My opinion.

[paul linton]

Re: My opinion.

Looking forward to seeing your images Daisy M.

Paul

[the black fox]

Re: My opinion.

Looking forward to seeing your images Daisy M.

Paul

You could make that into a song Paul ,

Daisy daisy show us your photos do ,
I'm just crazy waiting to see a few
As long as there in JPEG
And include a scene or two

You can shoot a marriage
Or even a horse and carriage
They must look neat
You must not cheat ,
No cloning allowed from you

Sorry if it offends but I couldn't resist it
LOL

[digiman]

Re: My opinion.

Wow, What a thread!

[Dave61]

Re: My opinion.

Hi Daisy, yesterday I had a lovely walk along Devils Dyke, I shot in Raw+Jpeg. I have edited some of the Raw ones, but I have to say that I really don`t like getting the greens too bright. I had a really good think last night while reading through this great post of yours, and I have to say that on some of the shots I will not go OTT as my eyes did not see big and bright colours. Like you at the end of the day, I don`t want to go too crazy on my shots as they are for me and how I like them.

[Tigger]

Re: My opinion.

is this thread still running ....

Daisy I'm like many interested to see your straight of the camera photos with no editing - although as you must be shooting Jpeg the camera will have already processed your photos - does this not go against your views on images, how are you going to take digital photos?

[Nathaniel]

Re: My opinion.

I Still would like to see this thread on the Photo discussion thread!

[Swanny48]

Re: My opinion.

Personally I think it's been a very interesting and relevant first post by a new member. If it's that important to have it in photo discussions Nat, why not start your own thread such as "out of camera shots v edited shots".

John

[rcarca]

Re: My opinion.

Personally I think it's been a very interesting and relevant first post by a new member. If it's that important to have it in photo discussions Nat, why not start your own thread such as "out of camera shots v edited shots".

John

Nat's views on the subject are well documented in other threads. I don't think we need another

[Tigger]

Re: My opinion.

I Still would like to see this thread on the Photo discussion thread!

Nat I was under the impression Robert had already passed his views on this

Nat's views on the subject are well documented in other threads. I don't think we need another

agree, not another train wreck thread please

[Nathaniel]

Re: My opinion.

Thanks John and Richard. I have deliberatlely kept out of this as I have made my views known in other threads. The only point I would make here is that I also edit my pictures, although as little as possible. I also shoot in RAW/Jpeg on certain occasions.

[Dave61]

Re: My opinion.

IMO I think this is a great post, as like I have said Yes I will use Raw+Jpeg, but when I come to edit the shot I will take it easy as I would like to get the shot how my eyes saw it in the first place.

[Enigma]

Re: My opinion.

Daisy - Canon used to offer a Digital Verification Kit costing around £500-£700. This allowed digital images to be validated for forensic use. I don't know what methods are used these days to certify an image as authentic.

Personally, I shoot raw and edit images to improve the final result. I will remove objects if they distract but I will never add objects to enhance. I will stitch multiple images to overcome field of view limits. I will blend images to overcome sensor dynamic range limits. I will correct distortion to overcome lens limits. I will do colour adjustment.

One of my frustrations is actually that I am not proficient enough with PS to transform merely good images into wow ones.

Am I cheating? Not in my opinion because I would never attempt to claim the image was straight from the camera.

[RPlatt]

Re: My opinion.

I've lurked for ages reading the site almost daily. I think Daisy's point may have been missed.

There are many antithetical debates; protection-filters versus naked (no filter), Post-processing versus None, Zoom versus Prime, Retouching versus leave alone, RAW versus JPEG, DPP versus Adobe LR/PS, Rule-of-thirds versus ad hoc. The list goes on. It has been said there is no wrong ... there is no right. Which in my own very humble opinion is correct. It's up to the photographer to make the photo how they want it (well except for a professional doing a commission when the client will have input as they are paying).

Now back to Daisy's point. For stock agencies it is essential that the photograph is as authentic (whatever that means to the agency) as possible. They will be selling images on to news agencies for example ... and reputational harm will be caused if the photograph isn't ‘authentic’. For some people it's just getting it right in their eyes (so removal of street furniture etc, obfuscations, changing the sky, etc are okay) and some people just like to be masters of light and dark and use their skills and knowledge of PP software to the maximum. To others it's a full fat art form so the final image may be a composite of many images and nothing about it is 'real'.

So cheating? Again, in my very humble opinion, only if an image is modified to deceive (e.g. that UFO mothership hovering over somewhere sold to a magazine for money).

[Iron Man]

Re: My opinion.

Well, what a read.......

Trouble here is Daisy has NOT said what she considers "cheating", I think she needs to clarify it. I'm in agreement with the majority of people here, that it's not cheating to adjust "image parameters" to produce a final image.

[ColytonJohn]

Re: My opinion.

Another lurker emerges from the shadows so welcome RPlatt (Robert, Roger, Ray, ...?) Another fine 'first post' that eloquently echoes some of the points already made:

Reportage: MUST be as accurate a representation as possible. No argument but, as has been said, the in-camera 'processing' to jpeg may not provide the degree of accuracy demanded so PP will be necessary to adjust sharpness, white balance and brightness.

The rest is, to reuse the excellent term, a full-fat art form where the photographer is the artist and at liberty to process away to their hearts content. If they like it, good. If nobody else does, tough.

Now Daisy, please come back to us with your opinion on all this waffle preferably posting some out-of-camera images - even the one with that wee beastie on the sensor as someone may be able to clone it out

Cheers,
John