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

Why is it very few post out of camera shots without any tweaking?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

losbarbados
11 Feb 2013 - 7:09 AM

However much you process in software two things remain.

1) It's nothing new to photography, even in film days the images were tweaked, it was just done in a different way.
2) It has always been the case, to get good data out, you have to put good data in.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
11 Feb 2013 - 7:09 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

davereet
davereet e2 Member 9197 forum postsdavereet vcard United Kingdom
11 Feb 2013 - 8:39 AM

Losbarbados is correct the machines that processed your films in the old days did quite a bit manipulation automatically.
I never knew this till I was told by a bloke I met who used to run one of these machines.

Dave

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 8:44 AM


Quote: I would like to know why everyone, or it feels like everyone has to tweak, adjust an image? Why not get it right in camera and not be obsessed with Photoshop or the Software of choice? Wink

Why would you NOT ? want to improve on something , there is no photographer and no camera than can not be bettered by a little help in post production and that goes back to film days too. I can only see the argument coming from people unwilling or unable to grasp editing software.

widtink
widtink  2406 forum posts Scotland2 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 9:17 AM


Quote: However much you process in software two things remain.

1) It's nothing new to photography, even in film days the images were tweaked, it was just done in a different way.
2) It has always been the case, to get good data out, you have to put good data in.

Think this sums it up perfectly well done !!!!! Why would you not fiddle with an image its fun tae fiddle Wink And it should be about fun , dinnae take yersel too seriously folks.

Rod

puertouk
puertouk  21054 forum posts United Kingdom17 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 9:32 AM

Top professionals use Photoshop more than amateurs, so what's there excuse? They've got the best equipment money can buy. The best studios as well. So, why should they use Photoshop? Because there's always something not quite right in every shot. Whether that's a blemish on a models face, an unwanted post in a landscape or a bird in the sky. Amateurs try to get their images as perfect as possible, so what's wrong with that? Most of us strive to get that perfect image, some will and some wont. So, what's wrong with trying to improve anything you do in life?

discreetphoton
discreetphoton Site Moderator 93445 forum postsdiscreetphoton vcard United Kingdom20 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 9:37 AM

Because the enjoyment of creating an image doesn't stop when I trip the shutter.

paulcookphotography

Its pretty simple - its because we can.

Using photoshop or tweaking isnt always 'fixing' something. Its much more creative than that. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 'SOOC' images but if you look at some of the dedicated groups on flckr you will find a lot of well exposed images that are largely not very interesting. Getting the camera technique is very important, obviously, and then you add your creative touch to make the image 'yours'

JohnParminter
11 Feb 2013 - 10:58 AM


Quote: I would like to know why everyone, or it feels like everyone has to tweak, adjust an image?

All my Flickr stream photos are JPGs straight out of the camera with no tweaking at all. So it does happen.

Smile

p12owe
p12owe  1101 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 11:16 AM

I "tweak" because I want an image to be the best that it can be.

Without wishing to upset anyone, there is an amount of snobbery surrounding many "out of the camera" photographers who will often put down anything processed as being somehow inferior.

We are very lucky that we live in an age where we have the tools (and camera technology) at our disposal to create stunning images. Imho If we have the skills to use them, it would be silly not to take advantage of them.

Just a thought to finish... A very good photographer once told me. "You can photoshop a good image to make it even better... but to photoshop a bad image is like putting lipstick on a pig!"Tongue

scrimmy
scrimmy e2 Member 5365 forum postsscrimmy vcard Scotland5 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 11:59 AM

I doubt if any prints that I admired when I was younger were "straight out the camera"

martinl
martinl e2 Member 10248 forum postsmartinl vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:21 PM


Quote: All my Flickr stream photos are JPGs straight out of the camera with no tweaking at all

I get what you mean John (I assume you mean you download from camera, resize and post), but surely by virtue of shooting in JPEG, the camera will have "tweaked" the image already (maybe a bit of sharpening, maybe a bit of contrast, bit of extra saturation perhaps, and almost certainly some compression ) depending on what settings you have for your JPEG's. Even if you have all settings neutralised, they are "tweaked" to some degree as I understand it.
Smile

GlennH
GlennH  91894 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:25 PM

If you send digital files to any lab in the land they'll have 'auto-corrections' applied before being printed, unless you specifically request otherwise. With digital photography if you don't take responsibility for the processing you're just offloading it to someone or something else.

paulcookphotography


Quote:
Without wishing to upset anyone, there is an amount of snobbery surrounding many "out of the camera" photographers who will often put down anything processed as being somehow inferior.


True! I know someone who shoots exclusively with polaroid because they dont want to 'churn out the typical digital images' (their words). I was always impressed with their work, although i thought their attitude to other photographer/forms of photography was a little harsh. I eventually worked with them on a project and discovered that 99% of the scanned polaroids also went through various photoshop filters, actions and textures. Now that, to me, said it all, haha

Overread
Overread  63746 forum posts England18 Constructive Critique Points
11 Feb 2013 - 12:29 PM


Quote: All my Flickr stream photos are JPGs straight out of the camera with no tweaking at all

I get what you mean John (I assume you mean you download from camera, resize and post), but surely by virtue of shooting in JPEG, the camera will have "tweaked" the image already (maybe a bit of sharpening, maybe a bit of contrast, bit of extra saturation perhaps, and almost certainly some compression ) depending on what settings you have for your JPEG's. Even if you have all settings neutralised, they are "tweaked" to some degree as I understand it.
Smile

Yes - its akin to letting the lab do your photo development and printing. The only faithful part of the process is that every single photo gets the exact same treatment (whether it needs it or not) - unless you change the editing settings in the camera. The only problem with this is that you can't currently change anything after the photo is taken, it has to be before and thus you can't predict when a photo might want less or more of some adjustment.

The other downside is its all global changes (ie the whole photo) many times things like noise reduction and sharpening work best when limited to specific areas of the photo.

This is no more or less faithful than shooting in RAW and having the RAW processor use the same processing settings each time - or changing them yourself to suit the photo on an individual basis. It is still values affecting change to the core photo. Even if you took a RAW photo and set every single slider to 0 (ie no change) you would still see a difference in the photos (generally slight but it is present) if you used different RAW processing software options (each one will draw a different "base" line so whilst the same effects can be got with the sliders the baselines will vary.



Then again it does produce very usable and good quality results - heck much of the fast media journalist industry uses JPEG for when the photos have to be transferred almost as soon as they are taken to the newspaper (eg for sports). There's no chance for the photographer to have any input and thus no point in introducing the step.

keith selmes
11 Feb 2013 - 12:40 PM

"why everyone, or it feels like everyone has to tweak, adjust an image?"

because we can, and we'd be crazy not to


"Why not get it right in camera"

sometimes that can't be done, unless you restrict yourself a heck of a lot, and even when we get it as good as can be, there's probably room for computer improvement

"and not be obsessed with Photoshop or the Software of choice? "

we're not

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.