Foo - Photo-nuts

Hey, so I read somewhere recently (the photographic powerhouse magazing "outdoor" *sarcasm*) that no photo taken with a D-SLR is complete without running it through a program to clean it up, like PShop.

I read this after I was realizing all of my photos were coming out very flat and lacking of color with my Rebel XT. I ran a few of the photos through auto leveling and adjusted contrast and brightness and they did clean up a bit.

I like taking photos, but I had a budget when I bought this camera, and also had existing lenses from my analog SLR that would work with it. The lenses I think are my biggest downfall. They were uber budget Sigma lenses with a macro feature.

What do you photographers with fancy cameras think of that line of reasoning? I mean I obviously if I had nicer lenses that would produce a better photo...

Not sure what you mean by "nicer". And it wouldn't necessarily give you a "better" photo, perhaps shaper maybe. Lenses would be rated on various measurements:

1. resolution
2. flat focus plane, not spherical
3. even illumination across field (no vignetting)
4. distortion or colour aberrations
5. extra features, like focusing speed, image-stabilization, etc.

With film SLR cameras, since the film can be equal across different cameras, it's the lenses that would show variations. However, with D-SLRs, the sensor and its processor also makes a HUGE difference. The Canon D-SLRs for example have a superior sensor+processor to Nikon when it comes to low-light sensitivity where the Nikons tend to show more noise and colour aberrations in the shadows.

I'm not really sure what your question is about, how about being more specific. Perhaps posting a sample photo or two. :)

BTW - personally, none of my "great" photos have ever been achieved with a simple click. They often took hours to set up lighting and sets. Composing the shot with adjusting focus & exposure options can take a while as well. And always required processing and touch-up afterwards, film or digital.

My question is essentially whether your best photos are achieved right at the moment of snap, or do they require post-production processing?

I'll post examples later I guess, I was just curious though.

Ah... I see... some great photos are done spontaneously. However, I think that's accidental.

The "best" photos are prepared tonnes beforehand. Some of this is with getting enough technical background with understanding lighting, focusing, depth-of-field, colour-balance, composition, etc.

Even composing the shot in the moment requires a lot of preparation, which comes from experience. Most people stand there and snap a shot. With experience, a pro may be able to imagine what that shot would look like from different perspectives, such as laying down on the ground or climbing up a tree or to the top of a building (there's a reason ninjas and panthers hide in trees). The rule of thirds is a good starting point for composing a shot.

Then the clean-up afterwards can do tonnes. It can revive poor exposure and focus. Burning & dodging hasn't gone away with the demise of film, maybe even more important on cameras that don't have as wide a dynamic range as film. Simply rotating the entire picture so that the horizon is horizontal makes a big difference in a lot of photos. And cropping the shot can improve a blah picture into something more interesting. I've spent over 20-hours cleaning up a single photo once.

Photo-nuts

OK

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/left-field/ct_org_nuts_400w.jpg

I have to up at least the saturation on almost all of my photos. I've used L lenses, and while the color reproduction is pretty accurate under the right settings, I still usually have to up the saturation.

It should be noted that lenses make a HUGE difference regarding this.

The best photographs in the world were ALWAYS post processed from the start of photography. Those bold and dramatic Black & White shots you see involve lots of darkroom work. Even the standard colour 4x6" prints you used to get back from the minilab involved colour and density corrections (well it depended on how good or bad the minilab was). The one exception here was transparencies projected onto a screen with a slide projector but then if those trannies were printed on a page then it involved post processing.

In the digital age more people are doing the processing themselves in Photoshop and thats a big part of digital's attraction. Most pro's and advanced photographers got hooked into digital because all of a sudden anyone could control the image at home with just a computer rather than having to have a blacked out darkroom and having to play with chemicals.

Anthony

Every digital photo has to be "processed" in some way. DSLR's actually work in greyscale, and without processing you'd have a grey, tone compressed image. The look you receive out of camera is what the manufacturer thinks you want. So you either accept the manufacturers ideals of processing/post production, or you intervene and impose your own.

hard to say really.

cant find the pic i really wanted
anyway no photoshop

http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/vehicles/_MG_1583.jpg


heavy photoshop
http://stupidhurts.org/gallery/albums/vehicles/ventglow.jpg

Hey, could you post the original of the 2nd pic for before & after comparison?

that/s before a hard drive failure so i only have the copy.

but here you go


shopped
http://stupidhurts.org/random/spank1.jpg

un shopped.
http://stupidhurts.org/random/spank2.jpg

Ruh Roh, link malfunction.......