Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11189608 « Must landscapes meet a higher standard? »

  

RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Must landscapes meet a higher standard?


Camperjim wrote: The final images they sell probably have only a faint resemblance to what actually come out of camera.

If you think about it ... how can it come out of their camera any different that it would come of your camera, if you stood there and took the same shot, same time, same exposure.

We know from our own efforts that what comes out of the camera is rather lackluster until it gets processed ... either by the camera's profile or by our PP efforts. Dynamic processing yields dynamic images. It starts in your mind (your vision), you do what you can to capture it, then you process it. not unlike hunting ... see, capture, process. The difference in good venison jerky or sausage is more about the way it gets flavored ... i.e. S&P to taste ... yum.

If the camera is not going to produce anything different (@ the RAW level) then essentially all the difference must lie in the processing. Until one realized and accepts that aspect ... they'll beat themselves up over their inability to emulate the others.

Same goes for fashion/beauty shots ... the PP is what makes it (beyond the obvious lighting, makeup, clothing, etc.). It is important to know when you are chasing reality vs. chasing the myth. My PP has a long way to go, but I realized quite some time back that it isn't my camera work that keeps me from reaching the next level ... it's my processing. I don't like that answer, because I romanticize with the purist in me ... but it is a truth I must embrace if I truly want to improve.



Dec 13, 2012 at 11:55 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Must landscapes meet a higher standard?


Camperjim wrote: The final images they sell probably have only a faint resemblance to what actually come out of camera.

If you think about it ... how can it come out of their camera any different that it would come of your camera, if you stood there and took the same shot, same time, same exposure.

We know from our own efforts that what comes out of the camera is rather lackluster until it get processed ... either by the camera's profile or by our PP efforts. If the camera is not going to produce anything different (@ the RAW level) then essentially all the difference must lie in the processing. Until one realized and accepts that aspect ... they'll beat themselves up over their inability to emulate the others.

Same goes for fashion/beauty shots ... the PP is what makes it (beyond the obvious lighting, makeup, clothing, etc.). It is important to know when you are chasing reality vs. chasing the myth. My PP has a long way to go, but I realized quite some time back that it isn't my camera work that keeps me from reaching the next level ... it's my processing. I don't like that answer, because I romanticize with the purist in me ... but it is a truth I must embrace if I truly want to improve.



Dec 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM



  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11189608 « Must landscapes meet a higher standard? »