Why post processing ?! (philosophic)

[CGNKlaus]

Just a thought... :roll:

To me, post processing ist some kind of faking pictures. If you want to compare to different cameras (f.e. Canon and Nikon) your're not able to do this, because you are manipulating the pictures.

It's like buying a cake in two different bakery's. At home you put some sauce on the 1st one, but not on the 2nd. After that you claim, that the first one is the best and the 2nd bakery is not worth the money. :shock:

Some kind of philosophic discussion, but isn't it so ? :?:

As I've posted, the unprocessed pictures from my Casio 3500EX look sharper and more brilliant.

So I could ask, why I've spent 1000 bucks for my 300D...

You won't buy a BMW when it behaves like a cheap japanese one...

[RikWriter]

I halfway agree. I think, for me, the only legitimate use for postprocessing is to make the camera image more closely resemble the physical image you tried to take with it. For me, if you have to do more than crop and possibly polarize the light in postprocessing, you didn't take a good picture in the first place.

[maderito]

As I've posted, the unprocessed pictures from my Casio 3500EX look sharper and more brilliant.

So I could ask, why I've spent 1000 bucks for my 300D...

You won't buy a BMW when it behaves like a cheap japanese one...
Check back in a few months after you've put some miles on that BMW-300D. I think you'll appreciate the ride compared to the Casio. I know -- the initial price, the gas and the accessories might be more expensive -- but how do you put a price on satisfaction? :wink:

[RichardtheSane]

I don't post process my 10D raw files.

I develop them.


The images from your Casio 3500EX camera are post processed, just that the post processing happend in the camera. It is virtually impossible to take a digital image that has not been post processed.

[robekert]

To me, post processing ist some kind of faking pictures. If you want to compare to different cameras (f.e. Canon and Nikon) your're not able to do this, because you are manipulating the pictures.

I used to think this way. The images need to processed if shot in RAW format. In film photography the processing lab changes the shot depending on the development process.

Some kind of philosophic discussion, but isn't it so ? :?:

Yea :D

As I've posted, the unprocessed pictures from my Casio 3500EX look sharper and more brilliant.

Not familiar with the camera but if it is a point and shoot model or a DSLR shooting jpeg it is processing the shot "in camera". That is why it seems sharper and more brilliant (contrasty).

So I could ask, why I've spent 1000 bucks for my 300D...

Only you can answer this question. I think you make a wise choice to buy a 300D.

Your comparisons are apples to oranges. Two different cameras will give you two different means to an end.

Rob

[KennyG]

As Richard has said, the images from your Casio are processed, in fact they are far more processed than most people would do outside the camera - oversharpened and overstarurated to mention but two.

DSLR's of all brands are designed to have some processing done outside the camera. The only DSLR that has sharp out-of-the-camera images that need little or no touch-up is the 1D MK-I which uses a weak AA filter and a CCD instead of CMOS.

I'm sorry, but the argument isn't philosophical at all, it is a matter of designed workflow.

[chris.bailey]

Interesting argument BUT 'manipulation' happened even in the days of film processing, maybe not mass produced 'lab' pics but it was common to push film for particular effects, use particular grades of film eg Velvia, cross processing, dodging and burning and even re-touching of negs in manual processing. Most common was touching in catchlights on portrait negs. So now we do it digitally and it is far more accessible than it was. My current processing station is far more comfortable than my old black and white lab under the stairs. A few hours in their with the red light was something at the time but I have no hankering to go back again.

Getting the best out of a picture then is nothing new, we now just have much better tools for the job.

[jgbeam]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

[defordphoto]

Oh boy. Grab the popcorn. BMW vs. cheap Japanese? What, like an Acura NSX? A Nissan 350Z?

This is more an unexperienced photographer coming from little point and shooters and having more camera than they can handle. We see it often. You're not the first and your certainly will not be the last.

Even with your "cheap" Japanese, Digital Rebel you are on the cusp of professional equipment. Some people are just more suited to P&S cameras.

[Cordell]

DSLR post processing = your own lab at home/work on your computer

Point and Shoot post processing = in the camera and very few options in terms of controlling sharpening, saturation, contrast, exposure, etc, etc, etc.

Film is no different than option one except that you can use your home/work based lab to "manipulated" as you see fit, OR have a lab do what you want them to do.

DSLR and the money you spend for it has everything to do with controlling the entire process. For the most part P&S is for automation only (IE the camera automatically figures everything out for you).

[ohenry]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

How do you think he got prints from his negatives? Walmart?

[defordphoto]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

I can't believe anyone would even question that. He probably spent 10 times more time in his photo lab than he did shooting the actual picture. And we all (well, maybe not all) know that he would wait hours and sometimes days for the exact right moment to snap his shutter.

Photography starts when you push the shutter button. Otherwise, they are mere snapshots.

[Tom W]

I don't post process my 10D raw files.

I develop them.


The images from your Casio 3500EX camera are post processed, just that the post processing happend in the camera. It is virtually impossible to take a digital image that has not been post processed.

I think this about sums it up - While smaller P&S cameras do all of the sharpening, color correction, saturation adjustments, and such in camera with a "one-size fits all" approach, we with DSLR cameras are afforded the opportunity to have control over the development process. Yes, it means more work, but it also means that we are able to create images that have a much greater fidelity to the original scene if we wish. It also allows us the latitude to make many changes to the images, just like someone might do with their own darkroom and film.

Even the prints you get from local film developers have gone through more than just the standard "C-41" process - they often have color and contrast adjustments made to them just as digital users do with their software. In fact, I would guess that most film processing goes through a digital step as it goes from negative to print these days.

[Pekka]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

Yes, he did his own prints and experimented a lot with different techniques (toning, bleaching, burning, dodging) to make his prints look as good as possible. Many of the tricks you see in photoshop were invented in film darkrooms, e.g. UnSharp Mask was initially a technique developed for film darkrooms ( see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/ and links on bottom of that page).

What we do to the digital file (developing, post processing) before it is printed/displayed matters a lot and that work is equivalent to darkroom work when making prints. Or, it is with RAW: with JPEG you are essentially able to do merely retouching (i.e alter a finished print) because you really do not have the original negative any more!

[polloloco81]

It all depends on the extent of how much you post process. If you do sharmpening and overhall the overall quality of the photograph, it's like fixing up a house that is kinda old.

[CGNKlaus]

Thank's to all for your replies... I find it interresting how the discussion find's it's own way...

It's fun, but there is no hint from Canon in the manual about this fact...

[cecilc]

To me, post processing ist some kind of faking pictures....

Wrong .... just wrong .....
RichardtheSane said it very well:
I don't post process my 10D raw files.
I develop them.

As I've posted, the unprocessed pictures from my Casio 3500EX look sharper and more brilliant.

That may very well be true .... but it's not because those pictures haven't been processed - it's because they HAVE been processed. And without any control exerted by YOU .... the camera's done it all .....

Personally, I want more control than that ....

This is not even a philosophical question .....

[jgbeam]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

I can't believe anyone would even question that. He probably spent 10 times more time in his photo lab than he did shooting the actual picture. And we all (well, maybe not all) know that he would wait hours and sometimes days for the exact right moment to snap his shutter.

Photography starts when you push the shutter button. Otherwise, they are mere snapshots.

Exactly!

Jim

[jgbeam]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

Yes, he did his own prints and experimented a lot with different techniques (toning, bleaching, burning, dodging) to make his prints look as good as possible. Many of the tricks you see in photoshop were invented in film darkrooms, e.g. UnSharp Mask was initially a technique developed for film darkrooms ( see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/ and links on bottom of that page).

What we do to the digital file (developing, post processing) before it is printed/displayed matters a lot and that work is equivalent to darkroom work when making prints. Or, it is with RAW: with JPEG you are essentially able to do merely retouching (i.e alter a finished print) because you really do not have the original negative any more!

My question was intended to evoke such a response. I knew many here would share my feelings. I'm just beginning to learn what post processing can do for my images, but I still strive to get it right from the outset.

Jim

[SeanDempsey]

A good craftsman never blames his tools.

[Persian-Rice]

Besides the whole post proccessing deal.

If you want "casio sharp" pictures, without any post processing, why dont you consider a new lens?

Other then that, RFM said it best.

[defordphoto]

Besides the whole post proccessing deal.

If you want "casio sharp" pictures, without any post processing, why dont you consider a new lens?

Or, sell the dSLR and just use the Casio! :shock:

[defordphoto]

A good craftsman never blames his tools.

You wax so eloquently.

A good craftsman learns his tools.

[Pekka]

Would Ansel Adams done any post-processing?

Jim

Yes, he did his own prints and experimented a lot with different techniques (toning, bleaching, burning, dodging) to make his prints look as good as possible. Many of the tricks you see in photoshop were invented in film darkrooms, e.g. UnSharp Mask was initially a technique developed for film darkrooms ( see http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/ and links on bottom of that page).

What we do to the digital file (developing, post processing) before it is printed/displayed matters a lot and that work is equivalent to darkroom work when making prints. Or, it is with RAW: with JPEG you are essentially able to do merely retouching (i.e alter a finished print) because you really do not have the original negative any more!

My question was intended to evoke such a response. I knew many here would share my feelings. I'm just beginning to learn what post processing can do for my images, but I still strive to get it right from the outset.

Jim

Good attitude.

One more thing I'd like to mention: However skillfully done, post processing is not going to make a bad photo a good photo or fix out of focus or DoF issues. It can help in amplifying the message (i.e. washed colors and softness = sad/timid/distant, stronger colors and stronger contrast = strong/happy/powerful) but it is the content and way it is shot which ultimately affects people. Otherwise we'd be shooting Q-60's or resolution charts at f8 and putting sharpest and most color-accurate ones on display and sell them all day long :)

[PacAce]

Just a thought... :roll:

To me, post processing ist some kind of faking pictures. If you want to compare to different cameras (f.e. Canon and Nikon) your're not able to do this, because you are manipulating the pictures.

It's like buying a cake in two different bakery's. At home you put some sauce on the 1st one, but not on the 2nd. After that you claim, that the first one is the best and the 2nd bakery is not worth the money. :shock:

Some kind of philosophic discussion, but isn't it so ? :?:

As I've posted, the unprocessed pictures from my Casio 3500EX look sharper and more brilliant.

So I could ask, why I've spent 1000 bucks for my 300D...

You won't buy a BMW when it behaves like a cheap japanese one...

Which would you rather have? A poloaroid camera that gives you instant pictures or a regular film camera where the films have to be processed and printed?

Now, if you take (or used to take) film pictures, did you take your film to the local K-mart for processing and printing or did you do the processing and printing yourself in your own dark room?

If any of my questions makes sense to you, then you should already understand why the Casio has images coming out the way they do and why the 300D has its images coming out the way they do. :)

[defordphoto]

My question was intended to evoke such a response. I knew many here would share my feelings. I'm just beginning to learn what post processing can do for my images, but I still strive to get it right from the outset.

Jim

Whew...You scared me with that one that someone would actually think that! ;)

[Scottes]

I'm just beginning to learn what post processing can do for my images, but I still strive to get it right from the outset.

If you get it right from the start, then your post-processing (aka Developing) will either be very simple, or will yield a much better result. Taking the picture is half the battle. Now finish your picture, and post-process it well.

And what can it do for you? Take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34934) for a simple 2-minute developing process that yields a much better picture than one straight from the camera.

The picture you take needs to be developed. It behooves you to do it well, of course.


You don't have to develop every picture, of course. Most won't be worth the time. (Many won't even be worth hitting the delete key!) Out of 6,000 images I've taken I have developed less than 200. Less than 3% were deemed worthy of 4 or 5 minutes of my time.

[jgbeam]

Whew...You scared me with that one that someone would actually think that! ;)

Seems that CGNKlaus WAS thinking that..but maybe he was just throwing out the bait.

Jim

[jgbeam]

And what can it do for you? Take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34934) for a simple 2-minute developing process that yields a much better picture than one straight from the camera.

Good thread. I'd already read it and found some good advice that I will put to use.

Jim

[CyberDyneSystems]

... why not just shoot polaroids... :P

[stopbath]

... why not just shoot polaroids... :P
Even polaroids are fine subjects for post processing! The SX-70 (model?) sprung forth a whole new realm of cool things too do with an 'instant' image. Instead of just waiting, people started dragging things across the developing image, they applied heat, ripped the image apart... lots of cool things...

Artistic manipulation of photographic images has been around far longer than computer graphic programs have been around.

Art IS part of photography.