Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Take your photo like editing software doesn't exist.

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

BadSoulPhotography

When we shoot a photo like editing software doesn't exist, we force ourselves to give more thought to everything involved.
This helps us grow as photographers and we don't become dependant on software to fix our shots.
It's like taking the training wheels of the bike so we can really soar.
We all want to soar as photographers, right?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
15 Feb 2011 - 12:52 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

fraser
fraser  10631 forum posts Scotland14 Constructive Critique Points
15 Feb 2011 - 1:08 PM

I don't use software to "fix" an image, I use it to (try to) create what I saw and felt at the time I looked at the subject. Limiting my options by recording only what the camera sees doesn't interest me as it sees much less than I do.

Besides, where do you draw the line? Producing an unfiltered RAW image is surely the purest form of "shooting a photo like editing software doesnt exist". Even then the file is subject to the foibles of a particular camera/sensor comibination. Is that really the best way forward?

Having said all that I believe that getting the initial image right in camera is essential to ensuring the final image is all it should be. It's part of the craft, but the art comes from pre-visualising the scene to producing the final image on screen or in print, regardless of how you got there.

User_Removed
15 Feb 2011 - 1:44 PM

@ BSP...

Why not post some images to your PF so we can see some of your work? Smile

Last Modified By User_Removed at 15 Feb 2011 - 1:44 PM
gpwalton
gpwalton  1390 forum posts
15 Feb 2011 - 1:47 PM

Use a Pinhole Camera and get rid of the bias caused by the lens.
Be careful which paper and chemicals you use, as these might cause a distortion of the truth.

Dave_Canon
15 Feb 2011 - 3:13 PM

If I could not process my Raw images, there is no point in taking themTongue

I agree with capturing the scene as best you can in the camera but there is no right so it is up to the photographer. If I see highlights and shadows in the scene with interesting detail, I probably want to capture them but my camera may not be able to do so in single exposure so I am very dependent on editing software. I doubt that many photographers snap away with no consideration to the camera settings in the belief that they can correct any errors later. At least I have never met anyone who owned up to this.

Dave

User_Removed
15 Feb 2011 - 3:24 PM

Can I change the title to: "Take your photo like editing software doesn't exist....and then use it!"?

Although 90% of my images are taken with a digital SLR, often with exposure bracketing, and in the knowledge that 10% might be usable, I can empathise with the sentiments of the OP because one of the reasons I use either 35mm or 6x7 film cameras for the remaining 10% of my images are precisely to do with being forced to think much more carefully before pressing the tit. Its good discipline and lots of fun.

But, having done so, I then scan my negatives and use Lightroom and sometimes even CS5 to get them just as I want them.

And do bear in mind that it is sometimes simply impossible to get the shot you want correct in the camera. (e.g. if you are in a location for only an hour, have absolutely no chance of ever seeing the same thing again and it is cloudy and dreich.)

Last Modified By User_Removed at 15 Feb 2011 - 3:25 PM
cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
15 Feb 2011 - 3:33 PM

This is just an old " Onion " .....Grin

Trying to " Peel " it another way, Makes no difference at all.....Tongue

ckristoff
ckristoff  9936 forum posts Wales
15 Feb 2011 - 8:37 PM

Badsoulphotography,

I thank you for starting this thread.

It's probably directed more towards people like myself!Smile

Each time I use my camera, I attempt to try and get the image right. Sometimes I don't succeed. Why? Simply because in my haste, I forget to check the settings on the camera before I press the shutter.

I do have Photoshop CS ( version 8 ), which I do not fully understand ( need to read the book! ).

Question - if I'm using a rather competent camera, such as the Canon 7D, is it truly necessary to have to use photoshop on every image? Isn't such a camera capable of producing a stunning image without being photoshopped?

Before the onions start flying in my direction, I have set up my camera in order to achieve a good image, I use a tripod if taking landscapes and also use a cable release.


Frank.

User_Removed
15 Feb 2011 - 10:53 PM

Frank.

There are several ways of answering that question (which is a very good one despite what the detractors might say).

Firstly, if you are shooting in Raw (which I hope you are), then you simply do need to at least tweak your image in Lightroom or ACR to make it look like you think the camera meant it to be. The beauty of Raw is that you have all the captured data at your disposal to do that.

Secondly, even the best digital camera sensor does not interpret luminance and chrominance in the same way as the human eye does nor, indeed, as good photographic film does. So you do have to imprint your own interpretation on it.

Thirdly, even with a good camera like yours, many of the control settings and algorithms are based on averages. They will get most of it right most of the time - but you may not have wanted an average picture of an average subject in average conditions.

One of the reasons I like film is that it is a much more sophisticated medium than any digital sensor (I write this in 2011 - it may be different in 2021) - but, even then, once I have scanned my negatives, I often still want to add my own interpretation in Lightroom or CS5.

ckristoff
ckristoff  9936 forum posts Wales
15 Feb 2011 - 11:24 PM

Leftforum,

thank you very much for your kind reply.Smile

Yes, I do shoot in Raw ( what else? ). I don't have Lightroom, but I've seen one friend use it. I use my Canon DPP program, at least the little of it that I understand. I'm a silver surfer, before anyone considers me an idiot. I don't even text folks!!

Thank you for your third point, I think I understand.


This brings me to a subject that has hassled me for a long time. I'm speaking of my own images here. I dare not criticise anyone elses work, I'm not way inclined.

If you look at my last upload, of a stream, you have to admit that it looks a little flat and I agree with this.

We have some really talented photographers on this fine forum, obviously more talented than I am. They produce some really fine images, which appear to leap out of the screen, especially when viewed at full size. They all look rather polished. How do they that?

With my stream photo, I put it through a software called HDR Photo Pro, which is like Photomatix I believe? I did a few adjustments and hey, the image was really improved, although it now showed some autumn colours! I mean improved to my eyes. One day I'll upload it. The point is, that isn't what I saw on the day, although I can appreciate what can achieved on a computer and software.

I'm still trying to improve. I've only just had my monitor calibrated, and I'll soon purchase some papers with free ICC profiles from Fotospeed.


Frank.

FrankRobinson
22 Feb 2011 - 1:12 PM

Take a film shot... like your darkroom doesn't exist... Tongue

Nuff said. Grin

User_Removed
22 Feb 2011 - 3:22 PM


Quote:

With my stream photo, I put it through a software called HDR Photo Pro, which is like Photomatix I believe? I did a few adjustments and hey, the image was really improved, although it now showed some autumn colours! I mean improved to my eyes. One day I'll upload it. The point is, that isn't what I saw on the day, although I can appreciate what can achieved on a computer and software.
Frank.

Frank,

I have had a look at both versions of your stream photo.

I don't see much wrong with the original one. I suspect it is a pretty good representation of a fairly dull scene. If you are looking for realism, that is what you will get.

The second, HDR'd one is less dull. It still looks OK and maybe you could have achieved a similar effect by simply upping the saturation, vibrance and brightness sliders.

It is very much a horses for courses situation. You either accept the basic photograph that your camera records or you try to improve it to suit your own tastes. Absolutely nothing wrong with either approach. The important thing is to have fun doing it.

digicammad
digicammad  1121988 forum posts United Kingdom37 Constructive Critique Points
22 Feb 2011 - 3:37 PM


Quote: When we shoot a photo like editing software doesn't exist, we force ourselves to give more thought to everything involved.
This helps us grow as photographers and we don't become dependant on software to fix our shots.
It's like taking the training wheels of the bike so we can really soar.
We all want to soar as photographers, right?

So you are assuming that people take photos thinking to themselves "I won't bother framing that properly as I can edit it later" or something like that?

What a load of rubbish.

I would be willing to bet that, thanks to the ability to experiment provided by digital, there are more photographers now who have a good understanding of the technical aspects than there ever were. The main reason there is more dross around is that there are millions more people with cameras out there now than in the days of film.

Ian

Canonshots
23 Feb 2011 - 2:19 PM

This thread is riding my pet hobby horse.

As I see it, any work of art can lose validity if it fails to be true to the nature of the medium. Taking that idea a stage further, the defining characteristic that differentiates photography from painting is that photography is true to life, whereas painting need not be. It seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to use editing software to improve the fidelity of the image, but once the editing changes amount to falsification, then the line has been crossed. A painter quite legitimately operates on the far side of that line, and the issue does not arise.

The beauty of our world is often either latent, transient or both. It is the great merit of photography that it can capture those fleeting moments and hidden delights that would otherwise be missed. Editing software can help achieve that aim or it can get in the way. A seeing eye is the key, not software.

Perhaps we should make a clear distinction between photography and digital art, which is fundamentally dependent upon software.

Back in the days of film I was taught that it is impossible to make a good print from a bad negative. I suspect that something similar applies today. If a shot is not right in the camera, then no amount of digital manipulation will make it right.

These are purely personal opinions and imply no disrespect for those who disagree, as I am sure many will.

keith selmes
23 Feb 2011 - 11:05 PM


Quote: When we shoot a photo like editing software doesn't exist

For several reasons this to me is the wrong idea. One reason is, if I'm taking film I'm thinking about what I can do with processing or cropping etc., possibly what sort of printing to use, but software is quite irrelevant. With digital photography, or with scanned film, another range of possibilities exist in software, and part of taking the photograph is knowing what you can do with it later. Or taking it specifically for a particular process.


Quote: we don't become dependant on software to fix our shots.

There is as tendency for people who don't do much photography to think that is what software is for. If they wanted to improve, then for sure, trying to take the photo as if editing software didn't exist would be a good way to start. I think to some of us it just sounds an odd way of phrasing the idea.

I liked LefForums version

Quote: "Take your photo like editing software doesn't exist....and then use it!"

and I have to agree
Quote: it is sometimes simply impossible to get the shot you want correct in the camera

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.