No post processing landscapes

[Gwyn]

Still finding my way round on here so forgive me as I put this on winter landscapes. 

Reason for posting this is that I have always tried to take the best photo I can without post processing . Many years ago I saw a photo and thought I would like to take that same image. As the scene was not to far I travelled, camera in hand but couldn't recognize the area. Yes there was the odd tree and rock I remembered but nothing else. Reason was although the photo was stunning it was heavily processed and had no relation to the "real" scene. Camera manufacturers spend millions on camera design so why do we not use their knowledge and experience and take the photos the best we can and learn by our mistakes. Don't get me wrong there is a place for processing but I think it can give people especially newcomers a goal that cannot be reached by just pointing the camera. To me a good photo is one that replicates the actual scene without working on a computer. The photo I have uploaded was just that. I was lucky because it does not happen every time but I keep trying.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[andrei89]

i think you might be confusing processing with compositing (manipulating)

even the jpeg your camera gives out has processing. the film simulations ARE processing. the simple raw file is ugly an unappealing without any kind of processing

[Gwyn]

I appreciate what you are saying but that takes me back to my comment about camera design and using it. We could all be using 15 yo digital cameras and latest computer software and still get reasonable but in my opinion unrealistic scenes. How many of us, me included,  read camera reviews ? The sensor is capable of this and that, the processor can do this and the other. The camera can cost many hundreds even thousands. Only to work the cameras results. Yes I know about raw but within reason you work that result on the pc using what could be set on the camera. My photo was exactly as the scene. My point is that I would rather take a photo using the camera and my knowledge than "work" it on a computer.  Photos I have seen look fantastic that are post " manipulated " but like I said very really do they resemble the actual scene presented. When I developed all my films and prints I could alter time , temperature to push or pull the outcome but my aim was to always getting the print to look like the scene I captured. What I'm basically trying to say is that there is room for both and to get results some photographs get on PCs is brilliant but, if I was just starting in photography and look at some of these worked photos I could get rather disheartened that I couldn't get something similar by using just my camera.  Being new I possibly wouldn't know about work done AFTER the picture was taken. This is my opinion but like I put there is room for both as long as folks starting off are educated to what is possible just with the camera.

[jerryy]

Back in the film days, folks also used burning, dodging, unsharp masking, multiple exposures, etc., etc. to manipulate the photos. There was a lot more done than just swishing the film strip and papers around in some smelly chemicals. That stuff was very intimidating to beginners.

[mdm]

On 5/10/2020 at 12:03 PM, Gwyn said:

My photo was exactly as the scene.

Painting. There are hundreds of genres and styles of painting which were developed through ages and now you tell us that the only valid genre is ... lets say Realism. You presented us with gergeous picture, but what about Impressionism, Expressionism, Modernism, Surrealism, etc. or what about monochrome? Have you ever made b&w landscapes? I don't think anyone should constrain himself like this in the art.

Edited May 21, 2020 by mdm

[George_P]

I would like to add that there is a technical difference between the way you look at a scene and the way a camera looks at the same scene. When you direct your eyes to the dark parts of the image, the shadows and then on the light parts, like the skies,  your eyes adjust accordingly and your brain, while processing all this, plays all kind of tricks on you so you are left with a “memory” of what you saw which is probably quite different for different people and it might include all kinds of “HDR”, “focus stacking” and what not. Whereas the camera has to scan the whole scene at once and with the same settings. You can set shadows and highlights on Fuji cameras to adjust this somewhat to your preference, and maybe to lessen the need for PP, but it is still quite a different process from what you take home from there inside your head. So when the image is PPed and the author recreates what he thinks is a good representation of the scene, he makes conscious decisions about what part of the image will be adjusted in what way. (Or maybe he wants to do deliberate artistic adjustments, not necessarily trying to make a resemblance of how he remembers the scene...). Anyway, the camera does not have this intelligence, or the same artistic opinion as each and every different owner, so you know, how do you make a camera to please everyone and eliminate PP. But of course, I see your point, in more “difficult” scenes, like HDR landscapes the SOOC is rather bland compared to what you get with even the most basic PP. Try to set shadows and highlights in camera, might help somewhat. I always have a huge backlog of images that need PP to be “presentable” and I don’t have the time to sit at the computer so much after sitting there too much anyway for work and other things. Cheers everyone. 

[George_P]

... At least our current cameras are able to preserve a lot of information for us in the raws so we do have it there to dig it out and to use it if we see fit. And Fujis have probably the best SOOC jpegs from all brands. And you can make different versions of jpegs from the your raw in camera, tweaking different settings, so that might reduce your need for PP on the computer. 
A beautiful picture btw. Post some more !

Edited May 23, 2020 by George_P
Added a bit.

[jerryy]

41 minutes ago, George_P said:

...

I always have a huge backlog of images that need PP to be “presentable” and I don’t have the time to sit at the computer so much after sitting there too much anyway for work and other things. Cheers everyone. 

Excuses, excuses. Now George!

😃

[George_P]

Howdy jerryy ?

[atyl1972]

On 5/10/2020 at 10:03 AM, Gwyn said:

I appreciate what you are saying but that takes me back to my comment about camera design and using it. We could all be using 15 yo digital cameras and latest computer software and still get reasonable but in my opinion unrealistic scenes. How many of us, me included,  read camera reviews ? The sensor is capable of this and that, the processor can do this and the other. The camera can cost many hundreds even thousands. Only to work the cameras results. Yes I know about raw but within reason you work that result on the pc using what could be set on the camera. My photo was exactly as the scene. My point is that I would rather take a photo using the camera and my knowledge than "work" it on a computer.  Photos I have seen look fantastic that are post " manipulated " but like I said very really do they resemble the actual scene presented. When I developed all my films and prints I could alter time , temperature to push or pull the outcome but my aim was to always getting the print to look like the scene I captured. What I'm basically trying to say is that there is room for both and to get results some photographs get on PCs is brilliant but, if I was just starting in photography and look at some of these worked photos I could get rather disheartened that I couldn't get something similar by using just my camera.  Being new I possibly wouldn't know about work done AFTER the picture was taken. This is my opinion but like I put there is room for both as long as folks starting off are educated to what is possible just with the camera.

But even "in camera" you can manipulate what your eyes don't see, such as ND filters, and polarisers and even using a flash, in my opinion as long as you like the image yourself, and you're not reliant on selling images for customers then do as you wish, I myself quite like post processing. I have found it difficult before trying to be a perfectionist and trying for that perfect shot in one sitting, it rarely happens, and if you under-expose an image, so what....it then means you can try and recover them back in post, which for me is a part of the journey! 👍📷

[A H]

I dont quite understand why we should limit ourselves in the way the OP suggests. Photography is not about perfect reproduction of reality. We try to create something better. We try to get the timing „just right“, we try to get the angle „just right“ We use lenses that completely change the angle of view.  We might even use filter systems and long exposures. Why on earth should we stop there? Why should we not use post processing?
Some people don’t enjoy the process. That is a good reason not to do it. Having principles in this regard just seems silly to me.