Straight out of the camera

[Corsa]

What I really would like to see as I personally think it is definatly a must for those who are addicted to photoshop is a lesson on how to get it right!!!!!!!
What I mean is this it is quite simple really How to take a proper photo and not digitally reworked as I call it collage.

Dave

[Norman]

Re: Straight out of the camera

Now that really would be something .... a video in a magazine. :D

[monobrow]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I guess it depends what you are after.

When you say photoshop, do you mean after effects or tweaking such as colour, contrast, brightness?

[Corsa]

Re: Straight out of the camera

Now here is mthe problem,colour,contrast and brightness are fine in my view as that is called processing BUT what I really hate with a vengance is when the photo is manupulated to shuch an extent as a new sky is added,etc etc etc and dont get me started on HDR ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave.......now gone for a lie down

[Fergie]

Re: Straight out of the camera

Untouched photos - that would be a great idea (or not?).

[carregwen]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I find it hard to understand why some people will spend a fortune on cameras and lenses in a quest to 'get it right', but when it comes to processing (and especially processing software) they throw up their hands in horror and revert to being photographic puritans. That's not a criticism of you, Corsa, I was just speaking of people generally.

Photography, it seems to me, is a series of process steps that come together (hopefully) to make a good image. It could involve having a good lens, the right lights, using a tripod, going out at the right time of day, having a good idea, being creative, using a filter. So why slam the brakes on when you reach Photoshop? If you have done all of the other things right, then what is wrong with doing Photoshop right, and completing the process?

If you shoot RAW, as I do, you have to process the image, as the camera doesn't do it. I never change skies, but I do control colour, exposure, WB, sharpness etc. Below are two versions of the same shot. The first is RAW out of the camera. The second is the RAW processed to TIFF using CS4. I'll stick with the latter one.

[Guest]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I think the first image looks far more natural whereas the second one does not.
Just my opinion and I know there will be many who disagree.
I'm grateful to all you 'proper' photographers for all the really useful information I see every day on here.

[rhodopsin]

Re: Straight out of the camera

What I really would like to see as I personally think it is definatly a must for those who are addicted to photoshop is a lesson on how to get it right!!!!!!!
What I mean is this it is quite simple really How to take a proper photo and not digitally reworked as I call it collage.

Dave

Hi Corsa

I think I'm with you on this.

The way the camera is setup (ISO, Aperture, Shutter Speed, and Focal Length) will always get the saleable image. Also, the way the image is developed, exposed and manipulated in the dark room on the paper will give you the image which was intended to be taken.

However, when I took my C&G in photography it became quite clear to me that whatever the media used (film or digital) the image had to be manipulated to get the correct effect. I realised that the darkroom is in fact the same as the Photoshop software and therefore I have accepted the fact I have to use computer software to be able to sell my digital work.

Don't get me wrong I would prefer to sell the images I took without manipulation but irrespective of the media changes may still be necessary.

[hotkeez]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I fully agree with you Corsa, some pics you see have been altered so much that you cant see what the pic was to start with.

[Rob.Richards]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I fully agree with you Corsa, some pics you see have been altered so much that you cant see what the pic was to start with.

I am not really for or against. I personally want to take the best possible image in camera, to avoid mucking about in photoshop. However, you are right some pictures do get altered, but maybe that is the way the digital artist/photographer wishes you to see it rather than what you expected to see?!?!

[carregwen]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I personally want to take the best possible image in camera, to avoid mucking about in photoshop. However, you are right some pictures do get altered, but maybe that is the way the digital artist/photographer wishes you to see it rather than what you expected to see?!?!

This thread is moving ever closer to that old question "what is art?" I think there's a need to draw a distinction between what is on the one hand using Photoshop to correct any faults in taking the shot, and on the other hand trying to reinterpret what has been taken by the camera.

A painter may go to a landscape scene and see an actual view. He may record it accurately in which case we call it representational. Or, he may interpret the scene differently using the scene as a basis for the finished painting. What he is doing is asking the viewer to see something different about what may be to the viewer a familiar scene. He is helping the viewer create in their minds an alternative view - not so it looks 'pretty' or 'different', and not just for ornamentation sake, but so they can appreciate a facet of the scene that may not have occurred to them before. It's a mental thing, as well as visual.

I see no difference between a painter doing that and a photographer doing it. And if it means using Photoshop to do it, then so be it. Yes, you try to get as much done in the camera as you can, but there comes a point where PS is unavoidable if you want something to be a different vision of something. Doing it well, without it smacking of deliberate artifice is the hard part.

[Dave]

Re: Straight out of the camera

Any digital image you take is being processed for you in camera – it is never going to look exactly like the subject. Why on Earth would you settle for some engineer in Japan's setting to effectively batch process every photo you take?

Presenting your image is part of photography is it not? If you don't process it in some way, how are you going to make sure that the internet version looks anything like the one on your wall?

With the advent of digital imaging we have been given tools with which to express our creativity. Those who don't embrace them are missing the point and missing out.

[carregwen]

Re: Straight out of the camera

You might all want to take a look at this photographer - Chris Tancock. He lives near me, and I have met him. His work is highly processed in Photoshop, but he does also take a great deal of care and time when taking the shots. His work is highly original in terms of how he interprets landscape, and his work sells for considerable amounts of money. http://web.mac.com/christancock/Site...ogue_Menu.html

Sophocles said "'The end excuses any evil."

[Dave]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I like Tancock's work. Funny you mentioned his site, as I bookmarked it just a week or two ago. Great to see the square format being used.

[carregwen]

Re: Straight out of the camera

I like Tancock's work. Funny you mentioned his site, as I bookmarked it just a week or two ago. Great to see the square format being used.

I asked him about that. He said no one else seemed to be doing it, and it made his shots different.