Avoiding Post-Processing

[jordan_f1]

Which digital SLRs have controls that allow you to make a particular

image more contrasty and saturated and vice versa? I spoke with

someone at B&H and he recommended the Fuji Finepix SLRs over the

Canon 350D and 20D that I am most interested in for controls of

contrast and saturation on-camera. Is it possible to get the Velvia

look or Portra look without having to mess around with PhotoShop?

[jordan_f1]

Here's a good example of what I'd love to be able to do without spending an hour on PS. http://www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=190429

[ryan_brenizer]

Yes, although they aren't as nice to use as some of the Nikons, and the S2 is a battery-eater,

the Fuji S2 and S3 are designed to be really good for people who want results straight out of

the camera or who want to shoot almost entirely in JPEG.

[paul -]

There are +/- adjustable Parameters for Contrast, Saturation, Sharpness, and Color Tone on the Canon DSLRs. But that image looks "fake", and more cartoon-like than a photo. (Disclaimer on that observation: I had my eyes dilated 4 hours ago.)

[digitmstr]

>>without spending an hour on PS.<<

 

If you are spending that much time you need to take a course, no offense. That' waaaaaay too long!

 

The new Canon 5D will have more in-camera controls but, alas the reality is that a digital image is really meant to be developed properly. Just as a particular soup makes a difference in the final look of a film slide or negative so does the way a RAW image is converted.

 

Film characteristics along with chemicals used in traditional darkroom are in fact the equivalent of a properly exposed RAW image "developed" in Photoshop or Phase One.

 

Whatever in-camera processing can never compare to a properly executed conversion and editing in Photoshop, for serious work that is.

 

You can pay someone to do it for you as you did with your film or you can learn how to do it yourself.

 

If you did your own darkroom work then, Photoshop is NOTHING compared to the hours spent in keeping chemicals and the darkroom to proper operating conditions, waiting for the film to dry, replenishing, cleaning, loading film, adusting temperatures, breathing fumes, etc... etc...

 

You can always try to emulate film but, it's a waste of time IMO. Digital is a different medium. Just a like VELVIA can't show you a histogram...

[jordan_f1]

Thanks for all the responses. Giampi, you really made that make a lot of sense to me by comparing RAW to the development of film. I guess I will have to use PhotoShop afterall because I am serious about this. I just don't like when people get carried away with all the editing, but if I think of it as being a Frontier machine with film and just adjust saturation and contrast that's no big deal. Do the images from a DSLR usually need a lot of enhancing? BTW, I was overexagerating a little with one hour ;)

[jim_roof]

I second Giampi's opine.

 

I ran a color lab for my business for 22 years and just shut it down to do all digital printing. Gone are the days of trying to do a color burn with a gelatin filter taped over a hole in a piece of cardboard. Gone are the days of completely giving up on selective color alterations and trying to just 'hit the middle' in color balance. Gone are the days of questionable repeatability.

 

I might spend a little time at my computer but once it's done... it's done and the results are far superior to anything done in a traditional color darkroom.

[mark_chappell]

<I> Do the images from a DSLR usually need a lot of enhancing?</i><P>

 

Not if they're well exposed. Keep in mind that the typical workflow (for me, anyway) is to

'process' maybe 1/10 of the RAW images I shoot -- the best ones, obviously. Typically, that

processing takes maybe 1 min per image, and it's mostly a matter of fine-tuning. Get rid of

any dust marks, Noise Ninja maybe, shadow/highlight maybe,

boost saturation, and unsharp mask. I find it fun to take a good-looking RAW image and

with a few simple manipulations, make it look even better. Once you get familiar with

Photoshop the processing becomes second-nature.

[digitmstr]

>>Not if they're well exposed<<

 

Exactly. I have done professional shoots (I am no longer working as a photographer but, from time to time I do some work which I get from word of mouth referrals, etc...) in which I had no time to shoot RAW and develop. In fact, the majority of my work of late sort of necessitated that I shoot JPG. For that reason I use a colormeter and a Sekonic meter for flash/ambient about 90% of the time. I must say that my 10D worked flawlessly with the data produced by those two meters and it translated as well on the 10D as it used to on my Bronica shooting slides or film.

 

Careful lighting and metering can definitely take you at least 95% there.

 

The only "requirement" might well be a little sharpening but, that can be done in batch using a Photoshop action.

 

I can tell you I don't miss my wet darkroom one bit. Though I have learned a lot using it, I don't miss it at all. On the contrary, I am having so much fun with digital that I am re-discovering photography in many ways.

 

Contrast and saturation could also be "batched" in Photoshop if you like. The new Canon 5D I believe offers a much greater range of adjustment than the older models did. But, since it's not out yet it's hard to tell what it will look like when translated in print.

 

Are you printing your work? If so, Photoshop is essential part of the process as you must be able to translate the colors and contrast accuratly on paper.

 

If you are only using it for web display then, you will need to match at least the standard color for web. No matter how you look at it some preparation and post-processing will be necessary.

 

Some day, many things will be automated and/or more standardised...we can only hope ;)

[jtk]

While a few hours do make it easier to produce postcard images, the reality of that Oregon coast is lost. Gone. It's not an honest photo, though it is a pretty picture. A few YEARS of looking at that coastline might allow honesty, and it wouldn't be hard to capture with any of the many film emulsions we have, or with straightforeward digital capture.

[mark_chappell]

<I>While a few hours do make it easier to produce postcard images, the reality of that

Oregon coast is lost. Gone. It's not an honest photo, though it is a pretty picture. A few

YEARS of looking at that coastline might allow honesty, and it wouldn't be hard to capture

with any of the many film emulsions we have, or with straightforeward digital capture.

</I><P>

 

I confess to not understanding this 'argument' at all.

[jordan_f1]

Lol, I had to reread it a few times, but I think he is saying that just going to a beautiful place like that once and making it look pretty in Photoshop is not the same as staying there a year and waiting for that time when the lighting is perfect and therefore a truer representation of the scene meaning there is no need for post processing. But, I am only guessing. Is this what you meant?

 

Anyhow, what I am about to ask is somewhat off-topic for this particular thread, so I may have to start a new one. I'd really like to go ahead and buy an 8 megapixel SLR, either the 350D or 20D, but I'm not sure how long one of these will last considering how new technology is constantly coming out. How long do you guys go with your SLRs before you say "this camera is too outdated, I need to buy a new one"? If you consider computer technology in general it seems to have slowed down in significant improvements. Computers today seem to be a much longer investment as opposed to a few years ago when they would be outdated more quickly. How long do you think it will be before digital cameras are that way, where they are not improving at such a quick rate and you can hold on to them for many years? That was hard to explain in words, so I apologize if it doesn't make any sense.

[mark_chappell]

Jordan: The camera will become outdated when you think it's obsolete. That's mainly a

matter of personal psychology. I think the pace of improvement is starting to plateau (at

least in terms of pixel counts, noise suppression, etc.), but count on anything you get today

being replaced in a few months (or maybe a year) with something 'better'. If you keep

waiting for the next improvements, you'll wait forever. Today's DSLRs are wonderfully

capable and they will remain that way (even if something flashier comes along).

 

I agree with your analysis of Mr. Kelly's comment, although I think his argument (if that's

what he meant ) is silly, as any photograph, made on any medium, is an abstraction of reality.

[mr._smith]

"I'd really like to go ahead and buy an 8 megapixel SLR, either the 350D or 20D, but I'm not sure how long one of these will last considering how new technology is constantly coming out."

 

If your print requirements are for no more than A3+ size then you're all set with the 20D for a very long time.

[lex_jenkins]

I routinely shoot RAW and JPEG files in my Nikon D2H simultaneously for convenience. In many situations the in-camera settings for JPEGs are good enough to produce very good prints right out of a Fuji/Aladdin or Kodak kiosk. When folks want prints right away that's a reasonable option. And I still have the NEF (RAW) files available for any necessary tweaking.

 

The consensus of opinion I've heard from knowledgeable camera shop employees (there are a few) and Fuji owners is that the S3 is capable of generating excellent photos right out of the camera. The 8x10 and 11x14 photos I've seen taken with an S3 in the shop (just snapshots) and printed immediately via a Fuji Pictrograph support these opinions. If you understand the capabilities and limitations of that camera and its applications to your preferred working style, it may be a good choice.

[-o9ewurpoqewur-e8wqu]

If you are using the Fuji s2 or s3 in Raw and shooting at 12 mp, you have more than enough size to print most anything you need. The s2 now at $1400.00 is an incredible buy for anyone wanted film like results. you will not have the speed of the 20d, but you will be able to print larger, and again, with more film like results.

chris