19 replies to this topic

[Johnb]

Hi Guys, something I have been wondering about,

 

I spend thousands on a decent camera and lenses, why should I need to go to an online program to improve the results of my photo.

About 15 years ago I bought an olympus digital camera which I use to edit the photos but I paid £250 for it. Not £5000+ (Camera and lens)

 

Yea cropping a photo I can understand but anything else, well you have to wonder why you paid all this money out for state of the art equipment, when you can edit the results from a camera costing a twentieth of the price, and get the same results.

 

OK so I may be missing something here. 

 

Just to say that I have not tried to edit any of my photos as yet so dont know the ins-and-outs.

 

Am I missing something ????? 

[Nikon Shooter]

Oh yes John, you're missing a whole world…
the knowledge and understanding of

1. the file format
2. optimised recorded data
3. the difference between RAW and not RAW
4. the art of cooking in post-production and that 
5. no one needs an online software… unless using Adobe stuff is a must.

[Nikon Shooter]

Thinking of it, I was talking about post-processing as I thought
it is what you meant. Photo editing is something else.

[Merco_61]

Johnb, I read your post as being about post-processing, not editing. 

 

Unless your processing is heavy-handed, you will get more out of a well-exposed raw file from any of the current DSLR-s or MILC-s than even two or three tech-generations ago as there is so much more information there to bring out in the final product.

15 years ago, I still shot some studio work and some wedding photos on film as the dynamic range just wasn't there yet on digital. Today, a traditional wedding photo is easier on digital than on film as you have the DR available to get full detail in both dress and morning coat with some to spare for mapping the midtones as you want them.

 

If you compare processing from in-camera jpegs, you will probably see similar results from a point-and-shoot as a midrange DSLR, except for the availability of selective focus and lower noise levels from the bigger sensor. However, shoot in raw and get as precisely exposed files as you can and be blown away with what you can do.

 

There is no need to go with cloud-licensing, there are both DAM solutions, raw converters and pixel editors available with perpetual licenses, or even free alternatives.

[Those Who Squirm]

Professional photographers (FTR I am not ons) say that setting up the camera and capturing the image is only the first step. Editing and post-processing, or whatever you want to call it, is the next step and it's usually essential. In the old days, this step was done in the darkroom and involved various techniques for diminishing or increasing the amount of light allowed to reach the different areas of the photographic paper. Even today, there still are photographers who work primarily with film and paper, and the terminology of the darkroom has carried over to the world of computer-based editing.

Look at it this way: Any image, whether photographed, drawn, or painted, may properly capture the subject yet still fail to properly record the experience of *seeing* it, because even today the most expensive pro level camera cannot match your eyes' ability to rapidly adjust its aperture and focus as you look around at different points of a view. There's also the ability of the human eye to compensate for the constraints of perspective. This is why a snapshot of an interesting tall building across the street utterly fails to recreate your experience of seeing the building in person.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Merco_61]

A useful way of thinking about the process is that the camera captures everything in its field of view but you need to interpret the capture to show others what you saw when you tripped the shutter. 

[Nikon Shooter]

At SR, the mineral sensor captures — according to your
settings — all what the lens sees. The quality of the re-
cording is strictly dependant on the exposure setup.

Once at the computer, in a dedicated RAW converter, all
the recorded data looks flat… mineral. At this point, your
objective is reestablish an organic look to the capture
and this is where the processing takes place.

[zevell]

As a landscape photographer, I use Photoshop for most of my shots for:

- slightly enhancing the sky 

- getting rid of unmovable eyesores (power poles and cables, rubbish, unwanted people)

- fixing incorrect colours & contrast

- cropping

 

Spending a lot of money on gear doesn't make a better photo, but:

- A decent camera is so much more pleasureable to use

- Gives you a better chance to capture a shot that a cheap camera would not be able

- A better camera with more megapixels gives more flexibility when cropping

[Nikon Shooter]

I use Photoshop for most of my shots for:

- getting rid of unmovable eyesores (power poles and cables, rubbish, unwanted people)

That is the definition of editing, all the rest may achieve way higher
standards of quality in a dedicated converter because performed
on data and not pixels.

I am adobe free since a decade + and use Affinity Photo as editor.

[Johnb]

OK guys,  I have a better understanding now.

 

Re RAW files, ar'nt these files massive and limit your storage space. I understand that you get so much more detail, but thought you would only use RAW if you were going to enlarge your photo, say to poster size.

 

Also capturing what your eye sees cant really happen can it. The only thing in focus is what you are looking at, and in 3D, whilst everything peripheral is just a blurr.

[Nikon Shooter]

Re RAW files, ar'nt these files massive and limit your storage space.

If you don't invest in storage space, you will have to be  creative
in excuses and be limited to "almost" shots for ever. Worth it?

 

Also capturing what your eye sees cant really happen can it.

And so it is good. Our eyes and brain are meant to insure our survival
— both were very good at it as you can appreciate, and not our quest
for art and beauty. 

[Merco_61]

OK guys,  I have a better understanding now.

 

Re RAW files, ar'nt these files massive and limit your storage space. I understand that you get so much more detail, but thought you would only use RAW if you were going to enlarge your photo, say to poster size.

 

Also capturing what your eye sees cant really happen can it. The only thing in focus is what you are looking at, and in 3D, whilst everything peripheral is just a blurr.

Raw files are large, but you have the full colour gamut and DR the sensor can give to play with, rather than the reduced set in a .jpg. 

[TBonz]

Storage is cheap these days.  Why limit your abilities worrying about it?  As someone who is more of a photojournalist than an art photographer, I don't normally choose to remove items from an image, but even then, some post-processing, especially from a RAW file, can restore an image to more effectively convey what you saw without the image looking over processed.  Being able to modify images can take a poorly exposed image and turn it into a usable image although you should strive to capture the best image possible when shooting.  

[Johnb]

My D850 is set up to take RAW+JPEG, and I assume that when I look at the last photo taken I am seeing a JPEG file on the LCD screen. If I set the camera to take RAW only, when I look at the last photo, do I see a RAW file or am I still seeing a JPEG.

 

Thankyou. 

[Nikon Shooter]

Did you say "RAW file" John? There you have it, it is raw data in a file
and not an image. The camera will cook up a jpg (this one IS an image)
to display on screen.

I only shoot RAW on the XQD and use the SDXC as backup!

[Johnb]

So when I set up as RAW only, and look back at the last photo, I will see a JPeg that has been created by the camera, from some of the RAW data, or from all of the RAW data.

 

If its the former, I assume then that the only way I can see a photo constructed from all the RAW data is to pull it up on a computer program. 

 

I only use the one slot with a XQD. 

[Nikon Shooter]

A jpg will be created after SR, for viewing purposes, of all shots.

XQD cards have proven to be very reliable but there is a second
card slot and I ALWAYS use it for BU.
 

[Johnb]

I have not heard of a BU card. What is the difference from an XQD then and is it about the same price ?

and are there different storage size options like other cards ?

 

Getting back to RAW etc (yea sorry for being a pain), if I pull up a photo in Photoshop, I assume then that I get a picture that is created by Photoshop from the data stored in my camera. right. ie Not a Jpeg.

 

And still not clear on the advantages of shooting in Raw over Raw+Jpeg

 

Thankyou for your patience.

[Nikon Shooter]

I have not heard of a BU card.

I am a very bad typer so I use each chance to make it short.
BU = back up

 

Getting back to RAW etc (yea sorry for being a pain), if I pull up a photo in Photoshop, I assume then that I get a picture that is created by Photoshop from the data stored in my camera. right. ie Not a Jpeg.

 

Ps is an editor, it cannot handle RAWs but ACR can.

[Johnb]

Thank you all for your patience.

 

By the way, as an engineer, I dont write stuff alot, I just join up as many abbreviations as I can.