What if you arent into post processing ?

[CatLikeFelix]

The combination of Bridge & Adobe Camera Raw is a pretty straight forward way to convert & PP and you can open images up in PS from there if you need to. You should have that if you have Photoshop - I believe it's part of the same package

 

[imqqmi]

Thank you all , as usual you have come up trumps in your replies.

Firstly i had better point out i have used computers since 1983 and have used photo software since Deluxe paint on the Amiga right through to Lightroom 3.3

Me too, I also used DeluxePaint and Cloanto at some point And AdPro and photogenics. Those were the times

Lightroom 3 book by Martin Evening but i find that still too much to be dealing with, i'd need a year off to study just that , its huge !!

To learn something new and learn it well some say takes at least 2 years, like learning a new language or learning how to dance. I think it's the same with pp. You'll just have to start somewhere and work your way through it.

But most of it is truly daunting especially when you dont know where to begin. Thats the thing..... where to begin !!

The best way to know where to begin is by looking at others photos a lot. I regularly check the main page on http://www.photosig.com . Often there are very nice shots there and comments which may teach you what makes or breaks such shots. You can try capturing something similar and process it the way you've seen somewhere. It's important to have a point of reference to base your pp decisions on. Visiting the retouching forum often may also give you a plethora of ideas, all the different ways people treat the same image.

When you've got some idea how you want an image to look you can start finding your way though the enormous amount of controls in LR. It's a good way to start with the topmost panel with the histogram (and how to read it), WB, Exposure, contrast and saturation. After that I'd take a good look at the curve.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the image you've shot should be 80% there already. The other 20% you bring out with some pp.

I think sticking to LR for the most part can work to your advantage. It's a very fast work flow once you understand it. I spend up to 3 minutes (average 1 minute) on each image in LR. Noise reduction (neat image) and sharpening is applied in CS2.
--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

The DSLR jargon cheatsheet:
http://www.jmbfoto.nl/dslrcheatsheet.pdf

Sunset blending tutorial:
http://www.jmbfoto.nl/tutorial/blendingTutorial01a.pdf

 

[savaytse66]

Get the exposure RIGHT the 1st time and you don't need to mixed with raw. I used to shoot SLIDE FILM and you have them RIGHT in the 1st time, no burning or dodging in the dark room.

I carried the same SLIDE philosophy with DSLR. Get it right the 1s time, don't bother with the rest. Raw does improved dynamic range, but I didn't find the difference to be dramatically enough to justified the long hours behind computer.

But it's more about just getting the exposure right. Exposure is relatively easy these days. I find that being able to non-destructively adjust white balance to be a huge advantage of RAW + PP. I still carry around a gray card and use it, but I do not set the custom WB in the camera. I do it in PP. Occasionally I do set it in the camera if I'm taking a lot of pictures in the same lighting. And then I usually forget to change it in different lighting. With RAW, this is no big deal. With jpeg, my pictures would be ruined, or at least degraded.

To answer your question more succinctly. Have you try Canon's Picture Style Editor ???

• Downloaded
• shoot one RAW image
• edit the image to the Color, Saturation, Contrast you like
• save your newly created Picture Styles

Voila, from now on, you can take Outstanding well saturated JPEG images without post-processing. You can create one to imitate Nikon Vivid setting for Panasonic Dynamic setting.

But different scenes require different Styles. I agree that using custom picture styles can be a great time saver, but why not shoot RAW and apply the style in PP? I use Lightroom, and I can apply a Picture Style (or any other adjustment) to a batch of photos in seconds. And with PP, I can experiment with different styles, or apply a different style later.

It's all a matter of preference, and I try not to criticize anyone's choices. I do what works for me, and you do what works for you. It just seems to me that since storage is so cheap, why not shoot RAW for the added insurance? I honestly do very little PP on my RAW images. But when I do, I like to be able to do non-destructive editing. Plus, if a year later I want to add an artistic, creative touch to a photo, I can. Non destructively. I have thousands of RAW pictures on my storage array and they take up a little over 200GB. Considering you can get a 2TB (2,000GB) drive for as little as $75, it seems like cheap insurance to me. I guess I consider RAW more of a tool than a crutch, though crutches make good tools when you need them.

 

[windmillgolfer]

Without a doubt, RAW extracts the absolute best from the image if you have the expertise, which is art in itself, and I wouldn't claim anything other than basic skill level. However, no reason at all why you can't stick to JPEG. It will be worth trying out the various scene modes and tweaking EV compensation, saturation and noise reduction to get a look you like. Composition, light, camera stability, optimum aperture or shutter speed are all variables that combine to get a great image whether recorded in JPEG or RAW. I only use RAW if lighting is dodgy/poor or I'm simply not sure. For general sanps, there's absolutely nothing wrong with P mode - Canon, like any other major player, has massive experience and they do their best to incorporate it in the camera hardware and software, so why waste it.

I got the 500D, at a bargain price, and it is fine but, I confess, for everyday in my pocket the Lumix LX5 wins hands down (I apply same rules on using JPEG or RAW). See - http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1835962494/albums/lx5-pharoah-tutankhamun - I actually recorded RAW and JPEG but apart from one image in the album (mask at an angle) I just tweaked the JPEGs.

 

[Oilman]

If you have no intentions of PP you are not going to get the kind of pictures that the winners of the mini-challenges commonly post. Ocassionally you will get lucky, but most of the pictures you take will be like snapshots from a P&S.

There is nothing wrong with that but if that is your intention why buy a DSLR? Why not get a good P&S camera? You get "good enough" shots and you don't have to worry about exposure DOF etc.

I think that for many people a DSLR is not the right choice. Buying a DSLR means takig your photography to the next level and that involves PP among other things.
--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small

http://www.flickr.com/geofiz

 

[PhilPreston3072]

I'm a bit confused...the main reason I got a DSLR was because they shoot RAW. As soon as I got it I set it to RAW only and set the mode dial to MANUAL.

Isn't that the whole point? Or am I missing something?

Yes there's more. DSLR is also about having shallow DOF and being able to see directly through the lens via the viewfinder instead of an LCD. These are not possible with average P&S but things are changing.

You can get some cracking P&S these days that do have some manual features and will give first class results consistently (maybe not in low light so much) with very little effort on the users part.

I want to get to the stage (that a lot of people in this forum are at) where people (myself included) look at the images you've created and go "Wow!!" - You will be hard pressed to get that reaction from a P&S camera firing off JPEGS. IMHO

 

[BAK]

with film we usually wanted prints, and with digital we seem happy to see pictures on various screens, emails, etc.

You have a very advanced camera that does a million tricks most film cameras never did -- multiple autofocus spots, various metering patterns, etc.

1/ Use JPEG

2/ Learn photo styles -- landscape, portrait, etc.

3/ Exposse at least close to correct.

4/ Do a little post processing; just drag the frames you want printed to a spare memory card. No need for anything else.

5/ Take the card to Costco, etc., and press the button that tells Costco, etc. to make adjustments.

6/ Come back tomorrow, or just wander around the store, and have a hot dog.

7/ While 6/ above is going on, the store will do the same things to your digital files that it used to do with your film; adjust the filtration and color, and increaseor decrease density, as needed.

Think of post processsing as the equiv of having a custom lab make a $20 8x10 from your negative.

Do not forget your camera is very complicated, but starting with the green box will easily match most film cameras from yesteryear.

BAK

 

[aeneon]

If you have no intentions of PP you are not going to get the kind of pictures that the winners of the mini-challenges commonly post. Ocassionally you will get lucky, but most of the pictures you take will be like snapshots from a P&S.

There is nothing wrong with that but if that is your intention why buy a DSLR? Why not get a good P&S camera? You get "good enough" shots and you don't have to worry about exposure DOF etc.

I think that for many people a DSLR is not the right choice. Buying a DSLR means takig your photography to the next level and that involves PP among other things.
--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small

http://www.flickr.com/geofiz

My LX3 had most of the options of a DSLR , as it isnt a straight forward compact and i mastered that over a few months.
And as for competitions ..nahhh not bothered about those either.

Just wanted a camera that performed well in low light and at a much higher ISO than my LX3, thats all , i think jpegs out of the camera will be quite enough for my use , just need to get them right .

 

[CityLights]

True, however I'm sure you're aware the print processing did PP to the prints, and most prints would not look as good as they did if the print processing did not do any PP. In the later years of film developing prior the people switching to digital, the auto printing processors did a very good job of correcting a lot exposure errors.

That's why when someone wanted to truly wanted to learn and/or see how well their camera's metering system was doing, I tell them to shoot a couple rolls of slide film. With slides you'll get what you and the camera captured.

Agreed. But, the point of my post was:

Carefree photogs into bulk quantity and average quality: Old School, let the print shop take care of it. New School, still let the print shop take care of it. Or another choice, batch process everything at home.

Serious photogs into top notch quality: Old School, home darkroom for photo development. New School, Photoshop Post Processing.

And bottom line? Take your pick and enjoy your hobby!

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.

 

[CityLights]

But today I've become more than a bit lazy and thus I mostly shoot RAW and make the fine adjustment in PC looking the results in the big screen.

Why is using modern tools to the best they are capable lazy? That sounds smart and efficient to me.

Yes, it is best to get the picture right in the camera, but after you take the shot why not use the best tools available?

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.

 

[PhilPreston3072]

I think if we were to restrict DSLRs to only photographers who can do PP then we would probably be disqualifying a lot of gifted photographers.

Take this scenario: The person has an excellent eye for detail and beauty, frames the shot wonderfully, uses the appropriate aperture for the DOF, waits for the right light or uses the flash appropriately, uses the correct balance of ISO and Shutter speed for the exposure whilst ensuring the shot isn't blurred by handshake. Basically the person has excellent composition skills and knows how to capture the shot well with a DSLR camera.

But the person doesn't have a clue about electronic imaging parameters like hue, saturation, luminance, contrast, curves, colour temperature, sharpening, moire, AA filter, NR, dodging, burning, cloning, layering, masking etc.

Does that disqualify the person of being a good DSLR photographer and relegate the person to P&S only? I'd hate to think that. Certain shots can't be achieved with a P&S. I think Canon should do many of us who don't PP a favour and provide at least 1 Picture Style that output's colour similar to their P&S. Autumn Hues is close but still needs some tweaking in the greens. My take on the DSLR is that if the P&S can do it, the DSLR should be able to do at least the same if not more. The difference is that you have the flexibility to disable or override any functions as you desire with the DSLR.

 

[aeneon]

I think if we were to restrict DSLRs to only photographers who can do PP then we would probably be disqualifying a lot of gifted photographers.

Take this scenario: The person has an excellent eye for detail and beauty, frames the shot wonderfully, uses the appropriate aperture for the DOF, waits for the right light or uses the flash appropriately, uses the correct balance of ISO and Shutter speed for the exposure whilst ensuring the shot isn't blurred by handshake. Basically the person has excellent composition skills and knows how to capture the shot well with a DSLR camera.

But the person doesn't have a clue about electronic imaging parameters like hue, saturation, luminance, contrast, curves, colour temperature, sharpening, moire, AA filter, NR, dodging, burning, cloning, layering, masking etc.

Does that disqualify the person of being a good DSLR photographer and relegate the person to P&S only? I'd hate to think that. Certain shots can't be achieved with a P&S. I think Canon should do many of us who don't PP a favour and provide at least 1 Picture Style that output's colour similar to their P&S. Autumn Hues is close but still needs some tweaking in the greens. My take on the DSLR is that if the P&S can do it, the DSLR should be able to do at least the same if not more. The difference is that you have the flexibility to disable or override any functions as you desire with the DSLR.

Excellent response Phil , thank you .

By the way ,my whole reasoning for selling my LX3 and buying a 550d was solely because i wanted a better lowlight camera and one with a higher ISO ability without the noise factor and i have achieved that. Also, I dont think there is a compact that fits that bill in quite the same way as the 550 at present.
I think you'll understand exactly what i am getting at here.

 

[Midwest]

I like my 500d now after less than a couple of weeks using it but i'm still not sure its for me.... the only niggle thats left me thinking that now though is all the hassle of RAW and post processing that people do and think that its part of DSLR life i guess.... well i must of missed the warning on the box which said " must be bothered to post process for best results"

It depends what kind of photos you take and how much you value the best results you can get. Many people are happy with almost anything they can see on a screen or small print; others are not 'taking pictures' but making images of which they can be proud.

Look through the forums and you'll see scads of photos of ducks, trees, squirrels, pigeons, statues, and seagulls, and IMO frankly they are utterly forgettable, photos that 99.5% of viewers would never say "I want to see that one again." I regard those as 'test patterns', i.e. "Yep, the camera sure is working all right..."

And then you'll see the photos that reflect interest in and and care for the subject - whether it's a place or an event or human interest, people who take those kind of pictures will gladly do the PP'ing to make them as good as they can be. "Good enough" isn't good enough. Those are photos a person might want to view again and again. (How many times does anyone care to see the same picture of a duck, though?)

You can surely find settings on your camera that will give you good JPG's without doing PP'ing, but with a DSLR, the opportunity to do better exists.

 

[KarachiKid]

aneon,

You're a lot like me in many ways except I think you're much more skilled at computers.

I don't like sitting in front of a computer and doing ANY post processing. I just want to stick a memory card in there, load onto picassa and email to friends after a bbq, birthday, picnic etc.

I do a little bit of Photoshop and know how to do a bit of sharpening and some color management. But those are pictures I'll keep as a wallpaper for the week or marvel at myself. Ask me to use a selection tool to isolate say a person, well....ahem, you might as well ask me to carve a strawberry with a chainsaw.

I don't understand nor have the desire to understand tif/pif, jpeg, raw, bitmap, histogram, hdr or any of the electronic stuff. Even if I understand it, I don't enjoy it.

Don't let others' impositions work on your mind too much. You 'must' do this, you 'must' learn that otherwise you're inferior/stupid/idiotic etc. Forget it!

Every now and then go ahead, try some post processing. See if you begin to like it. If you do, go for it. If not, stick to what you enjoy.

Bottom line is enjoy what you do! Don't let others tell you what to enjoy simply because they do.

Love,
KarachiKid

Thank you all , as usual you have come up trumps in your replies.

Firstly i had better point out i have used computers since 1983 and have used photo software since Deluxe paint on the Amiga right through to Lightroom 3.3 which i have right now on my desktop PC along with CS4. I can sharpen jpegs and adjust WB on those if needed just fine. Admittedly Lightroom is a different story and i dont know where to even start when i have imported the RAW files into Lightroom . I just sit looking at them and think " OK so now what" ? How do i know what i am supposed to adjust , i could make them look worse to be honest , and then export them to jpeg looking nastier than the originals :| I do have the Lightroom 3 book by Martin Evening but i find that still too much to be dealing with, i'd need a year off to study just that , its huge !!

I think i would be better mastering exposure and WB in camera and just shooting jpegs as previously mentioned ( thanks posters) Unless there a foolproof step by step way to easily learn lightroom for faster results .

I can have best of both worlds and shoot RAW+JPEG but im not overly enthusiastic , by the way i currenty use CS2 - CS4 for resizing and removing unwanted items/people from shots and basic lab mode sharpening using jpegs so i guess i am already PP'ng and dont realize it. I am certainly not a snap and upload person, i DO like my photos to look good hence why i bother to have CS4 etc installed in the first place , But most of it is truly daunting especially when you dont know where to begin. Thats the thing..... where to begin !!
Thanks again everyone , you help more than you could possibly know.

--
May you be "framed"

Love,
KarachiKid

 

[Peter 13]

Just think of all the 35mm film cameras where people did absolutely no post processing. They just snapped away and dropped roll after roll of film for 4x6 prints. Occasionally, they found a picture they really liked and had an 8x10 print made. You too could do that.

They were post processed but we did not have control over that. That drove me crazy (I had my own wet lab but did not use it much). For a while, I limited my photography to travel snapshots mainly, because of that. Digital, and the abliity to pp is what renewed my interest in photography.

 

[aeneon]

I like my 500d now after less than a couple of weeks using it but i'm still not sure its for me.... the only niggle thats left me thinking that now though is all the hassle of RAW and post processing that people do and think that its part of DSLR life i guess.... well i must of missed the warning on the box which said " must be bothered to post process for best results"

It depends what kind of photos you take and how much you value the best results you can get. Many people are happy with almost anything they can see on a screen or small print; others are not 'taking pictures' but making images of which they can be proud.

Look through the forums and you'll see scads of photos of ducks, trees, squirrels, pigeons, statues, and seagulls, and IMO frankly they are utterly forgettable, photos that 99.5% of viewers would never say "I want to see that one again." I regard those as 'test patterns', i.e. "Yep, the camera sure is working all right..."

And then you'll see the photos that reflect interest in and and care for the subject - whether it's a place or an event or human interest, people who take those kind of pictures will gladly do the PP'ing to make them as good as they can be. "Good enough" isn't good enough. Those are photos a person might want to view again and again. (How many times does anyone care to see the same picture of a duck, though?)

You can surely find settings on your camera that will give you good JPG's without doing PP'ing, but with a DSLR, the opportunity to do better exists.

Fair point . But i just want to capture memories and if they look ok to me then thats enough really . Theres a point between taking photos for pleasure and looking for perfection.

But i will tell you something , i dont want to become like my pp'ing friend ( and this is 100% true) who shows me photos of his visits to Sydney and seems more interested in telling me how he adjusted the HDR in the scene rather than just show me the photos wheres he been.

 

[Oilman]

And to be honest, I expect that most people who buy entry level DSLRs never take the camera off full-auto. Most are very happy.

But I suspect that the person you describe would be quite disappointed with his or her camera. Because they have excellent composition skills, they know how they want their pictures to look. And they aren't going to look like they want them to look. They particularly are not going to look like they want in low light or other difficult shooting situations that you describe.

Then he or she will write in to this forum and complain that they spent all this money on a fancy camera and their pictures are worse than they were from their $100 P&S. They will be correct. Greater flexibility requires more advanced processing and there is a limit as to what the in-camera programming can do. The P&S does not reach that limit but the DSLR does.

With present technology you simply cannot get even close to the image quality with JPGs processed in-camera that you get with RAW images processed by the photographer. Your friend will look at the images from people like Imqqmi and Kevindar compare them to his own and may decide that it must be his kit lens, or the camera is defective or.....

Ansel Adam said that “the picture is the score, the processing is the performance”. He was right. Proper processing is just as important as picking the right moment to go click.

You make a very good point. We are all different and we all want different things out of our photography. However, why buy an expensive camera with a steep learning curve if you have no interest in making a good picture great?

--
The first camera bag you buy is always too small

http://www.flickr.com/geofiz

 

[skanter]

Fair point . But i just want to capture memories and if they look ok to me then thats enough really .

IMHO, if you want to get nice snapshots you are better off with a point and shoot.

DSLRs are really for people who have a strong interest in photography, which is a process of learning about tools, growing, and experimenting. An essential part of these tools are PP. It's hard for me to imagine anyone with a real interest in photography not making use of these tools on some level.

--
Sam K., NYC

 

[Y0GI]

Thank you all , as usual you have come up trumps in your replies.

Firstly i had better point out i have used computers since 1983 and have used photo software since Deluxe paint on the Amiga right through to Lightroom 3.3 which i have right now on my desktop PC along with CS4. I can sharpen jpegs and adjust WB on those if needed just fine. Admittedly Lightroom is a different story and i dont know where to even start when i have imported the RAW files into Lightroom . I just sit looking at them and think " OK so now what" ? How do i know what i am supposed to adjust , i could make them look worse to be honest , and then export them to jpeg looking nastier than the originals :| I do have the Lightroom 3 book by Martin Evening but i find that still too much to be dealing with, i'd need a year off to study just that , its huge !!

I think i would be better mastering exposure and WB in camera and just shooting jpegs as previously mentioned ( thanks posters) Unless there a foolproof step by step way to easily learn lightroom for faster results .

I can have best of both worlds and shoot RAW+JPEG but im not overly enthusiastic , by the way i currenty use CS2 - CS4 for resizing and removing unwanted items/people from shots and basic lab mode sharpening using jpegs so i guess i am already PP'ng and dont realize it. I am certainly not a snap and upload person, i DO like my photos to look good hence why i bother to have CS4 etc installed in the first place , But most of it is truly daunting especially when you dont know where to begin. Thats the thing..... where to begin !!
Thanks again everyone , you help more than you could possibly know.

I'm surprised that no one has suggested using the software that came with your camera: Canon's Digital Photo Pro.

DPP is not in the same league as Lightroom, but it is very simple to use and learn! With DPP you can experiment with different Picture Styles, white balance, contrast, sharpening, and exposure. All controlled with simple sliders or drop down menu choices. When you are done it will batch process the RAWs to JPEGs and you're all done!

Once you become familiar with all of the choices and what they do, then you will be better equipped to handle Lightroom - IF you desire. From what I've seen, LR is the best for processing RAWs but I also know what a steep learning curve Adobe products have.

Give DPP a try! It may surprise you with its simplicity!
--
Yogi

When you get down to the nuts and bolts of photography, the results depend on the 'nut' behind the camera!

See the 'Plan' in my 'Profile' for my current equipment.

 

[007peter]

Your contention that film didn't involve any post-processing is generally incorrect. Its just that the photo lab tech was the person doing the PP as opposed to you.

However, we were also generally much more careful with our photos on film than we are on digital - there is something to be said for that.

Just as in the film era, there is a step between the negative and the print, you can choose to configure it in camera, leave it alone, or do your own darkroom work . You can preconfigure the camera to do just about anything digital photo pro will do except chromatic aberration correction (and in the case of your 450D, vignetting correction).

Hey shorthand, I believed we are talking about 2 separate things. I"m talking about SLIDE FILM ( the old "Positive Film" used with slide projector ). Unlike a typical negative film, SLIDE shows your final result in COLOR. There is no intermediate "Negatives - to - Print" stage for post-processing manipulation. Although, I'm sure Labs apply some post processing anyways.