Is it fair to judge...

Is it fair to judge the technical ability and IQ of a camera when it is a "photoshoped", post processed, filter altered picture?

I have just spent a few hours browsing some very long threads where shooters have posted their pictures to show how wonderful their camera is. A long string of some very beautiful work. But you start to notice how many pictures are altered away from what the camera produced. Example -- If your equipment doesn't record color really well and you add in a better blue sky and up the color saturation you have moved past a technical representation and you now are just showing your personal creative skills with software. Don't ya think? No?

ALL digital images are "how many pictures are altered away from what the camera produced." The camera produces only a raw image, which you can't display. The jpegs SOOC are processed, just by firmware algorithms rather than software algorithms.

However, it is true that you can't compare images from different cameras produced by different people in different ways. A good photographer with good processing skills will produce better images than very expensive equipment fielded by someone less competent. Those threads really should be labeled 'images my equipment allows me to produce." I if you want pure tests of the technical capabilities of equipment, such as lpm of resolution of a lens, you can find them online also

No but you can judge the quality of the image on its own merits like composition and colors. OOF, blurring might be operator issues or technical issues with the camera. I just received my new issue of Digital Camera (uk) and it included a test card for checking centere (UK spelling) sharpness.corner sharpness, corner fringing both 3:2 and 4:3 ratios exposure and lens distortion. this test card makes the grey card seem archaic.

I have taken award winning photographs with a Panny DMC-FZ8. I have also taken a lot of garbage shots with my 60D and various L-lenses. Talent and vision carry a lot more weight than hardware and wallet depth. If spending a lot of money on gear made you a good photographer, I'd be rich and famous.

Like others said, PP is part of the image. Sometimes "photography purists" may think if you cannot do it in camera your a fraud (maybe a carry over from the film days?) but in reality its no different except our negatives (RAW) are digital. The camera and all its accessories are just tools. If the composition and matter are boring, the image sucks no matter how blue you make the sky.

As for IQ its a decent representation of the lens or the camera (Maybe both in some respect) in regards to sharpness, IQ and dynamic range.

What someone thinks about a picture is just one man's opinion and in the grander scheme of things is only relevant to that person. If they feel that the photographer spent too much time in front of the computer but yet still is abundantly proud of their camera, who does that opinion really reflect on.

I honestly do not have that many truly great "right out of camera" images that I would post up and feel proud of. Just about everything needs a touch of editing, some more than others but it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether it is too much or not. My photography career started well in the film era and spent many hours in the dark room dodging and burning to get the picture where I wanted it. The only difference between now and then is that we have new word in our vocabulary, Photoshop. I don't see alot of differences between what I used to do in my darkroom and what I do in the computer now. Certainly you can do more special effects now but as far as getting the basic image done no one ever asked me before if I had done anything special in the dark room. Now almost everyone asks what you have done in Photoshop.

My camera bodies have certain technical capabilities and after that it is all on me. Whether I do very little editing or lean more heavily on some the only person I am trying to please is either myself or a client. Everyone else's opinion doesn't count.

PP is the majority of making an image look appealing. Nothing new here.

Cameras and software are just tools and the picture is the outcome of using that tools. Its like cooking. If you gave 10 different chefs the same ingredients and asked them to cook you a specific dish you would get 10 different variations of the same dish. I see nothing wrong with PP an image to get the outcome you desire.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Eight_Blade wrote in post #14932606
PP is part of making an image look appealing. Nothing new here.

Fixed it for ya

The end result is the only thing that is relevant. It doesn't matter how much edit the photographer did, it's the result that count.

You can say the same thing for someone that takes a photo with different lighting. If looking for a direct comparison for say deciding between two pieces of gear, same lighting, same processing is best.

However in a broader search, where you're seeking what may interest you, seeing the final processed work is of great value to see what the equipment is capable of. Processed final images, are the end goal, and if you understand the gear is only a step in that, then to see what others are building with the same tools doesn't hurt, but don't go and buy the same hammer or a different one to be a better carpenter because of the work of the painter. At least in my opinion, they hold merit for the photographer that understands what they are looking at.