Are You an In-Camera or Post-Camera Photographer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. Rita, you should put a jacket on and get outside.
    Breath some fresh air. Clear out your head...
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    teflon Guest

    All a camera screen needs to do is to check for sharpness and histograms -
    things that NEED to be discovered at the shoot, NOT at home.

    Too much time is spent at the screen IMHO post processing hundreds of raw
    files. Boring if you ask me. Much better to learn how to use a camera.
     
    teflon, Jun 6, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Are you using a pinhole camera then?
    Anything above is technology and you wouldn't want to rely on it.
     
    [email protected], Jun 6, 2007
  4. I trust the focus of the camera to get it right more than my own eye
    using manual focus. Any time you pick up a digital camera you are
    relying on technology to get that elusive shot. You are only splitting
    hairs, IMO, when choosing to use manual focus over auto focus. I will
    wager that many more people than you realize use auto focus for their
    serious (i.e. professional) shooting.
     
    Michael Johnson, Jun 6, 2007
  5. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Scott W Guest

    Well yes, if you shoot raw that is all you need to check, but if you
    don't shoot
    raw getting the WB right in the camera is pretty much needed. And
    what do you do to set contrast and saturation, do it in the camera or
    in post processing?

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 6, 2007
  6. I just can't get that much out of the tiny LCD on the DSLRs. I also am
    not a guru of the histogram. I also shoot a lot of "moment" pictures
    and don't have excessive time to check all the settings or expect the
    "moment" to be recreated just for my photographing needs. This is where
    RAW plus multiple rapid shooting lets me hedge my bets and usually get
    an acceptable photograph. Basically, I have plenty of time scan
    multiple shots while post processing but never excessive time to get the
    shot off with the camera.
    I can make a first cull of hundreds of photos in just a few minutes. It
    isn't that hard to me. Then I will spend the quality time working on
    the ones that merit the effort. Most times I don't get 100% of what I
    wanted but I generally get 90%-95% which is good enough for me. The
    beauty of shooting digital is it doesn't cost any more money to take 200
    photos than it does 20. I use this to my advantage.

    I have been shooting with SLRs since my teenage days. I started with a
    fully manual camera (i.e. no auto focus/exposure) so I know how to use
    one. That being said I am sure glad to have all the bells and whistles
    that come on today's DSLRs. It has made me a better photographer, not a
    worse photographer.
     
    Michael Johnson, Jun 7, 2007
  7. BINGO!!! And this usually means using older AI Nikkors that don't AF.
    Using anything else is about as foolish as NASA taking DX lenses on the
    shuttle. NASA only uses classic Nikkors.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 7, 2007
  8. You need to move to a warmer climate. I've been out all day by the pool
    working on my tan. The air is fresh and the sun is bright. The best part
    of all, I don't have any tan lines. I hate tan lines.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 7, 2007
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    ASAAR Guest

    Uh, Floyd babe, you just did it again. I suggest that you get out
    the Webster and look up 'gratuitous' and 'insult'.

    Nonsense, nothing was veiled at all. If you take offense at
    seeing an accurate description of your flaws, then perhaps you
    should reconsider blaming the messenger.

    You went way beyond "My work is art, your's is not". Funny, isn't
    it, how in trying to defend your statements you choose to use only
    the words that make yourself sound so moderate. What you actually
    said was, in pointing to yourself, favorable ("kinky (attractive)"
    and "art (to be appreciated)"), but in pointing to others, loathsome
    ("perverted (to be avoided) and "trash (for the dumpster)").

    Did you mean this literally? Perhaps not, although if read
    without seeing your name atop the article it's not too difficult to
    recognize the author. Your smug, condescending attitude permeates
    much of your writing. In referring to your statements you made
    (quoted above), you said
    and almost immediately followed that with
    Suddenly the amusing Floyd is replaced with the serious Floyd that
    has returned to what he does best - belittle, berate, insult. But
    in the end, it's amusing to note that although you berated Rita for
    her attitude, hers is little different that yours, but with a
    difference. Rita's statements are usually so over the top that it's
    hard to fail to notice the intentional hyperbole. She has even said
    from time to time (more or less) that what she says is intended to
    bait the clueless into overreacting. It's her weird, unconventional
    sense of humor that you and many others fail to get when you react
    as if you think she believes everything that she writes. When you
    criticize Rita (see above quote), you miss the point that whereas
    you both frequently make similar, over the top, insulting comments,
    unlike Rita, yours have less humor and are more mean spirited, in
    that you really convey the sense that you believe every word you've
    said.

    Again, nonsense. In describing your use of those words I was
    referring only to your tone of voice, how some words were used to
    convey a favorable impression and others to convey the opposite.
    Literal meanings or definitions played no part in what I said. It's
    you that has failed to understand. Nice try, though.

    And again in closing, how could we expect from you anything other
    than yet another attempted put-down. You're so predictable, which
    is why we like you so, even if you're not very warm and cuddly. <g>
     
    ASAAR, Jun 7, 2007
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    How do you figure that? In either case, you're simply taking some
    pixels of given colour value and shifting them all evenly in other
    direction to offset the lighting conditions when you took the photo.
    Whether you do that in 8bit colour, 16bit colour, JPEG or RAW, the
    process is much the same.

    Admitedly, some RAW processing UI interfaces make the process easier
    to achieve in RAW than JPEG, but that's a UI design issue, not a
    fundamental difference between RAW and JPEG

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 7, 2007
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    acl Guest

    A curve is applied during (or after) bayer demosaicing. So simply
    amplifying the channels differently in jpeg means that different zones
    are affected differently (white balanced differently).
    a) the difference may be small anyway,
    b) it's possible to invert the curve, white balance, and reapply it
    (if you know what the curve was; I don't know if there are programs
    that do this)
     
    acl, Jun 7, 2007
  12. Well yes, if you shoot raw that is all you need to check, but if you
    The process might be similar, but there is far more real data to work
    with in a RAW file, so the process is likely top produce better results
    in situations where JPEG has already
    Are you familiar with the Bayer pattern and the process of demosaicing?
    How is this not a fundamental difference? As an analogy, this is like
    the difference between being given a cupboard full of flour, sugar,
    eggs, chocolate, and so forth, and being able to make either waffles or
    chocolate cake, versus being given a waffle and some chocolate and
    trying to turn it into chocolate cake. Tthe ingredients are all there,
    but the fact that some of them are already cooked *is* a fundamental
    difference.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 7, 2007
  13. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    Granted, but in the same way that it's not essential to shoot in RAW
    to produce a good photo, it's not essential to shoot in RAW to get a
    decent white balance adjustment. Sure, it gives you more data to work
    with, but it's no more or less essential that you get the white
    balance spot on in camera than it is with RAW
    Colour temperature is just a simple linear shift in colour, and
    adjusting white balance is thus a simple linear shift in colour across
    all the pixels in the image. How those pixels came about or where
    they came from don't make much difference when you're doing a simple
    per pixel adjustment of colour unless I'm misunderstanding something.

    Of course, as acl points out, if the camera is doing a curves
    adjustment on the jpeg for you, then the end result will be slightly
    different to something that had the white balance done before applying
    the curve, but that's a technical difference, not a difference between
    being able to achieve usable white balance adjustments or not...

    I'm not trying to say JPEG is better than RAW or any of that crap. I
    was simply refuting a point that you need to shoot in RAW to be able
    to play around with white balance in any meaningful way.

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 7, 2007
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Scott W Guest

    I believe this is pretty much the case, a program that has nothing but
    a jpeg to work with does not know what the transfer function is, but
    the raw data is very liner. This gives a program working with raw
    data a huge advantage. Add to this the fact that in the jpeg you
    might have some clipping on all three channels in a bright white area
    of the image, change the scaling of channels and what was white will
    no loner be white.

    On a practical note if you try and correct using the raw file and a
    jpeg you will find that the raw is far easier to adjust.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 7, 2007
  15. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    I'm surprised you would even ask those questions if you have read this
    thread.
    The answer is obvious.
    But if they only compare the quality of their final prints against others,
    they find it much more difficult to claim themselves superior, and that
    seems to be their main desire, not quality photographs.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jun 7, 2007
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    Yea, a straight jacket :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jun 7, 2007
  17. You obviously don't know! What a hoot.
    So you admit that *you* are the one who posts gratuitous
    insults, does not discuss the current topic in a thread,
    and posts with no purpose other than to argue for the
    sake of arguing.

    Sheesh!
    You must be illiterate. I did not say *anything* that
    was pointing to myself. My appologies for using English
    at a level beyond your comprehension, but you'll just
    have to get used to it.
    Projection is always an interesting habit. Do you
    realize that your rant does more, in one message, of
    what you claim is my greatest sin than I do in a week!
    ???
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 7, 2007
  18. The range and granularity of adjustment for either
    exposure or white balance is vastly decreased when raw
    data is converted to a jpeg formatted image.
    I agree that it isn't a matter of whether it can be
    meaningful or not, but rather that it is a matter of
    degrees. The degree of adjustment, either in scope or
    in granularity, is much greater before conversion to a
    jpeg image is done.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 7, 2007
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    Good, because that was the only point I was trying to make :)

    Ray
     
    Ray Macey, Jun 7, 2007
  20. Wayne J. Cosshall

    ASAAR Guest

    Try to do something about your confusion. You're obviously overly
    sensitive to the charges that I and others have made, that you, more
    than anyone else in this ng, get off on arguing. So sensitive that
    you resort to not only echoing it, but stupidly expand it from a
    general charge against yourself to one that mendaciously says that
    none of my posts have any purpose but to argue for its own sake.
    Let me whittle down "mendaciously". In addition to being addicted
    to arguing, you're a flat out liar. And to help you understand,
    even though I doubt that it will make any difference where you're
    concerned, saying that you're a liar is not a gratuitous insult.
    It's simply the truth, and the result of your lack of an inner,
    moderating editor.

    Spin or more of your lies? Here, again is what you said that
    clearly pointed to yourself :
    Do you need anyone to parse that for you, or are you able to see
    where the 'attractive' attribute is referring (pointing) to you?
    Also, you can't break the insult habit, can you? Just to rub your
    nose in it, "You must be illiterate" followed by "My appologies for
    using English at a level beyond your comprehension, but you'll just
    have to get used to it." As I've said several times, you can't help
    but spew gratuitous insults, even when you're under a revealing
    spotlight.

    Vague generalities, all to avoid admitting anything. Any
    reasonable person reading our communications will see that on one
    side, there's calm, reasoned argument, and on the other, angry
    insults and lies. There is a rant here, but you're unable to see
     
    ASAAR, Jun 7, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.