View Single Post
Old 06-01-2012, 04:34 PM   #26 (permalink)
Cmike2780
A True Z Fanatic
 
Cmike2780's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 5,059
Drives: slowwww
Rep Power: 28
Cmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond reputeCmike2780 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCool View Post
Yes, but you assume that everyone is capable of shooting a perfectly exposed image with perfect white balance, color, and saturation. It also assumes that every scene being shot has even light distribution and doesn't require any post processing. I use a Nikon D3 with professional lenses, been doing photography and darkroom work since the 70's and I am of the opinion that such an animal as a perfectly shot image rarely, if ever, exists in its ability to reflect the photographer's artistic vision. I rarely find any image that I shoot to be perfect even out of my $5000 camera with its $1700 lenses.

Show me somebody who doesn't post-process their photographs from their digital camera and I'll show you somebody who is just doing shapshots. It would be a very rare professional photography gallery indeed, whether shot in JPEG or RAW, that demonstrates images that are not post-processed. Ansel Adams photgraphic art was ALL about post-processing. Compared to the hours and money I used to spend in the darkroom cropping, exposing, dodging, burning, I rejoice in the ability to accomplish all of that and FAR more in front of my computer far cheaper and far quicker.

My point is that post-processing is desirable for virtually every image if the photographer wants to achieve the artistic vision he had in his head when he pushed the button. If that's the case, then IMHO far better to start with digital data that is accurately and easily amenable to such manipulation.
I think your logic is beyond the point of this thread. Geez it's just a file type. No need to get all worked up about it. I'm not arguing, in fact I completely agree. This isn't a jpeg vs RAW thread, so lets not turn it into one. Of course shooting RAW has it's benefits, but for someone who's just starting out like the OP's brother, it's more of a burden than an advantage.

Having a wealth of knowledge & experience with photography, You of all people should know $$$ equip doesn't always equal better pictures. I'm not a pro by any means, but the notion that every shot must be post processed to be any good is a bit of a reach. It's obviously more difficult to get it right in the field, but it's not some unicorn you'll never catch. Artistic vision aside, everyone I know does some sort of post processing, including myself. I guess my point is that people tend to rely on post as a crutch. Artistic vision starts in the field, not in front of the computer screen.
__________________
[09][MB][6-Spd MT][Touring][Stillen Gen III][K&N][Borla CBE][Evo-R]


Last edited by Cmike2780; 06-02-2012 at 07:02 PM.
Cmike2780 is offline   Reply With Quote