Thread for posting Photos shot "As is"

I wonder if the Moderaters of this site would consider making a Thread where a picture of a bird " Shot As is " can be posted as that would be a major help in learning true photography skills.Unfortunately,I see most,if not everyone using quiet a lot of PP to come to their desired effect,using top notch expensive softwares, on the photos to get the excellent results and impressing the viewers with his/her Jaws dropped to the floor. There is a huge difference between Taking Photos & Making Photos.

And so what is "shot as is" anyway? In the old days of 35mm chrome, that was your shot-as-is.
Today, do you mean a shot-as-is being the RAW camera file image?? If not, but it is the camera jpg, then the camera is doing PP. That is, how the camera is set up for all those options like - white balance, normal, softer, vivid, more vivid, sharpening, saturation, and much more even on my basic Nikon D200 DSLR.

Whether "shot as is" of shot with mucho PP, what makes a great photo is the thinking before the shot. That is - light, composition, and subject is where it all starts, is what as you said is true photography. No amount of PP can correct for those three basics.

I'm looking forward to the new BPN forum "The Art of Nature Photography".

Tom

Sam, The world of photography has changed dramaticaly and I believe that post processing is the norm. If you started that forum you would probably see very few entries. Unless one radically filters and manipulates an image it's hard to make a poor image into a good image....

Quote:

---

There is a huge difference between Taking Photos & Making Photos.

---

Not really artist make photos snap shooters take them and this starts way before the image even hits the computer screen look at some of the older work done by Artie, Franz Lanting, Art Wolf and other before they started shooting digital there work from back then still holds up today. Its misconception that all the good work being done today is thru Photo Shop tricks.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately,I see most,if not everyone using quiet a lot of PP to come to their desired effect,using top notch expensive softwares, on the photos to get the excellent results and impressing the viewers with his/her Jaws dropped to the floor

---

Here is a link to one of the RAW exercise that Roger moderates scroll down to my version of the image, I spent about 20 minutes on the image and only clone out a water drop which I could have left in to me this is a as is image nothing added no major elements removed just cropped and tonal manipulation to arrive at the finale version. Did I use a lot of PP to get at the finale version yes, is it an accurate representation of the scene as captured by the RAW file yes, could I have produce this from a poor initial capture the answer is no. Post processing is is essential to producing digital images of the highest caliber and I am not referring to the tricks and cloning but the basics of tonal and contrast manipulation to bring out the potential of the Raw file.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...2-Ravi-s-image
True photography skills include post processing if you shoot Raw now all the technical skills in the world will not give you the artistic vision needed to create memorable images.

I shot K64 for 20 years or so and when I went digital, I felt that I needed to learn PP simply to bring my "as is" digital captures up to the IQ level that I had been producing with film. And this forum is where I learned most, if not all of those skills. "As is" as you are hinting at would be totally unpost-processed, which would mean (IMO) no sharpening, right? I doubt that one could produce a K64 type image without some sharpening, in camera or in the computer.

To add to what has been said, the standard characteristic curve for digital camera output is a variable gamma curve that was derived for vidicon TV tube output in the 1950s. It does not have the same response of film, nor the human eye. It is simple but effective and makes OK images out of camera, but far from ideal and far from reality too.

Probably the best way to observe and contribute to "as is" would be to contribute to the raw processing threads--show us your vision. We also need contributions of images; we are very short on contributed raw files for the monthly exercises.

Roger

This thread is very similar to the one I started a few weeks ago (see link below) and to which there has been very little response - probably due to, as Dave Mills and Roger Clark, above suggest that there are intrinsic differences between the media of film and silicone.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...cord-quot-shot

Regards

Andre

Hi Sam
In the years before digital It was common for me to take negatives and prints back to the processing centre and get them to reprint say one or two stops darker which presumably made them no longer "As is" but the results were more true to the natural appearance which I am more comfortable with.
Just wonder if you would like to contribute an "As is" image to the forum for others to try to enhance and see whether you then prefer the original ?
True to nature is what counts for me.
Cheers: Ian Mc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre van As

This thread is very similar to the one I started a few weeks ago (see link below) and to which there has been very little response - probably due to, as Dave Mills and Roger Clark, above suggest that there are intrinsic differences between the media of film and silicone.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...cord-quot-shot

Regards

Andre

---

I'm sure you meant silicon not silicone (silicone is used for breast implants :bg3: )

IMO a poor photo cannot be turned into a master-piece by digital manipulation. e.g. harsh light, soft focus, motion blur, bad head angle, bad wing position, bird flying away from the viewer, bad pose etc. are often the main reasons a photo is not appealing to the majority of viewers. None of these flaws can be fixed by post processing.

You have to get it right in camera and then use post processing (e.g. noise removal, removing color cast, adjust exposure, cropping etc.) to present your photo in a natural, pleasing way, that conveys your message to the viewer in the most effective manner.

Hi Arash
What a novel thought - having photosensitive prosthetic implants!! But to be more serious - it seems that images captured in the digital format require more manipulation due in part to the pixel characteristics which it seems occurs to a lesser extent in pigment based image capture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

I'm sure you meant silicon not silicone (silicone is used for breast implants :bg3: )

IMO a poor photo cannot be turned into a master-piece by digital manipulation. e.g. harsh light, soft focus, motion blur, bad head angle, bad wing position, bird flying away from the viewer, bad pose etc. are often the main reasons a photo is not appealing to the majority of viewers. None of these flaws can be fixed by post processing.

I agree and these and this are equally true for film photography

You have to get it right in camera and then use post processing (e.g. noise removal, removing color cast, adjust exposure, cropping etc.) to present your photo in a natural, pleasing way, that conveys your message to the viewer in the most effective manner.

---

Re digital vs film in the following; - noise removal - noise in MVHO only occurred with film under severe conditions and ASA/ISO >400:, removing color cast; - color cast was a problem that could not be adjusted: adjust exposure; - exposure was not adjustable in a slide but could be managed when a print was being made: cropping - this could be carried our by using masks that were available from the Lake Erie photo club in the 1970,s but this reduced the size and impact of the image. OTOH a 4x5 could be "cropped" by mounting it in a Super Slide that resulted in a knock down effect when projected from a 35mm projector provided that the IQ was good to begin with.

BTW - I admire the quality of your images regardless of how you got there!

Best regards

Andre

One distinction might be the purpose toward which the images are intended. If they are photo-illustrations it would seem the sky is the limit in terms of corrections, cloning, adding extra animals, etc. However if they are intended for editorial use then the modifications one is permitted to do is usually quite limited. What constraints do magazines such as Audubon place on images submitted for publication?

Sam, cool idea. I'd be up for it :-)

Cheers,
Greg