Native vs processing with (LR etc)

[discoman5]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

Processing seems like getting AI to answer test questions ( assuming it gets it right)- and doesn’t help one truly assess the quality of the camera in one’s use of lightning and other parameters.

of course there’s a time and place for processing such as weddings, etc. 

Edited November 23, 2024 by discoman5

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Like film without darkroom and printing?  
 

Taking a photograph in the camera is less than half of the process of making a photograph. It is the first step in a creative journey. 
In postprocessing there is indeed AI nowadays, but one cannot ask questions, it is a matter of giving instructions. The creative process is a matter of the photographer understanding his tools and applying them properly. The photographic basics like light, composition etc are just the starting point. 

[Anbaric]

29 minutes ago, discoman5 said:

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

Processing seems like getting AI to answer test questions ( assuming it gets it right)- and doesn’t help one truly assess the quality of the camera in one’s use of lightning and other parameters.

of course there’s a time and place for processing such as weddings, etc. 

There are many over-processed images, of course, at least to my taste, but basic adjustments like brightness, contrast, colour correction, dust spotting and cropping are regarded as acceptable even in fields with strict standards like photojournalism. And remember that the image you get straight out of the camera is the result of various processing decisions made by the manufacturer you may not agree with, and if you shoot raw, the default output of the raw converter depends on further decisions made by its programmers.

[schaffi]

There is also processing in the Camera, no one can see a raw file! 

These processing you can infuence with the settings of Picturestyle, WB, Cotrast, Saturation an so on! Is the same as with software on the PC, but there are more and better tools to get the picture like you want it.

[jaapv]

 

36 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

There are many over-processed images, of course, at least to my taste, but basic adjustments like brightness, contrast, colour correction, dust spotting and cropping are regarded as acceptable even in fields with strict standards like photojournalism. And remember that the image you get straight out of the camera is the result of various processing decisions made by the manufacturer you may not agree with, and if you shoot raw, the default output of the raw converter depends on further decisions made by its programmers.

I partially agree, and of course there are obvious restrictions in photojournalism, competitions, etc., but in general I think that most photographers will opt for the best possible representation of their vision and the maximum control over the end result, which requires -inevitably- (sometimes little, sometimes extensive) postprocessing. I think that the idea of "straight out of camera" photography being the "purest" is a misconception. 

[LocalHero1953]

Remember that from when photography was invented until recent decades it has presented a bizarrely distorted one-sided view of the world: i.e. in monochrome! Somehow, producing images in monochrome straight out of the camera is seen as high-value pure photography.🤷‍♂️ And if you can persuade yourself that your colour images straight out of the camera are natural, remember also that they are in two dimensions, not three, and they are static, not moving. So why should we worry about introducing our preferred other alterations into our images?

Photography always offers a distorted view of the world. It cannot depict the full smooth colour gradations in a scene; our eye adjusts to see detail in deep shade and in bright sunlight in the same scene, but without our input cameras cannot do the same; and our film images have non-natural grain and digital images have pixels and noise. Should we keep these defects visible or attempt to reduce their visual impact? Or exploit them for aesthetic effect?

My view is that the straight out of camera image is just an intermediate reflection onto the film or sensor of the external world. If that's all you want, then fine - there's nothing wrong with it. But nor is there anything intrinsically meritorious, 'pure' or natural about it. If I'm taking a serious shot (not just a casual snap) then I have an idea of the final image I want to create, and the 'intermediate reflection' is just my starting point.

YMMV! 

[vidya46]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was a believer in this way of thinking about photography .must be least processed.But changed my opinion when I learnt more about digital cameras and white balance ,color cast etc...IMO all sunsets/sunrises need processing way more that well lit scenes..At the min I am doing Exposure and dynamic range settings..

All those curves, levels etc come in when the photo was shot in a difficult situation.

[evikne]

I find under-processed images just as annoying as over-processed ones.

In this forum, both are about equally common.

[markie linhart]

It’s quite simple imho, just think film to darkroom print with all its dodging and burning. As photographers we interpret what we see, that’s the whole point…

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, vidya46 said:

All those curves, levels etc come in when the photo was shot in a difficult situation.

And when you want to make most of the quality hidden in the raw file... 

[rogxwhit]

2 hours ago, discoman5 said:

the images you get out of the camera without any processing

But there are no such things as unprocessed images!  Every image, even ex-camera, is a result of processes.

To elaborate, I'm all in favour of judging the light, striving for a good exposure and framing with intent.  But this may be only half the story, and there is more potential.

Within that rectangle, for instance, there are always tones - wouldn't you like to play with them, exert control and produce a certain result and meaning?

Of course it can be your choice not to do that, but in each case you have already intervened and delegated control by your choice of medium and equipment, none of which you have normally made. 

A photograph, even ex-camera, is an artificial construct and not reality, even if it may be held to represent reality.  It can, though, be engineered to express an emotional truth, which may at least some of the time be its deepest function.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2024 by rogxwhit

[jaapv]

Exactly - the file out of the camera is a half-product.

[pgk]

2 hours ago, discoman5 said:

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

Why? Does the image straight out of the camera have any special characteristics which make it 'better' than one which has had more input from the photographer applied to it? Any digital image has had software utilised to present it to us, so relying on generic adjustments made according to the software engineer who decided how the initial output should look makes less sense than viewing an image adjusted to the photographer's preferences. I very, very rarely am satisfied with the way an image looks straight out of camera, in fact I can't remember the last time that this was the case.

[LocalHero1953]

And welcome to the forum @discoman5!😁

[jaapv]

It is a slide film mindset ( coming from slide film - I know 🙃 ) that has no bearing on either negative film or digital files.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

3 hours ago, discoman5 said:

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

Processing seems like getting AI to answer test questions ( assuming it gets it right)- and doesn’t help one truly assess the quality of the camera in one’s use of lightning and other parameters.

of course there’s a time and place for processing such as weddings, etc. 

So, go ahead, press the button and let Leica do the rest.

Have fun.

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, discoman5 said:

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

Processing seems like getting AI to answer test questions ( assuming it gets it right)- and doesn’t help one truly assess the quality of the camera in one’s use of lightning and other parameters.

of course there’s a time and place for processing such as weddings, etc. 

Processing and printing skills have long been an important part of the photographic process.  Every stage from shot to final display requires critical judgment and refined technique for optimal results.  Some of the world’s finest photographers outsourced their images for processing, editing and printing. Only the tools and materials have changed since early days.
 

Jeff

[250swb]

14 hours ago, discoman5 said:

New photographer so nowhere near your level but I can’t help but think that true photography should probably rely on the images you get out of the camera without any processing.

 

Editing (post processing) should be done to make the photograph as good as it can be, and if you can't recognise what that is or how to do it you shouldn't call yourself a photographer. 

But you should be reminded that you've already edited the world around you by pointing the camera at something and pressing the button so don't act innocent saying the only processing should be done by the camera, I mean did it go out for a walk by itself?

But basically it's a question of not understanding anything about the history of photography and what good photography seeks to achieve, instead you are abiding by rules that entrench you as a 'snapper' and not a photographer.

Here is a page showing how a darkroom printer 'adjusts' the basic negative to make it into an iconic image, and while this is about film the principles apply equally to digital photography, read and be educated

https://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2024 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pedaes]

49 minutes ago, 250swb said:

showing how a darkroom printer 'adjusts' the basic negative

Also worth Googleing how Ansel Adams famous image 'Moonrise,Hernandez,New Mexico' was created in the darkroom. 

Edited November 24, 2024 by pedaes

[pgk]

9 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

This is one of the most divisive questions being asked in photographer.

Again, I thought we'd got over this. There will always be a blur between what might be described as photographs (images primarily produced without alterations which alter their 'essential truth' for want of a better, encompassing description) and photographically derived digital images, or even digital images produced which look photographic despite being created incomputer from the ground up. Any division is false in that it does not stop to ask questions about individual images which is where the real nitty gritty of how they are produced explains what they are. There are no absolutes as ever.