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

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

  1. Sometimes!


    John McWilliams, Jun 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne J. Cosshall

    John Ortt Guest

    I think a lot of the group members percieved that it is you with the closed
    mind Rita.

    Your stance is that postprocessing should always be kept to an absolute
    minimum and that anything else would be "foolish".

    There are others who believe the exact opposite.

    The only ones with an open mind in my view are the ones who say either is
    fine as long as the end result is optimum.

    Personnally I am a photoshop junkie because I spent years playing with PCs
    before I ever picked up a camera and my photography skills aren't catching
    up as quickly as I would like.

    Having said that I have utmost respect for the people who can get the image
    they want straight onto the sensor.
    John Ortt, Jun 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    John Ortt Guest

    I think it is even more fundamental than that Daniel.

    It all depends on the purpose of the image.

    I think if a photograph is supposed to be a pleasing peice of art it really
    doesn't matter what has been done as long as it is nice to look at.

    On the contrary if a photograph is supposed to be a historic record then
    almost any retouching is unacceptable.

    I always think back to my own shots. My wife hates ALL of her photographs
    even though she is very beautiful, as a result I always end up tweaking her
    pictures if she HAS to have one printed. This can include zit removal,
    tooth whitening, eye brightening, wrinkle removal etc etc. The end result
    is always pleasant and very recognisably my wife but she is far more happy
    with the final outcome.

    I am still torn on some areas such as a photography exhibition. If a
    photograph won which was subsequently found to have been manipulated, should
    the award be revoked and given to the person who originally came second,
    even though the modified photograph was more pleasing on the eye and
    convincing? Are computers simply a new weapon in the arsenal and all that
    matters is the end result?
    John Ortt, Jun 8, 2007
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 8, 2007
  5. Rita were you born opinionated or do you have to work at it, because it
    seems so natural.

    What utter and complete rubbish you state. All of photography uses
    technology of one sort or another, it is technological discipline. Even
    a 5x4 wooden camera is technology. Now we discover you are one of those
    autofocus is evil people that I thought had died out 15 years ago. Is
    auto exposure also evil? What about a light meter? A shutter the cocks
    when you wind the film on? An aperture that stops down when you shoot?
    Anything apart from wet plates?

    Do you actually take pictures?


    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,
    Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography
    Personal art site
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 8, 2007
  6. *NOBODY* gets the image they want straight onto the
    sensor. It technically *cannot* happen! Your camera
    *processes* the data off the sensor, and each camera is
    different. The first creative decision a photographer
    makes is which (in camera) processing best suits their
    idea of a what the photograph should be.

    For those who lack a great deal of creative talent, that
    may be the *only* creative decision they want to make.
    Those photographers have to base camera selection very
    much on just exactly how the camera processes the image,
    simply because they don't do any "post processing" of
    the data.

    More creative photographers can select cameras for a
    number of other reasons (size, hardware features, etc),
    and might even totally ignore the nature of how the
    camera processes data because they can and often will do
    a significant amount of processing on their own.

    Rita of course is suggesting that the only valid method
    is to find a camera which processes image data the way
    you like, and then use it (only).

    The benefits of doing so can be a simplified work flow,
    and the disadvantage is a greatly reduced range of
    creativity. Both are valid options in any given
    situation for any given photographer. Suggesting only
    one method is ever valid, no matter which, is absurd.

    Rita's insistence that only one method is valid is her
    way to reduce "competition". She is not creative and
    does not fair well against others when compared on a
    level playing field (that is, by the results).

    Rita wants to tilt the field to her benefit by
    disqualifying most of the more creative talent, rather
    than admit they do equal or better work than she does.

    It's an exhibition of the "team sports" mentality taught
    in our schools. The team that (is second best in the
    whole country yet) loses the Super Bowl is a pack of
    *losers*. Only the one single "winner" has value. Rita
    wants to make sure nobody else is thought of as having
    any "value" which (in her mind) would make her a loser.

    There are other values systems. In some sports (cross
    country skiing is one example) all participants in any
    given event can be "winners", just because they are only
    competing against their own record. If the entire field
    does better than ever before, they are *all* winners on
    that day, without regard to what anyone else has done.

    Most visual arts are like those "individual" sports.
    The artists compete only with themselves to develop
    skills in producing their unique perception of art.

    Rita can produce great photographs and it simply does
    not make anyone else less of an artist. Likewise her
    typically creativity impaired products are *not* made
    any better by denigrating creative artists and methods.
    Floyd Davidson, Jun 8, 2007
  7. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Aaron Guest

    You all may find some interest in my recent exploration of 8-bit
    versus 16-bit processing and a demonstration of some of the loss that

    Everyone has their own workflow preferences, but once you know where
    the weak links are in your chain, you can judiciously change some
    elements of your approach without buying another terabyte of hard
    Aaron, Jun 8, 2007
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Eric Hocking Guest

    On Jun 1, 12:45 pm, "Eric Hocking"
    Essentially we're in agreement - you talking about capturing the image in
    the camera as best you can under the shooting conditions.
    Eric Hocking, Jun 8, 2007
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    dj_nme Guest

    Your insults are quite amusing, the jpeg has abviously hit a deep cord
    with you.

    Do you prefer to capture all of the image in-camera or do you take
    "clean" images with an intent to alter them later in post-camera
    (presumably with Photoshop) to achieve the final image you intend?
    It isn't rocket science (the keyboard is attached to your computer for a
    reason), so please inform us.

    My personal preference is to get an image as close as to what I hope to
    achieve and then tweek the it slightly to get to my final image.
    It might only require levels corection, or I may wish to clone out
    something, or I may wish to add something from one image into another.
    It just depends on the circumstance.

    If you have nothing other than insults and accusations, please stop
    right now.
    dj_nme, Jun 8, 2007
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    ASAAR Guest

    . . .
    As you deserve nothing but, your wish is my command.
    ASAAR, Jun 8, 2007
  11. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Paul Furman Guest

    Not many that I've seen... I take her posts with a *big* grain of salt.
    Paul Furman, Jun 9, 2007
  12. Not me! I use whatever tools I need to get the desired results. The
    difference is I know the boundaries of each process and put the proper label
    on the end product.
    Postprocessing can be a wonderful thing, but it should never be used as a
    crutch for poor technique.
    Again, it is all in the way you define "end results" that makes or breaks
    your viewpoint.
    See! There's nothing wrong with that since you are being honest.
    It's not the destination that matters it's the journey to get what you want
    on the sensor that matters.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 9, 2007
  13. I'm a "work in progress" type person.
    Well, if you can get a 17-35/2.8 Nikkor to autofocus on a 5D you are a
    better person than I.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 9, 2007
  14. LOL! Hopefully with Kosher salt? Two points for you to remember, "targeted
    audience" and "it is what it is." Now get out there and try to take at
    least one picture worth looking at. I'm sick of visiting your site only to
    see utter duds.

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

    Allen Guest

    Eighteen words of 19 are correct. To make it completely correct, replace
    "the sensor" with "paper" or "display" or whatever. I for one have never
    seen anything worthwhile on a sensor; a totally unexposed one looks just
    like one with a perfect image on it. It's time for you to grow up and
    reason like an adult, not like a sophomore (in the true meaning of that
    Allen, Jun 9, 2007
  16. If the technique gives the required results it isn't a poor technique and
    certainly isn't a crutch.

    Some things just can't be done in camera with any camera available.
    [email protected], Jun 9, 2007
  17. Semantics! What, grow up and be as boring as you and most of the other
    people out here without a sense of humor? Not on my life or yours. Getting
    it right in-camera is paramount. It's amazing that the current release of
    dSLRs are so powerful and feature packet that 98.7% of the people using them
    can't get it right in-camera and have to rely on Photoshop as a crutch. If
    you really are going to use Photoshop as a crutch you might as well buy a
    used point and shoot for $39 and Photoshop till your heart's content.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 10, 2007
  18. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Allen Guest

    Sense of humor? You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't have a
    clue about humor. And, by the way, I don't own Photoshop; Paint Shop Pro
    handles my needs nicely. I won't be seeing any more of your posts.
    Allen, Jun 10, 2007
  19. Your camera is nothing but a crutch Rita. If you actually had
    even a small modicum of artistic talent you wouldn't need a stinking
    camera, at all. Just an half hour or so with Photoshop, and you'd
    be able to create a Sunset over Whatever. You'd be famous, rich,
    and respected.

    But you aren't.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jun 10, 2007
  20. Nope, the camera is a Nikon. Or is it a Canon with Nikon lenses? I guess
    it depends on what I want to use on any given day. Unlike you I don't seek
    fame, fortune, and respect because I got all I need from the people that
    really matter. You're on the outside looking in, Son. You mean as much to
    me as a boil on a dog's ass. For you, I might step out one day and try my
    hand at MS Paint.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 10, 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.