p.1 #2 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Yes, shoot jpeg if you don’t want to process in a computer…but don’t think your images are not being processed. They are being processed by the engineers that hard coded the processing into the camera with the result a jpeg gets ejected.
p.1 #3 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
There’s no such thing as pure digital capture as all images need to be processed. You have to decide if you want to process the raw or let the camera engineers do it.
p.1 #5 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
jwpstl wrote:
There’s no such thing as pure digital capture as all images need to be processed. You have to decide if you want to process the raw or let the camera engineers do it.
This. It's either the camera doing color work, white balance, vignette correction, noise reduction, etc or it's you. There is no "real thing".
I prefer to have that control 90% of the time. I don't give a shit about what is "pure" or not.
p.1 #8 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
RoamingScott wrote:
This. It's either the camera doing color work, white balance, vignette correction, noise reduction, etc or it's you. There is no "real thing".
I prefer to have that control 90% of the time. I don't give a shit about what is "pure" or not.
Thing is
I’m the exact opposite
Any “ corrections “ made just doesn’t sit right with me, regardless how much better - it’s no longer the shot taken.
p.1 #9 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Thing is
I’m the exact opposite
Any “ corrections “ made just doesn’t sit right with me, regardless how much better - it’s no longer the shot taken.
No shot is ever the same across digital or analog platforms. It’s never pure because too many variables are in play, be it the lens, the camera’s metering, sensor, processor and software, before a computer even comes into play.
p.1 #10 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
johnvanr wrote:
No shot is ever the same across digital or analog platforms. It’s never pure because too many variables are in play, be it the lens, the camera’s metering, sensor, processor and software, before a computer even comes into play.
Ditto, but cameras now are mini computers that use a processor and software to convert the light hitting the sensor into an image.
p.1 #11 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
johnvanr wrote:
No shot is ever the same across digital or analog platforms. It’s never pure because too many variables are in play, be it the lens, the camera’s metering, sensor, processor and software, before a computer even comes into play.
Let’s not forget that films were not “pure” either. The reds & yellows from Kodachrome and the blues & greens from Velvis sure were not what the eyes saw. I don’t even know what a pure photo is.
p.1 #12 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Thing is
I’m the exact opposite
Any “ corrections “ made just doesn’t sit right with me, regardless how much better - it’s no longer the shot taken.
The shot taken is ones and zeros. It does not look like a photo you would want.
The "purest" thing you can do is process the images yourself.
p.1 #13 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
EB-1 wrote:
The shot taken is ones and zeros. It does not look like a photo you would want.
The "purest" thing you can do is process the images yourself.
p.1 #14 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Why do film emulations for digital processing exist? Because there is not now, nor has there ever been "pure" photography. Every film had a characteristic look, and wise analog photographers chose the film that best matched their vision. Digital folks can choose emulations after the shot now.
Find the jpg settings (film emulation) that match your intentions. Adjust exposure to capture the light as you want it to be. And the decide if the shot needs post processing to match your "pure" vision. And then do it again for each. different scene.
p.1 #16 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
chez wrote:
Let’s not forget that films were not “pure” either. The reds & yellows from Kodachrome and the blues & greens from Velvis sure were not what the eyes saw. I don’t even know what a pure photo is.
p.1 #17 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
As per title
I seem to be drowning in so much post edited work.
I hanker after the real thing
What do you propose is the purest form of digital image capture without the need or reliance of computers.
Is it JPEG sooc
Or is it RAW converted to JPEG in camera.
I’ve had a gutful of super sharp super saturated nonsense. I can’t afford to go back to film… way to costly these days
Any advice?
Throughout the history of photography (now approaching 200 years), post-processing has been regarded as being as integral to the medium as clicking the shutter at the time of exposure.
It is fine if you don’t like post-processing – just as it is fine to write and not proofread or edit or cook and not adjust the seasoning. But not doing anything beyond what you do at the time of capture is no more “pure” photography than using all of the tools that are available to us.
By the way, when you “shoot jpg,” you are actually shooting “RAW converted to JPEG in camera.” Your camera’s sensor generates “raw” image data that is then immediately converted to a jpg version (including various kinds of automatic post-processing — color balance, sharpness, saturation, brightness, and more) and the original raw data discarded.
Oddly, it often seems to me that camera jpg images are “super saturated” and quite often “super sharp.” If you want something subtler, that’s the job of post-processing the raw files yourself.
Another option is to shoot raw (e.g. retain the original sensor data) and do an automatic conversion in post. You could even tweak it and create presets that provide whatever general adjustments you think you prefer.
p.1 #18 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
All photos have been manipulated to some extent, whether through film processing (dodge & burn, timing of developing & print) or digital. I’d rather keep that control than give it to an algorithm. I know what I saw when I shot the photo, though even that’s subject to memory, etc. I’m happy to shoot RAW and “develop” in Lightroom.
p.1 #19 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
zdscanond5 wrote:
All photos have been manipulated to some extent, whether through film processing (dodge & burn, timing of developing & print) or digital. I’d rather keep that control than give it to an algorithm. I know what I saw when I shot the photo, though even that’s subject to memory, etc. I’m happy to shoot RAW and “develop” in Lightroom.
One of mymantras when it comes to the “pure photography” and “no post processing” people is to observe that all photographs lie.
No photograph is or ever can function as a perfectly accurate surrogate for the original subject.
p.1 #20 · What do you consider to be the purest form of digital image capture?
gdanmitchell wrote:
One of mymantras when it comes to the “pure photography” and “no post processing” people is to observe that all photographs lie.
No photograph is or ever can function as a perfectly accurate surrogate for the original subject.
People can lie about a photo or even change it with processing, but the image is what it is. There are various systems used to authenticate the image and validate chain of custody.
