Jump to content
Gwyn

No post processing landscapes

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by mdm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

... 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 by George_P
Added a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Posts

    • I switched from X-T2 to X-H1 when X-H1 was launched. No regret at all because I only use non stabilized lenses, 16-55 and 90. Less blured pictures with the 90 f2.
    • Do I need a website to add images to the gallery ?? Because it ask URL address 
    • I'm coming from canon and get the xpro 3 two weeks now I don't know the difference between xpro 2  But I'm very surprised the image quality deliver from the xpro 3. What I saw the images from xpro 2 they are almost ,maybe the same quality as the xpro3  If I owned the xpro 2 or xt 3 I will probably not upgrade to xpro 3  If you are going for a new camera just one camera I will definitely go for the xpro 3   
    • Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Five Lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus synonym Plestiodon fasciatus)
    • Do any of the newer Fuji film X cameras come with a paper owners manual in the box?  If not,  does anyone know when they last did enclose a written manual. I have difficulty reading on the computer screen and have manuals for my old Xe-1 and Xt-1.   I just find it much easier to read the paper manuals and it's easier for me to go back and forth from different pages to learn something.   Thanks. Norm
×
×
  • Create New...