Straight Outta Da Camera. Who's With Me?

Mods. If this is in the wrong forum, feel free to move.

I think I'm in the minority. When I bought my D3100. I never budgeted for post processing software.
I've bought lenses, filters and other accessories, but after a year still no PP software. And I'm in no hurry to get PP software.
The image processing in the D3100 does fine when I need to use it.

I get more out of photography by attempting to get it right in the field and not on the computer.
That's how I did it in the 70's with film. That's how I'm doing it now.

Anyone else out there doing it Straight Outta Da Camera?
I'd like to think I'm not the only one out here on an island so to speak.



Might as well make this a Straight Outta Da Camera thread. Post em' up.

heres one from yesterday.

Yep, same here. If the subject is still, i can atleast take a few shots to get the right one. I have only ever used software to crop the picture. The few shots i have in my gallery are straight from the camera, no photoshop or anything else.

I'm only bothering to mention this simply because there are a lot of new photographers here who are truly trying to get better at the craft. My apologies to Zekemenuar for "borrowing" your rose photo.

"straight outta da camera" is not a badge of courage . . . kind of misses the whole point of "digital"

Your rose, post processed by a human, who I still believe is better at the artistry and color rendition than the camera.

ZekeMenuar said:

I think I'm in the minority. When I bought my D3100. I never budgeted for post processing software.
I've bought lenses, filters and other accessories, but after a year still no PP software. And I'm in no hurry to get PP software.
The image processing in the D3100 does fine when I need to use it.

I get more out of photography by attempting to get it right in the field and not on the computer.
That's how I did it in the 70's with film. That's how I'm doing it now.

Click to expand...

I have to beg to differ. . . back in the film days, we only captured the image. Unless you had your own darkroom, someone else printed it - where they made decisions regarding cropping, color adjustment, etc.

RAW/NEF files are your negative or slide. Why would you want to give that up? The only reason I can see to shoot JPEG is to maximize buffer capacity.

What the 70's and film taught me was to slow down and do better composing. That hasn't changed with digital regardless of whether you're using JPEG or RAW.

Eduard said:

I have to beg to differ. . . back in the film days, we only captured the image. Unless you had your own darkroom, someone else printed it - where they made decisions regarding cropping, color adjustment, etc.

RAW/NEF files are your negative or slide. Why would you want to give that up? The only reason I can see to shoot JPEG is to maximize buffer capacity.

What the 70's and film taught me was to slow down and do better composing. That hasn't changed with digital regardless of whether you're using JPEG or RAW.

Click to expand...

Alright you mean old Moderator. I bought LR3. But that won't stop me from doing my best to get it right straight from the camera.

Good for you Zeke. Capturing the best possible image will result in great pics! Look in the software forum for links to free LR training too!

Have to say zeke I thought your original rose photo looks nicer to me. The photoshop pic is vibrant no doubt but I like what the camera did there. I posted in a similar thread about photoshop etc being an aid to make photos "better" but my thought is the photographer should do that with a good camera surely?


Gav

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humans used to walk everywhere barefoot. At some point, we invented the wheel because we realized that walking sucks.

Have to say zeke I thought your original rose photo looks nicer to me. The photoshop pic is vibrant no doubt

Click to expand...

Well, duh???!

Question? When is a photograph,nolonger a photograph.When my shutter falls,I have a photograph,(an image locked in time).When I
take this image,add to it,or subtract from it,I have altered the original into a work of art.To me when the shutter falls,thats it,got it or
not.Just a thought.

slowpoke said:

Question? When is a photograph,nolonger a photograph.When my shutter falls,I have a photograph,(an image locked in time).When I
take this image,add to it,or subtract from it,I have altered the original into a work of art.To me when the shutter falls,thats it,got it or
not.Just a thought.

Click to expand...

A photograph is a replication (supposed to be) of what your camera (and you) are looking at. Though, it is not always "replicated" as what your eyes have seen. I think there are perhaps two camps: one that thinks you take the picture and you better get it right the first time around. The other is do software editing afterwards. This can be debated forever though and i don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. If you feel and think that a photo is what the camera produces and that is that, then that is fine. Don't let anyone try and tell you different. If you beleive that it is still a photo after manipulating it with software, fine also. Again, there is no right or wrong answer.

There is a right answer, and it is posted above. Since we are in the digital age, the underlined part of that definition could be removed completely to include modern technology. Nothing gets my shorts in a tighter wad than the so-called "purists". As if the dark room was some kind of magical place where photography just appeared on paper and no manipulation took place.

The "get it right in the camera" folks really need to get a clue. 9 out of 10 of them can't get it right anyway and show off their washed out crap while turning up their noses at anyone who uses Photoshop as if it's some kind of 3rd world religion. If SOOC is your thing, have a blast with it. Got a film camera? Great...try not to singe off your eyebrows while developing. But don't act like you deserve a merit badge.

slowpoke said:

Question? When is a photograph,nolonger a photograph.When my shutter falls,I have a photograph,(an image locked in time).When I
take this image,add to it,or subtract from it,I have altered the original into a work of art.To me when the shutter falls,thats it,got it or
not.Just a thought.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with that. You are more of a "purist".

About 97% of the time, I have to manipulate or alter the image that I took which includes: resize, adjust contrast, lighting, vibrance, saturation, sharpening, black and white conversion, exposure, etc.

There are people who likes to do HDR and IR photography which involves a lot of post processing. Of course there is nothing wrong with that since that is what they like to do.

I guess you can say there is no standard or regulation that limits every photographer on what they would like to do.

the so-called "purists". As if the dark room was some kind of magical place where photography just appeared on paper and no manipulation took place.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% . . . I'm tired of this resurfacing. "purists" need to first of all, research how a digital sensor operates, and secondly, go back to using a pinhole camera.

slowpoke said:

Question? When is a photograph,nolonger a photograph.When my shutter falls,I have a photograph,(an image locked in time).When I
take this image,add to it,or subtract from it,I have altered the original into a work of art.To me when the shutter falls,thats it,got it or
not.Just a thought.

Click to expand...

If this is how you honestly think about photography, then there is only one venue for you.

You have no choice but to go video. With video, you will always have the "perfect" shot simply because you can step through the frames

and find what you perceive to be the ideal shot. Of course, you might want to get accustomed to low resolution and a lot of throw away frames,

but thats the price you pay for out of the box perfection.

Just a thought.

This thread is not the place to debate what constitutes a photograph vs a computer enhanced image.

Start your own thread and debate it there

ZekeMenuar said:

This thread is not the place to debate what constitutes a photograph vs a computer enhanced image.

Start your own thread and debate it there

Click to expand...

I'm with you,Straight Outta Da Camera,just confused.

ZekeMenuar said:

This thread is not the place to debate what constitutes a photograph vs a computer enhanced image.

Start your own thread and debate it there

Click to expand...

There's where you're wrong already. If you didn't want a debate, you should've made a blog post, not a public forum post. You started it with your first post, and then continue to stoke fires with stuff like "photograph vs a computer enhanced image".

News flash: that D3100 generates computer enhanced images, whether you use software to post process or not. Grab an old box accordion camera, then talk about being a purist. Otherwise, you just sound silly.

---> I'm grabbing a pop corn.