snubbr.com

No Post-Production Work ... EVER!
I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) or Sony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digital camera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simply want to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a home printer, BUT I do want excellent photos. Question: Should I shoot RAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without any post-processing?..

Comments (69)

Sounds like something you can dream about. In the seven years I've been shooting digital, I've only captured one frame that I felt couldn't be improved with post processing. And I shot transparency film for over 30 years, learning how to make it perfect out of camera. Cameras may have gotten better, but they are still limited by the person using it..

Larry Bermanhttp://BermanGraphics.com..

Comment #1

If you don't want to post process you might as well forget digital SLR..

And if you do shoot raw it is virtually impossible to not post process. You can get snapshots without post processing, and some 'nice' photos, but you won't get 'excellent' photos without PP. If you're only interested in snap shots, you don't need a DSLR..

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) orSony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digitalcamera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simplywant to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a homeprinter, BUT I do want excellent photos. Question: Should I shootRAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

Some cool cats that can use your helphttp://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org.

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word...

Comment #2

If you're shooting for mostly 4x6 prints made at the store or at home, JPGs at the highest resolution and highest "quality" will be very OK. If they're not, it would be a bad camera..

4x6 prints made at the store will get a little automatic post-processing by the printer machine, for exposure. If you use Kodak "Perfect Touch" extra-cost printing, it adjusts exposure and local contrast very well..

If you use a home photo printer, little 4x6 printers have an "auto" mode which also does automatic PP. I use a little HP Photosmart to bang out quick 4x6s for friends right from the camera card, and that printer's automatic feature (I've turned off it's red-eye reduction setting), which is something like Kodak's "Perfect Touch" routine, is usually amazing..

(Maybe this is heresy on this forum, but regular people are happy with regular nice 4x6s.)..

Comment #3

No post-processing? When pigs fly..

(1) What looks best depends on the image viewing circumstances. I just spent some time talking with a guy who finally went DSLR, only to have buyers remorse. He was confused that the LCD would look "great" and the actual raw output would look "ho hum" on his monitor. The little screen on the DSLR usually does a lot of extra processing to ensure a high-contrast visible image, and while this looks great at 3"x2", it would look horrible with any closer inspection. If you sharpen for an 8x10, then print a 16x20, you now see the sharpening halos..

(2) The camera can't know what you want. Even if you include the "running man" and "daisy near mountains" specialized programs on the mode dial, there are way too many situations that you will want to shoot, for which the camera's decision-making process is not programmed to handle. More likely, the camera is not given sufficient information to detect it anyway. It can't tell if you want to accentuate the cute and tiny fist of the newborn, or the glistening eyes of the newborn, or the shiny blob of snot under the newborn's nose..

[ e d @ h a l l e yc c ] http://www.halley.cc/pix/..

Comment #4

You've partly answered your own question here. If you don't intend to post-process, there's no justification for shooting raw. You can't print or view a raw file without first processing it..

As to whether yours is a realistic goal, I cannot say. But I will say this. The jpeg images from my Pentax K100D are mostly very satisfactory, and more consistent than previous digital cameras I've owned. I now find post-processing is now more a matter of artistic interpretation rather than necessity..

That's not to say that all my shots are perfect. But compared with typical results from slide or negative film, the K100D gives a high success rate, for me at least.Regards,Peter..

Comment #5

Question: Should I shootRAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

1. JPEG: as others have pointed out, RAW absolutely requires post-processing. That's what it is for - perfectionists who are prepared to spend the extra time in front of their computer so that they can PP the files better than the in-camera software can..

2. Yes you can get excellent photos without PP. Sometimes. The more experienced you are, the more often it will happen. meanwhile, back in the real world... you'll find that a picture that looks OK when printed out direct from the camera would look a whole lot better if you bumped up the contrast a bit...

Or lightened / darkened it a correct an exposure fault... if you see a 'potentially' excellent picture, are you really not going to make the most of it by fixing simple and easily correctable problems first?.

Do a search for some of the posts of a guy called 'GaryDeM'. He has posted (several times, in response to the same query from different people on the beginners forum) a detailed set of instructions of how to calibrate your camera to get the best possible quality JPEGs that will require minimal PP, and reckons that the vast majority of his pictures require no PP..

Best wishesMike..

Comment #6

I shoot all photos in Raw & JPEG. In most cases the JPEG is adequate and I can use the photo AsIs; however, if I get that special shot that I want to enhance, I have the RAW file to work with...

Comment #7

I haven't post-processed a photo in the past year. Yes, it can be done..

But it does take a considerable amount of time and effort to learn how to adjust your camera the way that YOU like the pictures to come out. It took me about three months just to get the white balance completely under control. And another month or two to get to a set of processing settings that satisfied me..

It's not so much which camera model can do the best job, because there isn't usually a "best". Rather, it's about which camera gives colors and such that YOU personally like. I think that your best bet is to check out the sample galleries on this site (and other sites)..

I'd suggest that you add the Fuji S5 Pro to your list of possibles. I don't know a lot about it, but it has an excellent reputation for quality JPEG output. Simon's review on this site says, "Fujifilm really can do color well (guess all those decades making Fujichrome help there), high ISO performance is better than the D200 (though don't expect miracles) and the out of camera JPEGs are probably the best you'll see from any digital SLR at this level."(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/)..

Comment #8

You can shoot raw and still not postprocess..

You can set up Lightroom with a profile and all your shots will be processed as you like on import as a batch. Then just print from lightroom as well and your done.Other raw developers can also do that.A member of the rabble in good standing..

Comment #9



The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'- Rayna Butler..

Comment #10

You can let the camera make all the choices and do all the processing for you, or you can do some of it yourself. But some how, someone or some thing has to process the images, just like in the film days..

If you let the camera do it all and say that's good enough, then I guess that's good enough. It is almost never good enough for my taste. I have found I have a better grasp on what I like my images to look like than are available from my camera's limited programs. I have reached the point where I shoot everything RAW and make all the choices that are left, myself..

Nothing is enough for the man to whom nothing is enough...

Comment #11

I think you're wasting money on a more expensive model of DSLR than you can use..

I'd suggest starting with an entry level DSLR ( like my Pentax K100D ) which is still a very good camera. Later, when you're ready, move up to a more sophisticated model ( and, of course, bring the lenses you will have by then )..

At the beginning the basic kit lenses will be fine. These are actually quite useful lenses..

I would say that the scene modes on a DSLR actually allow most people to produce better JPEGs than their P&S's would. The entry level models are now designed more as consumer cameras and the default processing is more suited to this..

Having said that :.

(a) I shoot RAW and post process mostly in batches ( automatically ) and by hand for a few images..

(b) I have tried to learn as much about photographic technique as I can. It has helped a great deal ( I think  )..

(c) I don't use scene modes and suggest you learn to use PSAM modes instead. This means learning basic exposure technique..

As people have said no-PP is simply hoping for too much..

StephenG.

Pentax K100DFuji S5200Fuji E900PCLinuxOS..

Comment #12

Sherwoodpete wrote:.

The jpeg images from my Pentax K100D are mostly verysatisfactory....

I should add that I take the trouble to set manual white balance and use fully manual exposure settings some of the time, although the built-in program mode is reasonably good for everyday use..

What I'm saying is this: to reduce post-processing requires extra care at the time of shooting, including bracketing shots in tricky situations and so on..

I don't necessarily think that post-processing is the answer to all problems. There are certain situations, such as combining flash with available light, or night shots using long time exposure, which really require correct settings at the time of shooting..

Perhaps it's just me, I've worked in I.T. for years, spent hours in front of a computer screen, and really don't feel the urge to spend my non-work time labouring over a hot computer.Regards,Peter..

Comment #13

Sherwoodpete wrote:.

What I'm saying is this: to reduce post-processing requires extracare at the time of shooting, including bracketing shots in trickysituations and so on..

Not only extra care but greater knowledge. Most of us get it wrong some of the time but put it right in PP. We also learn from our mistakes while PPing (I hope!).

I really feel that a D300 or the like is overkill for what you want to do. Something like a Nikon D40x would make more sense and spend money on good lenses.. In fact the D40x plus 18-200 VR sounds like it may be particularly suitable for you..

What you are proposing is a bit like buying a Ferrari to drive only ever at 30 mph in Auto just at weekends..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #14

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) orSony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digitalcamera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simplywant to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a homeprinter, BUT I do want excellent photos. Question: Should I shootRAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

I wouldn't bother with a dSLR, if all I wanted was Auto prints. And I certainly wouldn't bother with one of D300 class!! And even MORE certainly not as my first digital camera!!Regards,Baz..

Comment #15

If the camera (and ideally lens) is supported DXO runs automatically and even in fully automatic mode produces very nice images with no effort. It's quite slow, but you can let it run unattended..

It works with Jpegs but what it does with RAWs with no effort means I don't bother with Jpegs on the D70 at all..

LM2 wrote:.

You can shoot raw and still not postprocess.You can set up Lightroom with a profile and all your shots will beprocessed as you like on import as a batch. Then just print fromlightroom as well and your done.Other raw developers can also do that.A member of the rabble in good standing.

Nikon D70? Check. Talent? Raincheck.....

Comment #16

Let's not quibble over a technicallity..

I believe that the OP just doesn't want to sit down at the computer and drag up each photo, adjust curves, sharpen, crop, print. Rather just import and print. Which is precisely what several good raw developers offer with batch routines..

True technically it's PP but not hands on PP which is what the OP is trying to avoid..

How is this different from shooting jpeg and printing? Not much other than instead of accepting your cameras jpeg engine and limitations, you get to determine the output that is pleasing to your eye. So with a little one time effort you can get months of satisfactory output without further effort.A member of the rabble in good standing...

Comment #17

... or a point'n'shoot.KP.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htmhttp://www.phillipsphotographer.comVoted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati MagazineI don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!If science proved that plants have feelings, would all of the vegans die out?..

Comment #18

It only takes getting to know your camera VERY well..

Might be more fun for you to test..

You usually have 2 crowds....

The "Straight from The camera" crowd.....and the "Shoot RAW and PP after to get everything you can from it" crowd..

You can get VERY acceptable pictures from your DSLR (ANY DSLR) when you dial in the camera and spend time with it..

The biggest problem is...the camera dosnt see the way ...or with anything close to the complexity of the human experience..

For me...that is what photoshop is all about...bridging that gap..

Even in shooting RAW you need to "dail in" your camera to reduce the time PP and increase the data you have to work with..

Either of the cameras you mentioned should suit you well........

I reccomend renting all 3 for a weekend and trying them out...you will save a LOT of greif in the long run....and buy the one you seem most attracted to..

Good luck either way..

Roman.

The Law Of Attraction is ALWAYS working. Your only choice is whether you drive 'it'...or 'it' drives you.-Mehttp://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/..

Comment #19

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) orSony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digitalcamera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simplywant to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a homeprinter, BUT I do want excellent photos. Question: Should I shootRAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

Obviously JPEG is your only hope of achieving your goal. Raw, by it's nature, requires post-processing, monitor calibration, etc..

But here's my reaction to your question..

Post-processing is as much a part of photography as pressing the shutter button. What makes you think you aren't going to have a tilted horizon or an underexposed shot that needs fixing to be "excellent". The store's printer will actually be post-processing your pictures and you may not be pleased with what they give you. Your own printer may not give you what you see on your computer screen..

Photography is about creating an image of what you thought you saw when you took the picture. Very few shots come out of the camera in a way that makes you say "that's exactly what I saw"..

To be a bit sarcastic, you can bracket exposure, and shoot in continuous mode and have a better chance of getting a excellent shot, but you can also send someone out to take the pictures for you and just look at what they bring home to you. Photography is an experience to be learned and enjoyed..

Darrellhttp://members.aol.com/pixbydg/still/life.htmlhttp://members.aol.com/pixbydg/New/Gallery.html..

Comment #20

Chris: Thank you for your input. Actually, I was just looking at the D40X specs, and it may just suit my needs with that lens you mentioned. Before I buy, however, I want to wait for all the new models to come out, and for dpreview.com to do their usual wonderful reviews (we'd all be much worse off without dpreview.com)..

Thanks to everyone who responded to my e-mail ! I can see all your points, and will consider them carefully...

Comment #21

Artisticphotography wrote:.

Before I buy, however, I want to wait for all the new models tocome out, and for dpreview.com to do their usual wonderful reviews.

You might wait forever, then. Reviews take a long time to produce, and therefore come out long after a camera is introduced. By the time the review comes out the next new camera is "just over the horizon"..

The next big round of camera announcements will be in February, for PMA 2008. The D40X was announced at PMA this year, and the DPR review didn't come out until May. Are you going to wait until next May or June? And what about the rumors that will be floating around by then for what will be announced in September and October for Photokina 2008?.

Don't wait around unless there is something very specific that you're waiting for. Find what you like and buy it...

Comment #22

I'll wait for the dpreview.com full reviews on the Nikon D300, Canon 40D and Sony A700. I'm not in THAT much of a hurry. Besides, the more I read about the current state of digital photographs, the more I'm convinced that they have a LONG way to go in sharpness before they approach photos taken with film. That REALLY turns me off...

Comment #23

Misconception. Most photographers don't want their images oversharpened straight out of the camera. It's part of post processing. If you think that digital hasn't reached the quality of film yet, you're not looking at the right photographs to compare it to.Larry Bermanhttp://BermanGraphics.com..

Comment #24

Also & use the DA40 f/2.8 Limited lens almost all the time. Between the lens & the good jpeg processing of the K100d, I don't do much post-processing..

But everybody messes up a shot and needs to know how to fix it- you'll be selling yourself short if you buy a dSLR and don't do ANY post-processing...

Comment #25

If we do it right the first time around, how will we sell the upgrade?! Keep photography wild...

Comment #26

You have to be a very, very good and meticulous photographer then. Because what you are asking means YOU will take full responsibility for all the aspects of each and every shot. That means, exposure, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, whether the horizon is tilted or not, etc. It means, you can't make too much mistakes..

Unfortunately, in the real world, especially with fast changing conditions such as in events or in sports, you will not be able to control or adjust all your settings. You will have to post process to save that shot w/c you can't re-do anymore..

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) orSony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digitalcamera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simplywant to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a homeprinter, BUT I do want excellent photos. Question: Should I shootRAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

Sure, but see my response prior to this. And if you shoot RAW, by default, you have to post process. Only jpg will let you print without PP. Maybe even tiff, though it's the software that will translate it to manageable output to the printer..

Caterpillar'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'..

Comment #27

I don't think you need to post process every single shot..

Especially if just beginning because the camera will "know" more about exposure than you will but as you progress you learn what it can and can't do and raw is idea for those tricky situations. Trouble is, lots of people who belong to the "P&S but don't think much beforehand" school of photography need post processing badly (only I call it repair work). Think before you squeeze the shutter and the camera will usually do a good job - even a simple P&S with EV compensation & a bit of thought applied beforehand can turn out good shots. My wife uses a 3 megapixel P&S all the time and gets pictures published - even for calendars and there's no one more fussy than a commercial calendar printer..

It is of course true that every picture can be improved by an hour's work on a raw file but it's also true to say that a car with a top speed of 158 mph could be tuned to do even more (say 160 mph) but in reality there are speed limits and you wouldn't be allowed to do 160 mph by your wife etc....

Another factor, which I've mentioned a lot and which has been ignored a lot. Some time ago someone mentioned the size in KB's of the jpg files from a 10 or 12 megapixel camera and I was shocked that their jpg's were much smaller than the ones from my 4 and 5 megapixel cameras. So the argument about lose of details seems to me to be a question of the compression the camera applies..

And lastly, look at the sample pictures that go with the reviews. Download and print the original files and judge for yourself. A lifetime of post processing would be a terrible punishment for not spending a little time doing just that..

Having said that I have to admit that I crop now and then, straighten horizons and correct vertical perspective but 99% of my pictures are jpg's. You don't need raw to do those simple corrections - some of which are forced on you by the stupidity of camera designers who think a wet bar of soap covered with little button and joysticks is the best model for a P&S....

Regards, David..

Comment #28

If you don't want to do any post production, all 3 of these camera's are too much camera for you. You don't need reviews to tell you this. Just look at the spec sheets of the 3 compared to the D40(x), 50 or the Rebel. Or just call B&H they will tell you the same..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #29

Darrell Spreen wrote:.

Photography is about creating an image of what you thought you sawwhen you took the picture. Very few shots come out of the camera ina way that makes you say "that's exactly what I saw"..

I have discussed this in other threads, stating I consider myself to be a documentary photographer as opposed to an artistic photographer. That is, I try to capture what I see, not what I would like to have seen. The response is usually that I should try to make the picture, through pp, as good as I can and not be limited by reality..

I think there is room and an application for both types of photographers: documentary and artistic..

As a documentary photographer, the only PP I do is to get the picture to match what I saw. I think you have provided a reasonable answer..

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...

Comment #30

IMac, therefore iAm wrote:.

If you don't want to post process you might as well forget digital SLR..

First few months with my DSLR I did no post processing, and still my shots were so much better than with the P&S I previously had - shutter lag, low light lens, high ISO performance, are all very good reasons to buy DSLR, even if you don't post process. The ability to change lens to get one that matches the needs is also important..

As for the OP: (a) never say never (b) choose the camera by the lens offeringUzihttp://www.pbase.com/uyoeli..

Comment #31

Personally I like the idea of no PP a lot, even though most of you seem to disagree. I try to take a correct expsore and leave it at that, the most I honestly would like to do is crop..

Of course now with my P&S and do I have to do some PP to get the best out of my images, but it is perfectly possible to not have to do any PP.Fuji Film S9100s9100/s9600 Flickr Group:http://www.flickr.com/groups/37994085@N00/..

Comment #32

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'll wait for the dpreview.com full reviews on the Nikon D300, Canon40D and Sony A700. I'm not in THAT much of a hurry. Besides, themore I read about the current state of digital photographs, the moreI'm convinced that they have a LONG way to go in sharpness beforethey approach photos taken with film. That REALLY turns me off..

Digital not as sharp as film?!? Oh, please. When I looked at my old film prints, all shot on high quality professional films like Fuji Reala, Fuji NPH 400, Fuji NHG, and processed at a pro lab, I'm actually a bit surprised at how soft they look compared to my images from digital today. Back when I produced those film prints, they looked fine. But compared to the standards for sharpness that I have today for my digital images, those film prints look pretty soft. I guess it's because with digital, now WE have contol over how sharp or how soft our images are. WE have control over even what areas are soft or sharp.

However, all this artistic control is apparently something you have no interest in. Apparently, all you want is point-n-shoot immediacy. Is that really "artiist" photography, as your name indicates?.

Frankly, I think straight-out-of-camera JPEGs, set to high sharpening, are just as sharp as film. But if you want a bit of extra "pop" to your images, just run a sharpening action on your images. However, that means batch running them through Photoshop. Or use a print-prepping software like Qimage, which does a great job of resizing and sharpening images for print...

Comment #33

Post-Processing is fun dude, you get to see every possiblity for your pictures and choose, not only the one that looks the best, but also reflects your personality and artistic views, making it truly your photo...

Comment #34

If the OP doesn't want to post-process the images then I'm assuming the OP isn't going to be as demanding of image quality than most of us are..

Just play with the saturation, contrast and sharpening settings in the camera until you find what you like, then leave it on that, all the time, and shoot in jpeg, highest quality..

However, postprocessing can save a lot of shots that would otherwise look horrible - you can make an under or over exposed shot look great, not to mention local contrast adjustments which is only possible in PP. Plus cropping.....

I'd say that if you're not overly critical, the only thing you're going to mis is the ability to 'save' over or under exposed images, or crop the image after the photo is taken..

Aside from that there's absolutely no reason the OP shouldn't just shoot with some of the settings cranked up..

No need to berate him for his choice. I'd say that a lot of DSLR uses probably do no postprocessing..

I would say that he certainly is limiting what he can achieve creatively, or what the equipment is capable of achieving, but that's the choice he makes. If he's happy with the shots that the in-camera settings produces, then isn't that the only thing that matters? After all, isn't that pretty much what the in-camera settings are there for?..

Comment #35

Just download the trial version, throw a batch of pictures at it, go get a coffee and come back to all your photos looking great. With DxO, I would not be so keen on photography at all. I like to shoot hundreds of pics, and I just don't have the time to post-process all that when it's just family pics 95% of the time. My gallery below is all DxO processed and I think it gives a considerable advantage to those that own it..

No post-processing at all is still a few years away imho. Cam+DxO= the camera of the future we want, but it will be here within 5 years I'd say..

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcovert..

Comment #36

With these RAw vs JPEG arguments it's really a question of what's acceptable to the individual. And that (if the picture was not needing a repair) depends a lot on the camera..

Most of us are quite happy with what comes out of the camera, even when enlarging 5 mp camera's jpg's to 32" x 24" but I wouldn't like to guarantee that for every 5 mp camera..

It's rather like a lot of other things: I print A4 and A5 mostly and I'm quite happy to accept that the A4 sheets are A4 and don't bother to measure each one and then trim it to exactly 29700mm by 21000mm or else reject it as too small. And no one notices - in the real world..

Equally, I run a series of test shots with new cameras and print the results and then adjust the camera's settings and, again, most of the time I'm very happy to accept what the makers have chosen and pick one of each of the 5 settings..

BTW, it's very difficult to accept the idea that you can pay hundreds or even thousands for an automated/computerised camera and then need to spend a few more hundreds on editing software and a lot of time before the pictures are usable..

If only there were standard settings for everything we could then see what the camera was setting and compare it with what was available on the editing software and make a more sensible decision..

Until that happens, I shalln't change my ways and will go on being happy with getting 97 or 98 out of 100 right without too much effort, other than checking the exposure, WB, focus etc before shooting..

Regards, David.

PS And a few years ago I can remember having this argument and sending someone a "difficult" jpg from a 3 mp P&S just to see if he could improve it and the answer was "not much" - which I thought proved my point as I'd made the adjustments by exposing very carefully and then clicking the shutter...

Comment #37

David Hughes wrote:one of each of the 5 settings..

BTW, it's very difficult to accept the idea that you can pay hundredsor even thousands for an automated/computerised camera and then needto spend a few more hundreds on editing software and a lot of timebefore the pictures are usable..

Regards, David.

PS And a few years ago I can remember having this argument andsending someone a "difficult" jpg from a 3 mp P&S just to see if hecould improve it and the answer was "not much" - which I thoughtproved my point as I'd made the adjustments by exposing verycarefully and then clicking the shutter..

Points I also thought about writing. It particularly irks to see people tell others that they might as well get a P&S if they don't want to PP. What they're implying is that their expensive DSLR has a cra**y jpeg engine compared to a $300 P&S. I shoot mostly jpeg with only the occasional raw and cropping is about the most PP that I do. Raw gets used only when I know that the lighting is difficult or the dynamic range is going to be a problem. Even then I have Lightroom presets that do all the work, it's only a few seconds to an acceptable picture..

A member of the rabble in good standing...

Comment #38

LM1 wrote:.

David Hughes wrote:one of each of the 5 settings..

BTW, it's very difficult to accept the idea that you can pay hundredsor even thousands for an automated/computerised camera and then needto spend a few more hundreds on editing software and a lot of timebefore the pictures are usable..

Regards, David.

PS And a few years ago I can remember having this argument andsending someone a "difficult" jpg from a 3 mp P&S just to see if hecould improve it and the answer was "not much" - which I thoughtproved my point as I'd made the adjustments by exposing verycarefully and then clicking the shutter..

Points I also thought about writing. It particularly irks to seepeople tell others that they might as well get a P&S if they don'twant to PP. What they're implying is that their expensive DSLR has acra**y jpeg engine compared to a $300 P&S. I shoot mostly jpeg withonly the occasional raw and cropping is about the most PP that I do.Raw gets used only when I know that the lighting is difficult or thedynamic range is going to be a problem. Even then I have Lightroompresets that do all the work, it's only a few seconds to anacceptable picture..

Thanks, would you care to join me in pointing out that photography is something we should do prior to squeezing the shutter and printing is all that we should do afterwards? I don't mind the odd one but to do it all the time!.

What I get wound up about is the "you must have a Nikon or a Canon, shoot in raw all the time and then spend an hour with Photoshop afterwards" lot. It seems to be a religion with them and I've even noticed magazines dedicated to them, poor things. They should get out more and have fun....

Regards, David.

And next week we could have a go at the "you mustn't use AA's school". </;-)..

Comment #39

If, as you say, digital photos can be as sharp as (or sharper than) film photos, then this gives me hope, since I do want razor-sharp photos. Also, you (and others) mention running batches of digital images through software for sharpening, etc. If that can be done, then I wouldn't mind post-production work. But if, to achieve an excellent photo, I had to sit in front of a monitor for long periods of time just to achieve same, then I would tire of it quickly. Thanks for your input...

Comment #40

"Photography is an experience to be learned and enjoyed.".

And a major part of that is what goes into the photo after it's been captured. Unless you're doing photojournalism ( which still involves cropping and contrast/lightnes & darkness adjustments at it's most basic levels ), doing your work without any kind of post processing isn't much better than snapshooting. If you only want basic snapshots, though, that's fine by me. It's all about what you're trying to achieve with photography, and what satisfies you, if you're not a professional...

Comment #41

Matt McCarthy wrote:.

Unless you're doing photojournalism ( which still involves cropping andcontrast/lightnes & darkness adjustments at it's most basic levels ),doing your work without any kind of post processing isn't much betterthan snapshooting..

Nonsense. If that was true, Kodachrome would have been strictly for snapshooters. For that matter, few photographers did their own development and mounting of any kind of slides..

Some people find the darkroom/post-processing to be a fundamental part of their photographic process. Some don't...

Comment #42

My K100D (a DSLR) produces far better results out of the camera than many P&S cameras. Plus I can still post-process if I like.Regards,Peter..

Comment #43

Save your self some $$$. Get a Nikon D40 or D40X and shoot in auto mode, finest jpg.If you want to PP later, try Nikon's Capture NX (30 day trial on line download)..

I'll knock the socks off any P&S, and if you want to upgrade later, you can just pay attention and try some other shooting modes.Incidentally, regular people love great pics.Good Luck!..

Comment #44

Wow David, you've boxed yourself into quite the corner with your ideas on what photography is supposed to be. IMO, it's equally silly to suggest JPG is as good quality as RAW is. And to suggest that, because the camera is an automatic electronic instrument, it's pictures should need no adjustment is incredibly unrealistic..

If you like doing things a certain way, that's fine and reasonable. But suggesting JPG is as good as RAW, and pics shouldn't need adjustment is just not fact. Maybe Ansel Adams was not a great photographer because he doctored every picture? In the old days, development was part of the creative process. Digital has not changed that. Even the simple in-camera Contrast control has the power to make a smooth portrait, or an edgy Fashion shot, but according to your logic, there should be no difference?? The difference is HUGE, and you're choosing to ignore this it seems. And that's just 1 control..

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcovert..

Comment #45

To get a chrome to print usually requires some form of post processing. Doesn't need it for projection, though. But you are correct - I had forgotten about chrome film. However, it requires a lot of care to work with, and most people don't have the patience or skills to get the best out of it...

Comment #46

Since I was mentioned, here and in the following reply below are some of the items I have posted in the past..

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.this keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg.yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

Comment #47

I wrote the following posts some time ago, they may be of interest..

No matter which dslr you buy..

Heavily consider the following. there are NEW DSLR owners' writing in all over these forums on this subject.when changeing from a p&s to a dslr, there is a huge difference..

When you take p&s out of the box add a memory card and a fully charged battery you can now shoot and take very good pics..

BUT, you cannot do this with dslr. the camera HAS TO BE SETUP first. you have to adjust the contrast/saturation/sharpness/shooting modes(color style or whatever it is called) to your likes. if you don't it is quite likely you will disappointed with results. your p&s will likely outshoot the dslr..

To setup-you have shoot a test shot make ONE adjustment reshoot check pc screen readjust, until you are satisfied. and you do this with each of the adjustment types. then you have all the custom adjustments in the menu to check and if wanted change..

When done you can put the camera into AUTO or PROGRAM and get reasonably nice shots. I would advise at first staying with jpeg. as you learn about the camera and photography you can then go to the other shooting modes and try RAW if you wish..

Dslrs are made to see the shot through the optical viewfinder not through the lcd. this is true of almost all dslrs including the k10d. there was a thread.

Not to log ago about who would want a dslr with a preview lcd, al,most noone wanted one.dslrs and color..

If you mean heavy saturated colors then no dslr is going to do that. they are not made to give strongly saturated colors. they are made to give ACCURATE COLORS. not heavy saturated colors..

This is not the same thing at all. too many people who come from a p&s are very disappointed in th dslr colors, because they are not bright and saturated. this is because they are and have been using a p&s which has been giving them saturated and incorrect clors for so long that they think it is the right look. nothing could be further from the truth. the p&s colors are wrong, wrong. the camera manufactures know that the public buys high megapixel and heavy saturated colors and is what they make and sell to the public..

But the slr/dslr is a whole different world. for the dslr accuracy of the scene in terms of view and color is a religion rpt religion. you want accurate color that is what you are going to get with dslr. but they will not be the bright saturated colors of a p&s. ytou can with adjustments in the menus up the color is dslr, but it will not look the INACCURATE CARTOON COLOR of the p&s..

If you are wishing to buy a dslr for more and brighter color, save you money the p&s is what you want..

Not too long ago a new owner of a dslr was on these forums talking about the poor color of his new dslr. it seems as if he was shooting on an overcast day. many many people replying to him told him that cloudy day shots give the most accurate color, which they do. he couldn't believe and get over that idea. he also owned a p&S previously.you might be interested in this; which I posted a while back..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257..

Comment #48

From what you say, don't get a digital camera, but a good analog P&S or SLR, load the film, take the pictures, have the film developed and printed and enjoy your pictures you get back..

As for digital, see below....

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) orSony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digitalcamera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simplywant to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a homeprinter, BUT I do want excellent photos..

If you don't want to get a P&S because you want to have the advantages of a SLR (lower noise, faster AF, better flash and of course ability to change the lens) get yourself a Nikon 40x, set it to fully auto and snap away..

Question: Should I shoot.

RAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

No post processing = JPEG..

Having said all that, it's important to understand one thing: Even the best camera with the best avilable automatic modes will take pictures that still can be improved by a little post processing..

Regards,JHhttp://www.jh-photography.net..

Comment #49

And finally, to answer your question: do I have do post-processing?.

Yes and no..

Yes if you shoot raw. there is no help for it. the raw shots have to be converted then pp after if they need it. also, there are a great many people who like working at a pc doing image programs. before I retired 2 1/2yrs ago I spent 8-12hrs a day work in an office in which I used a networked pc all day long. I have no desire to do that again.

When I started in 1970 I probably threw 95% of all I took out into the waste basket. eventually I got better over the yrs. just before I switched to digital it was a very rare day in which I threw any slides out due to exposure. I was getting about 100% exposures right. when I switched to digital my to my suprise and delight I found that shooting slides or digital was about the same.

Again how good are you personally as a pic taker? if you are very good and no longer really think about the mechanics of pic taking, as I do, but you are concerned about what you take in the composition of a photograph then you can probably bring a very good product to the pc..

I currently use the pc for sorting storing and printing the pics. my editing, if you call it that is primarily concerned with simply adding some additional sharpening to what the camera does. and for that I am satisfied with auto sharpen in pe5-6 or cs2. on some shots I may use auto level and auto contrast. in any event all my jpegs are saved using save as a tiff. never never do I save the jpeg; the original jpeg is left untouched and are kept in a holdall folder..

The isuue of shooting jpeg or raw and do you need or want to do pp is in a final analysis is dependent on the quality of the photos you are bringing to the pc. if you are bringing jpegs and they need heavy pp to make them presentable then you had better be shooting raw. raw gives you the freedom and ability to make good/great pics from average or poor ones. but by their very nature jpegs cannot take the heavy pp that raw can. if you are shooting jpeg you had better be pretty close to the good/great shot when it comes to the pc..

I also not do much or any cropping. I put the extra effort into taking the shot with the correct composition in the field. thus making cropping unnecessary, it also uses all the megapixels the camera originally shot the pic with, rather than cropping and simply throwing them away..

If you have questions, I will try to answer them. gary...

Comment #50

Thanks for your input. I just went into your link, and feel that the JPEG is too dark (it's like looking through sunglasses), and that the RAW is truer in color (but is probably STILL too dark). If this photo was taken on a sunny day (which obviously it was), then MY eye would be squinting with that kind of light. The RAW photo seems way too dark. But, maybe this is because you adjusted the camera's settings. Please explain...

Comment #51

If you are looking at the raw vs jpeg shots in 1 of the above replys..

Then when I look at them they are equal in brightness and appear about normal. noone else has ever made mention of the 2 images being too dark or too bright.any comment have to do with details or color variations being seen..

I am using a calibrated monitor veiwing the images on IE7. most users of these forums are also using calibrated monitors. if you do not have a calibrated monitor my strong suggestion is to get the monitor calibration software which is available from several vendors nd calibrate your monitor, especially if you are going to do photographic imaging..

In any event, the 2 pics are almost identical in appearance...

Comment #52

I'll answer that if you'll quote what I said because I think you've completely misunderstood me..

Regards, David.

Jizzer wrote:.

Wow David, you've boxed yourself into quite the corner with yourideas on what photography is supposed to be. IMO, it's equally sillyto suggest JPG is as good quality as RAW is. And to suggest that,because the camera is an automatic electronic instrument, it'spictures should need no adjustment is incredibly unrealistic..

If you like doing things a certain way, that's fine and reasonable.But suggesting JPG is as good as RAW, and pics shouldn't needadjustment is just not fact. Maybe Ansel Adams was not a greatphotographer because he doctored every picture? In the old days,development was part of the creative process. Digital has not changedthat. Even the simple in-camera Contrast control has the power tomake a smooth portrait, or an edgy Fashion shot, but according toyour logic, there should be no difference?? The difference is HUGE,and you're choosing to ignore this it seems. And that's just 1control..

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcovert..

Comment #53

UziY wrote:.

As for the OP: (a) never say never (b) choose the camera by the lensoffering.

I don't understand that saying. Why choose a camera brand because of lenses yoiu are NOT going to buy? Buy a camera brand that has the lenses you will actually use. I don't think many people even pn these boards own more then 4 or 5 lenses. If the camera you want has those 5 lenses you want, then buy it and get those lenses when you can afford them..

Chris, Broussard, LA..

Comment #54

Bikinchris wrote:.

UziY wrote:.

As for the OP: (a) never say never (b) choose the camera by the lensoffering.

I don't understand that saying. Why choose a camera brand because oflenses yoiu are NOT going to buy? Buy a camera brand that has thelenses you will actually use. I don't think many people even pn theseboards own more then 4 or 5 lenses. If the camera you want has those5 lenses you want, then buy it and get those lenses when you canafford them..

That is what I meant. In order to decide between Canon, Nikon, and Sony, one should look at the lens line-up of each, and see which has the lenses you want. A body-to-body comparison is less important than lens line-up to lens line-up comparison. Of course, the lens you are NOT going to buy should have no effect on your decision. The lens you might buy (or want, but cannot currently afford) should affect your decision.Uzihttp://www.pbase.com/uyoeli..

Comment #55

David Hughes wrote:.

BTW, it's very difficult to accept the idea that you can pay hundredsor even thousands for an automated/computerised camera and then needto spend a few more hundreds on editing software and a lot of timebefore the pictures are usable..

PS And a few years ago I can remember having this argument andsending someone a "difficult" jpg from a 3 mp P&S just to see if hecould improve it and the answer was "not much" - which I thoughtproved my point as I'd made the adjustments by exposing verycarefully and then clicking the shutter..

....

What I get wound up about is the "you must have a Nikon or a Canon,shoot in raw all the time and then spend an hour with Photoshopafterwards" lot. It seems to be a religion with them and I've evennoticed magazines dedicated to them, poor things. They should get outmore and have fun....

These are the quotes that caught my attention. If I misunderstood you, my apologies. I was reading between the lines a bit, so maybe I misinterpreted what you said..

For instance, you said you sent someone a "difficult" jpeg, they (one person) couldn't improve it "much", and you said that proved your point. What point did it prove?.

Or the first idea that you said was "difficult to accept" (which I agree it was rather difficult for me too), but did you finally accept the fact? Or are you still fighting it?.

P.s. as hard as this may be to believe now, my only reason for posting is that I like to help people, and I try to disuade people from certain ideas that I, and many others have in the beginning, that eventually turn out to be wrong. i.e. I hated the idea of shooting RAW for many years, but eventually I could not deny the quality difference in RAW files. Same with PP, I used to fight the idea because I knew it would take days to edit all my pictures. But once I got DxO (and I no longer had to do the work), it was amazing how quickly my stubborn stance on PP disappeared. .

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcovert..

Comment #56

It's kind of an inside "secret", but if you really want to take excellent family and party pictures with the least hassle and no PP you need a more powerful camera than what you are currently looking at. I'd suggest you get at least a Canon 1ds Mark II or Mark III. Just put them on auto all the time, and you'll not only get great photos, but you'll look like a professional too, which is very important..

Regards,HypnoSnoopy..

Comment #57

Well obviously you shoot JPG since all the camera tweaks will be in effect with the JPG. Most of our new DSLR's can be set up to give you the kind of no post processing results you are looking for.Dave Lewis..

Comment #58

That's simply not true. Most of our cameras can be set up to give very good right from the camera results.Dave Lewis..

Comment #59

Yes I think I've gotten the closest to perfect right from the camera shots with my K100D as any camera I've owned. You will do the same with most DSLRs' now. The Nikon D40 is just about the same as the Pentax in that respect.Dave Lewis..

Comment #60

Hi,.

I'm franticly busy today due to an airshow that I want to see with some amazing planes flying (if the weather forecast is to be believed). I'll come back to you later but I think we already agree about most things..

Regards, David.

PS the air show's http://www.shuttleworth.org/.

Scroll down the page to see what's flying from 1908 onwards. Sample:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #61

You are not asking much are you? Lol..

Photography is an art and to repeatedly get great prints involves skill from lighting to capture to the camer and other equipment. To post processing to the software you use. Printing I itself is an art. Believe me, it's what I di five days a week and it took me years to to get where I am today..

Nice as it is that you have posted your queiry, there is no quick answerbelieve me..

And yes you do need to PP. Even an automatic printer at you high street lab does a certain amount of auto PP. The cameras you mention are all good cameras ans can produce great shots, but you have to learn how to use them.Jules.

Artisticphotography wrote:.

I'm planning on buying one of the new Nikon (D300), Canon (40D) orSony (A700) cameras coming out now or soon, as my first digitalcamera. I don't want to do any post-processing at all ... I simplywant to print out the photos I take, either at the store or on a homeprinter, BUT I do want excellent photos. Question: Should I shootRAW or JPEG or what, and, can I get excellent photos without anypost-processing?.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #62

Haha no prob David, enjoy your day!  No biggie anyway. Take care!.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcovert..

Comment #63

With any of these cameras you certainly can 'do it all in the camera'.. and can get very good results. to do this, you MUST use JPEG, as RAW files require work in post..

You do need a higher level of involvement in your photography. you need to set the correct white balance for each shot. you need to absolutely NAIL the exposure, each and every time. you need to set up the in-camera JPEG paramater settings (sharpness, saturation, color tone, etc) exactly the way you want (analagous to putting in the correct film for what you are doing)..

I personally use both types of shooting - JPEG straight from the camera, AND RAW with post-processing, depending on the purpose of that shoot.. eg: when taking family snaps of my son playing, I shoot JPEG and one of the auto modes, so I can concentrate on playing with him... when shooting fine-art landscapes in the Rocky Mountains, I shoot RAW and work the files to best effect..

Cheers,S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..

Comment #64

ScottyNV wrote:.

You do need a higher level of involvement in your photography. youneed to set the correct white balance for each shot. you need toabsolutely NAIL the exposure, each and every time. you need to setup the in-camera JPEG paramater settings (sharpness, saturation,color tone, etc) exactly the way you want (analagous to putting inthe correct film for what you are doing)..

I personally use both types of shooting - JPEG straight from thecamera, AND RAW with post-processing, depending on the purpose ofthat shoot.. eg: when taking family snaps of my son playing, I shootJPEG and one of the auto modes, so I can concentrate on playing withhim... when shooting fine-art landscapes in the Rocky Mountains, Ishoot RAW and work the files to best effect..

Sounds your JPEG shooting is not with a higher level of involvement in photography. Doesn't sound you always set the correct WB, nor that you absolutely nail the exposure each and every time. In fact, it sounds as a conscious choice of lower level of involvement in your shooting, as you (rightfully) want a higher level of involvement with your son. To me, it sounds a perfectly legit, and even highly desired, use of "JPEG no processing"..

I am sure these pictures are still better than any P&S pics. Some would be even objectively better than your Rocky Mountains pics, since your involvement will show; for sure, they will all be more dear to your heart than RAW landscapes post-processed to the hilt. Yet, many posters here, including yourself, deride this type of shooting..

Uzihttp://www.pbase.com/uyoeli..

Comment #65

UziY wrote:.

ScottyNV wrote:.

Pointing out what is necessary for a COMPLETELY JPEG workflow only here...

You do need a higher level of involvement in your photography. youneed to set the correct white balance for each shot. you need toabsolutely NAIL the exposure, each and every time. you need to setup the in-camera JPEG paramater settings (sharpness, saturation,color tone, etc) exactly the way you want (analagous to putting inthe correct film for what you are doing)..

I personally use both types of shooting - JPEG straight from thecamera, AND RAW with post-processing, depending on the purpose ofthat shoot.. eg: when taking family snaps of my son playing, I shootJPEG and one of the auto modes, so I can concentrate on playing withhim... when shooting fine-art landscapes in the Rocky Mountains, Ishoot RAW and work the files to best effect..

Sounds your JPEG shooting is not with a higher level of involvementin photography. Doesn't sound you always set the correct WB, northat you absolutely nail the exposure each and every time. In fact,it sounds as a conscious choice of lower level of involvement in yourshooting, as you (rightfully) want a higher level of involvement withyour son. To me, it sounds a perfectly legit, and even highlydesired, use of "JPEG no processing"..

You misrepresent my statement.. 97% of the time, even for casual shots, I actually shoot manual mode, setting WB first.. and in the last year, my exposures have never been more than 1/3 stop off (from where I wanted them)...

The consious choice is to choose when to 'trust the camera' vs manually choose the settings.. P mode is for handing the camera over to my mother so she can take some pix of my son and I playing together...

You CAN achieve stunning photos by setting the camera up first and making consious decisions that limit the range of developmental possibilities, this is not a bad thing.. as you note, at certain times, I choose the higher level of involvement with my son rather than concentrating on photography.. those are 'memory' shots...

I also shoot JPEG in camera in other circumstances.. action (motorsport, soccer) tend to require faster buffering than RAW processing can offer.. so you set your parameters and get what you do... BE GOOD!.

I am sure these pictures are still better than any P&S pics. Somewould be even objectively better than your Rocky Mountains pics,since your involvement will show; for sure, they will all be moredear to your heart than RAW landscapes post-processed to the hilt.Yet, many posters here, including yourself, deride this type ofshooting..

I do not deride the JPEG-straight-from the camera route. My workflow allows (no, demands) that both paths are followed when apropriate... I do not suggest in any way that RAW workflow is for everyone.. nor do I recommend JPEG workflow in certain circumstances... eg: weddings - RAW... dance recital - RAW...

And you misunderstand me as well.. I purposely did not make my percentages known in my earlier post... I shoot 90% JPEG, with NO or LIMITED (cropping, resizing) post-processing... I reserve the RAW workflow for the situations where I am certain I can extract more in post than the camera's processor can replicate..

Uzihttp://www.pbase.com/uyoeli.

Cheers,S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..

Comment #66

Jizzer wrote:.

Haha no prob David, enjoy your day!  No biggie anyway. Take care!.

Hi,.

Well, I've just downloaded 1,264 or perhaps 1,274, pictures and I'm in no mode to argue or anything at the moment but thank heaven I don't use raw!.

Here's a picture for you, a jpeg btw:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Not a high "Wow-factor" but it prints well and all the detail is there to see. About 6 MB in the original and cropped to fit A5, A4 or A3..

Regards, David..

Comment #67

Artisticphotography wrote:.

If, as you say, digital photos can be as sharp as (or sharper than)film photos, then this gives me hope, since I do want razor-sharpphotos. Also, you (and others) mention running batches of digitalimages through software for sharpening, etc. If that can be done,then I wouldn't mind post-production work. But if, to achieve anexcellent photo, I had to sit in front of a monitor for long periodsof time just to achieve same, then I would tire of it quickly.Thanks for your input..

You are going the wrong way .

While most of the cameras in the market can be tweaked to achieve pleasing visual results, the path to an "excellent", "razor sharp" photo is very different..

It begins with planning, patience, good light and composition and serious postprocessing. Quite often will mean a tripod. And patience. And some luck. And patience. And quite a lot of postprocessing "versions".



So it's not very photographically zen to expect getting excellent, razor sharp images from the camera..

Of course, there IS excellent photography who does not imply tons of tinkering, but I have a feeling you have in mind less Capa and Cartier-Bresson and a bit more Ansel Adams..

Well, those are my 2c based on what I understand from your posts..

/d/n..

Comment #68

HypnoSnoopy wrote:.

It's kind of an inside "secret", but if you really want to takeexcellent family and party pictures with the least hassle and no PPyou need a more powerful camera than what you are currently lookingat. I'd suggest you get at least a Canon 1ds Mark II or Mark III.Just put them on auto all the time, and you'll not only get greatphotos, but you'll look like a professional too, which is veryimportant..

Regards,HypnoSnoopy.

LOL!.

I found that comment to be very amuzing..

I am in a similar situation, I have some understanding of photography however find myself torn between brands, specifically the Canon 30D and the Nikon D80 or even the D200..

Hell I even find myself wanting to still use film, but the cost/opurtunity/convienence can not compete with digital. How is it that my Nikon 70D slr white balance was terrific every time. There is just no comaprison to slr in quality..

I loath myself for being lazy and just not continuing with film. Yet I still have not fully comitted to honeing my digital skills regarding adjustments, which honestly is due to the fact being spoiled by advance slr's. All I concerned myself with was ISO, f stop, and shutter speed resulting in a great shot majority of the time..

As far as PP. Having digitals PP during printing at a lab is all that is needed to make me happy. As my monitor makes the images look great but then just printed comes out dark. So just a simple PS auto adjustment fixes things right. Besides composer is all what I concern myself with and all that I want to concern myself with..

On a side note, god bless PP for underwater photography, holly %$$#@ does that make an unbelievable difference. Talk about keepers..

Anyways, Even thought there are the next greatest dslr out, I am eyeing the Canon 30D or the Nikon D80 or D200..

The quoted comment above reminded me of how much I hear about great out of the camera pictures taken with the D200 "everytime", the pictures sure look dam good too..

AND THEN THE LENS "oh god please no more", As you may have figured, I do not do good with having choices, HA! But thats not too bad, either 18-85 IS or 18-120 VR would be the one I would pick..

So yes I too, am after the extra capabilities of a dslr to be that of my slr so all I want to concern myself with is composing the shot for perfection. Perhaps what is most telling and the one question that sets cameras apart is which does indoor family photos better in low light or with built in flash?.

Any suggestions which Canon or Nikon does better, which has least need for PP, and yes I realize how subjective that question is. But I am relying on owners of these two brands to come forth and offer their critiques of their own. Even small details are what adds up. What can people tell me in regards to that..

Thank you,..

Comment #69

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.