would welcome the control over the pics but others will fill these
posts with stories of softness and blame bad lenses etc. Frankly it
is not a good sales pitch.

As for P & S - well although on the face of it there are a lot out
there in reality if you want one with a long zoom say 200mm there
are not that many and they all have problems according to these
pages!

Maybe the answer is that if you want a good all round camera with a
good lens of up to 200mm or more and dont want to spend your life
in front of a PC tweaking them for ever that you have to wait a few
years for technology to catch up? I dont think so. I think that
when sales suffer at beacause of this issue the manufacturers will
do something about it.

My friend with the Fuji S2 is adamant that PPS is NOT required.
thanks for all the replies
gah1

--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

 

[Adrian E227460]

Sharp images has physical factors to consider, sharpened images are made by software. Parameters, yeah I'll give you that one. But someone who wants to maximize his/her possibilities probably uses RAW anyway.

So why do dSLR cameras have the ability to carry out
in-camera-processing, with a variety of user-selectable parameters
then?

And are we looking for sharp images or sharpened ones?

You obviously don't get the purposes of a dSLR. It is a pro(sumer)
tool. You have to do more, but in return you get exactly what you
want. With P&S the camera does in-camera-processing (sharpening
etc.) to make the image appear better. However, this is
irreversible. Someone who works professionally for printing etc.
doesn't want that, he wants to be able to sharpen/level/saturate
etc. exactly as he wants.

These are just basic complaints of P&S users switching to dSLR. If
you want the sharpness and all that corrected for you, stay with
P&S.

--
Warning: photographs steal your soul!

--
DB

--
Warning: photographs steal your soul!

 

[msport]

You set it to your preferences and then it handles a whole folder of images. http://www.photocleaner.com

AX

 

[DMahoney]

A professional DSLR from
someone like Canon would be the 1D series. I would class the 10D
as being for the serious amateur or the less fussy professional.
By virtue of its position in the market and it's features it is
none of these. Its the digital version of the 300V, or the old
500N. However, the 300D is an excellent package for the money when
compared to the 10D and 1D series.

Sounds like some good observations overall. One thing I wonder though, has to do with what you said about the 300D being the "amateur" camera, compared to something like the 1D series, which is a pro line. Are you saying that the 1D series DOESN'T need any post processing? Your arguement for the 300D was that it was an amateur camera, and the people using them won't care as much about post processing, and will also be happy with a lesser-quality image. And because of this lesser-quality, people need to post-process more to get good pics. So the inverse of that is that the pro lines take better pictures and doesn't need post-processing?

Or did I read that totally wrong? I honestly don't know, which is why I am asking. I always assumed that a 1Ds would still need some post to look its best. Granted, most people using a cam like that would be professionals, so it's safe to assume that they would be able to get better pictures out of the camera to begin with, but in my hands at least, I would expect to have to do as much post processing as I do with the 300D.

Don
Or maybe not. I'm curious though.

 

[jra111]

When I bought my Dreb I did not know the issue about PP . Now really the only thing I can really do is Auto contrast , resize, and sharpen. Anything other than that and I get lost and cant tell what looks better .

I see guys on here with pictures that blow you away ,I wish I knew Phoposhop better Like paulyoly said . I photoshop my pictures about 5% or less because when I try I suck badly.

--
Warning !
All my photos will have 1 or more of the following,
Softness,OOF,Under Exposure,Over Exposure,
and a poor attempt at Photoshopping.

 

[DMahoney]

No post processing, taken with canon 100mm macro

Nice job! I think most people would be MORE than happy with that as is! Of course, in post, you can take something great and make it even better, but I think that is a good example that, yes, the DRebel can take a good shot right out of the camera. Thanks for posting!

Don

 

[SwC]

Hi,

A professional DSLR from
someone like Canon would be the 1D series. I would class the 10D
as being for the serious amateur or the less fussy professional.
By virtue of its position in the market and it's features it is
none of these. Its the digital version of the 300V, or the old
500N. However, the 300D is an excellent package for the money when
compared to the 10D and 1D series.

Sounds like some good observations overall. One thing I wonder
though, has to do with what you said about the 300D being the
"amateur" camera, compared to something like the 1D series, which
is a pro line. Are you saying that the 1D series DOESN'T need any
post processing? Your arguement for the 300D was that it was an
amateur camera, and the people using them won't care as much about
post processing, and will also be happy with a lesser-quality
image. And because of this lesser-quality, people need to
post-process more to get good pics. So the inverse of that is that
the pro lines take better pictures and doesn't need post-processing?

What I was sort of implying was that as the 300D was aimed at the lower end of the market, the sort of people who might buy it - if the usual model holds - would be quite happy with the output of the 300D. Just as most 300V 35mm custoners will pop some print film in and toddle off to wherever on Summer holiday and take some good photos - that is, good enough for them. I would expect a Canon kit lens on a 300V to be better than a Canon Ixus or SureShot (whatever) film camera too. The same should go for the 300D when compared to cheaper P&S digicams. The more expensive non-P&S digicams (like the Pro 1) are as expensive as the 300D and might as well be an SLR. I wouldn't personally pay anyone as much for a Pro1 as a 300D - for a start, the 300D has a larger sensor and from what I've seen better images.

Or did I read that totally wrong? I honestly don't know, which is
why I am asking. I always assumed that a 1Ds would still need some
post to look its best. Granted, most people using a cam like that
would be professionals, so it's safe to assume that they would be
able to get better pictures out of the camera to begin with, but in
my hands at least, I would expect to have to do as much post
processing as I do with the 300D.

I've never used a 10D or 1D but I would expect owners of those to want to do more post processing anyway.

Alll I was saying is that the 300D should work just fine as an entry-level SLR for people who just want point and shoot with bells on. The same sort of people who have always bought entry-level SLRs for mostly P&S work. The best bit is that we can do post-processing with the 300D if we want. But the original poster seemed worried that it was required. I personally don't think it is required. I would argue that you can get very good images from a 300D straight out of the camers, better than P&S, just as a 300V with good 35mm film will be better than a cheap 35mm P&S.

Regards,
Simon.

Don
Or maybe not. I'm curious though.

 

[Dave37]

I guess I'm different than a lot of folks on the forum. I take lots of "snapshots" with my rebel. That's why I got it. I love the fast focus, the TTL viewfinder, the ability to change lenses for different types of "snapshots", and the DOF control. My snapshots are becoming much more like photographs as I learn and grow with the camera.

Do I post process? Depends on what you mean by post process. I always crop pictures that I'm going to print. Why? 2 reasons - 1) I work on how I compose my snapshots, but I'm still learning and often can better compose a shot after the fact (that is becoming less and less often, because I learn more about composing each time I do this, so my composing from behind the lens becomes better) - 2) an 8x10 vs a 5x7 vs a 4x6 have different aspect ratios which I can't allow a print shop to crop (they always lop off the top of a head or the side of the image that I want to keep). I don't really consider this post processing, but it is the same work I did on my Sony 707 before the DR.

The other time I post process is if I have somehow taken a true photograph! It surprises me when one come out, but that's good (I think it means I'm getting better). With that picture I might have one to hand on the wall (not in the basement, where my snapshots seem to show up, but in the family room). With those, I take some time and play with it to make it just what I want. I'm not yet a raw person, because my main need is for snapshots, but when I have these few photographs I process I wish I had take them in raw.

So what do I want? I want to use raw, download the pictures into a folder, and press ONE button to create a set of JPEGs of those raw photos. These would be my pictures, and for those rare keepers I would have the raw to manipulate. This is the point and shoot with an SLR nirvanna. I don't know how to do this yet, but one day this will be reality.

Bottom line - the DLSR, straight out of the camera, blows away my "point-and-shoot" 707 (a real camera, but not a DSLR). With some post processing, I can blow away the straight from the camera shots. For me, it's not worth it most of the time, but occasionally it is, and when it is I can do it. The Rebel is a great snapshot camera, and a great camera. What you chose to do with it is up to you.

Dave

 

[bvdboomen]

Many posts here say "then don't postprocess and use the dumb mode or shoot with simple p&s"

So there is an assiociation with not wanting to postprocess and stupidity?

Comeon!

I find this very denigrating.

I know that many people ARE photographers but NOT PC wizards so how about them? The idea of a camera which do the processing for you is not a bad one as long as it can be switched of for the bitfreaks among us.

I myself like photographing very much but not the afterwork. I do a little PPS if I can make a picture actually better but that's it. And yes, I use a DSLR to actually photograph.

 

[Lucky Luc]

Too bad I think it may have been wasted in this thread...

 

[photoguynorth]

I used to shoot slides before digital - because I could get what I wanted, not what the lab thought (nothing against the people working in the labs - but they were not there when I took the shot!). When I did make a print, I would scan the slide, make a print on my printer, then take the print and the slide and ask them to match the print. Now I can make the prints look like I wanted without as much work, and I have total control, whether I print it myself or take it to a commercial printer. I don't view post processing as a problem - and I dont usually spend tons of time on a picture, just a bit of levels setting, but if I have a shot that requires (or is worth) more time and effort, then I can.

FYI - I shoot JPEG not raw (don't flame me!) and try to avoid time post processing by getting it right in the camera so it's not like I am a photoshop junkie, but I still have control over the print. To me, that's why digital is so good (I will have to shoot lots more shots to make it pay for itself in film cost!)

 

[xtwizx]

I myself enjoy post processing but you can create a general photoshop action to get the look you want.(curves, contrast, sharpening and saturation) I do this on alot of shots. It gives all your pictures a similiar look, all you have to do is get the levels/exposure somewhere close manually and play your action. It's good for processing alot of average photo's. Of course there will always be some that need special attention.

Ok. OK. I have decided that I dont want to spend hours on post
processing. I work in front of a PC all day, Why do I want to spend
my down time in front of one as well?
So, does this mean I shouldnt have an DSLR??
Some people tell me that PPS MUST be done, others say no. I
understand that in film cameras its done by the developers but
what about slide film? That isnt PPS is it? Surely not and that
always looked great.

I will only print say 5% of my shots - the rest I will view on my
PC so do I still need PPS or not?
If so I think that DSLRs sales will be limited in the mass market
unless this is sorted out. I just cannot see that most people are
gonna want to spend ages on this and if they buy a DSLR and then
find they have to there are gonna be a hell of a lot of
disappointed people out there!!

Or is this just a Canon/Nikon issue. Someone has told me that the
Fuji S2 doesnt need PPS at all.

I need to get this clear in my mind BEFORE I shell out £1000!!!

gah1

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

gah1 wrote:
[snip]

(1) Only shoot in easy lighting.
(2) Learn good exposure technique.
(3) Learn good white balancing technique.

Do this, and you'll never need to post-process.

OTOH, if you shoot in difficult light and your technique isn't perfect, yep, you do need to post-process to get the pictures looking decent. That's the way the cookie crumbles...

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[tanner216371]

After reading some of the replies here, I have friends who are either freelancers or professional photographers. Equipment includes the Fuji S2 Pro and the Canon 10D. They all post process their pictures as obviously photography is their job and therefore they need to make sure that the photo they give to their customer is the best. Now of course, they did say that with a high quality lens, such as the L lens, there is less post processing they do.

So it's up to you - what do you want to do with your pictures? For yourself? Family? What type of lens are you using - as many have mentioned the quality of the lens plays a huge factor. You need to decide whether you want to improve the picture or if the picture that comes straight out of the camera is meets your personal requirements .

Of all of the photos I took and publish on the web and send to others, I post process everything. Colours tend to be a little flat as I shoot RAW and there is no post processing done by the camera in RAW mode, while my P&S camera (G2) would post process it for me and colours would be nicely saturated. Even so, I still post processed some of the photos I took with my old G2.

Mike

 

[ldkronos]

I think you took it the wrong way. Not being from the US, you may not know this but we typically use phrases like "dumb mode" to mean a mode where you don't have enough options to shoot yourself in the foot...and now that I think about, "shoot yourself in the foot" might even be a US-specific phrase. It just means that as many things as possible are done for you automatically so that you don't have to think about them (and potentially make a mistake).

So there was no insult intended. Dummy is almost a synonym for amateur or beginner.

 

[PaulyOly]

That i always shoot in parameter 2 which i believe means all parameters are at 0, someone correct me if i'm wrong.
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root