Raw photo vs magicalized photos

  • 4
  • Question
  • Updated 5 years ago
  • Answered
There is a big difference between a raw photo using light and eye versus, super neonized magicalized refurbished bronzed etc, processing, Do we have seperate categories for this and does anyone else think its a good idea?...Im requesting and Im not talking about resizing or cropping or slight saturation of color. Some of us are working with a camera and light and some of us are wirking with highly technical materials, I think both is great but very different.
Photo of Monica Zani

Monica Zani

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes

Posted 5 years ago

  • 4
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
Monica RAW files are not meant to the final image i have read that you are ment to treat RAW files like you would treat a Film negative , That is the starting piont not the finished product But your right there is a long way between minimal processing and the final product at the top end here . Please use the software that came with your camera do process your shots before you convert to jpg , I take about 1 to 2 min on each image good luck with your photos
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
Interesring suggestion. Good luck to you and your suggestion.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
if you feel i am incorrect it is an open forum Im sure monica will benifit from other pionts of view . She can then take from each what she thinks aplies to her I am sure you will have ideas that may help her
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
RJ, my comment above was very clearly to Monica and her post.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
ok my bad
Photo of Pete Bobb

Pete Bobb

  • 193 Posts
  • 62 Reply Likes
I see many images on this site which to my eye are over-processed.
If you know the full-strength Topaz "Spicify" filter setting, you have an idea of the type of processing I dislike!
As another personal quirk, I dislike flowers photographed in full sun which have the spray bottle treatment of water and glycerine droplets sprayed all over them.
I vote with my lone voice against these types of images in the hopes it will discourage people from using those (to my eye artificial-looking) techniques.
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
Pete - As a test, I took 2 really crummy, low resolution, grainy photos and painted them all up using Topaz (among others). Actually got them both up over 500 in no time.

Agree with you on all points... even though I'm guilty of some "over enhancement" myself.

I enjoy Pixoto, the duels, checking out some of the great photos found here but don't take the whole thing too seriously. My photos are not all the great either so that could be why.
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
Pete, you are not alone. Trust me on that.

When I vote and I come across a minimally edited natural photo going up against one that is overly-processed and/or looks digital, I vote for the natural picture (unless it is poor). I admire true photographers who have learned their craft well and use minimal editing, as opposed to those who use technology more than the skill to capture a good/great shot with their camera.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
I myself rely on technology NIKON D800 plus Tamron 70-200 f 2.8, gadgets are fun ,
Photo of Jane A. Spencer

Jane A. Spencer

  • 116 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
I agree with both of you - points well taken.
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
Monica - I'm guessing by "raw" you mean as shot, out of the camera jpg with minor adjustments to compensate for imperfect environments.

My thought as well.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
I think she is using the RAW as in RAW file not jpg but of course we can't Know for sure . But a jpg from the camera has been adjusted and edited just by the camera's internal software not a person . Different cameras will show jpg's of the same scene differently .So a raw file edited by the photographer to what ever level they like will be a truer example of their work , A bit like going full manual rather than full auto

Monica if she likes may clarify
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
I get that RJ. A raw file out of the camera still needs to be converted into a jpg to post here (correct me if that's incorrect). I was referring to at most, maybe some Lightroom adjustments prior to uploading here,
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Monica, here at Pixoto we are all free to go crazy with the post-processing -- Pixoto does not discourage it. They say, "extensive use of Photoshop or other post processing techniques is allowed in all categories".

Art is always going to be subjective. What one person considers over-processed another will consider excellent. Also, what can look over-processed on a big computer monitor can, unfortunately, look just fine on a small cell phone screen.
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
Lenore - To tell you the truth I quite like a lot of the "over precessed" stuff I see. Most of it is very well done and has its place.

Don't know if comparing it to a relatively "clean" photo is a reasonable comparison.

I've seen "photo realism" that looks more like a photo than some of the "photos" in Pixoto.

Thanks for the clarification. My first comment in here, right after I joined, was on this exact topic. If I remember right, you gave me a similar reply then. Memory gets worse the older I get.
Photo of Lenore

Lenore

  • 2835 Posts
  • 937 Reply Likes
Nick, thanks -- I probably did. :-) I think it's wonderful that art has so many variations, and we certainly don't have to like them all. But we should all be encouraged to shoot our photos and process them the way we like, not the way somebody else wishes :-)
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
I agree Lenore... don't know that the 2 can be fairly compared in a dual. I'm a rookie at this and might think different over time. Best not be too rigid.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
HDR is one that people over use . A good HDR looks natual if you can tell its HDR you may have gone to far , only my opinion though
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
RJ, I think you nailed it. If you can tell... you have.
Photo of Jasenka

Jasenka, Official Rep

  • 17873 Posts
  • 1287 Reply Likes
Hello Monica, we allow extensive post processing in all categories.
Please check category description page: http://blog.pixoto.com/category-descr...

I hope this helps.
Photo of Shooting America

Shooting America

  • 741 Posts
  • 381 Reply Likes
Well, it seems that it's the most popular thing at the moment since looking at the leaderboard of the Landscape category, you'll see very dreamy images that you won't ever see in real life.

Since voting in duels take just seconds to decide, images that grab the voters' attention faster get the votes. Images that demand some time to process and require introspection don't fare very well.
Photo of Nick Goetz

Nick Goetz

  • 216 Posts
  • 86 Reply Likes
There are good photos that are technically great, even perfect and are a good representation of the subject but don't "tell a story". Then there are those that tell a good story but are technically imperfect even really bad.

Photos that end up doing both are the great ones. These are the ones that stand out in a duel.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
very true Shooting America , Tightly cropped and colourful , sharp photos seem to do very well and you don't then need to do a lot processing to give them impact
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
Nick and Shooting America...And there are the pretty little birdies perched on a branch in a zoo setting shots, the cute little kitty posed in my house shots, the goofy monkeys in the zoo shots, the over-processed photos, and the macros of water drops on something (anything) shots that are always good for a vote, but don't always tell a story or, more importantly, don't always speak to good photography. (Though some can.)

In fact, how in the world can someone truly tell a true quality photo from a thumbnail during voting on Pixoto (and, worse, looking at it on a small device like a cell phone)? A thumbnail does not reveal minor focus and noise issues, etc., that a regular size photo viewed on a laptop would. Pixoto voting was and is not meant to be a good and reliable measure of good or great photography--it's for fun. Now, if a photographer goes and tries to sell their photos through a reputable (key word) stock photo site (like Shutterstock) and if they accept it, they can be assured that the photo has high standards as to focus, exposure, no noise, etc. And if it also sells (gets downloaded), they have the extra and important benefit of knowing people like it.

I play on Pixoto, I learn from Shutterstock when I submit my photos there.

P.S. If you respond to this, I will reply back to you Wed evening, as I am off to a remote national park and island with my family for an adventure. Wish I could have brought all my lens and equipment with me to get some good shots, but couldn't. However, I hope to walk away with some decent shots anyways. Most of the fun to photography is getting out of controlled environments like zoos, sanctuaries, aviaries and going out into uncontrolled environments (nature at its best) and shooting away. Talk to you all later.
Photo of Richard Finnigan

Richard Finnigan

  • 12 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
It is the ability see an image and capture it where others see nothing that makes a good photographer not the location or the equipment But it does help if you know the limits of that equipment , use tripod or monopod or even the top of a fence when light is low , get in close as you can so you can see the subject when you look at your images latter , I follow Snap Chick on YouTube and she says a good trip to the Zoo helps you improve skills while getting up close to all manner of exotic birds and animals

But you need don't to go into depths of nature or even the Zoo any park with enough native foliage to attract birds and animals will do . Also the bird and animal there will be used to people coming close , so you don't need a to take a lot of equipment to take nice shots .
Its about having fun as you learn , teach yourself one thing then another but have fun
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
Richard, I accidentally posted a reply to your first sentence regarding seeing what others don't in another separate post, below. Please refer to it, since I am using my cell with spotty Internet coverage and can't copy and paste it here. Thanks.
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
Photo of Bridgette Rodriguez

Bridgette Rodriguez

  • 813 Posts
  • 208 Reply Likes
Richard Finnigan, as it relates to being able to see what others don't, I call that the "creative eye". It certainly helps photographers and is often critically important to artists. Being a creative person all my life, I often rely on that when looking at scenery -- especially landscape -- to capture. However, my camera doesn't always capture it the way I see it, so at times it appears my creative eye has subjectively become the loving eye!
Photo of Monica Zani

Monica Zani

  • 5 Posts
  • 5 Reply Likes
My argument isnt that we shouldnt have either one, I just wish there was a forum for judging them seperately untouched photos and the "dark room." just an idea
Photo of Richard Finnigan

Richard Finnigan

  • 12 Posts
  • 23 Reply Likes
as you gather skills you have to remember what you saw when you took the picture .As even the best camera does not have the same dynamic range as the human eye.That is why we need to edit our photos to get back to what we saw when we took the photo . RJ was right when he talked about HDR pictures sometimes being over done. Ideally HDR only restores the picture to what our eye saw when we took the photo . So a properly edited photo wont look edited it will just look good . I always vote against heavy and obvious HDR shots and if there are two I skip the vote . If such shot performed badly there is no incentive to do more in that style one notable exception might be rusty old cars
Photo of James Michael

James Michael

  • 47 Posts
  • 34 Reply Likes
you could have a section for unedited jpgs but how could you tell a unedited from a skillfully edited .you do have the opportunity to enter novice section but edited ones are allowed Or you may have your own contest for straight from camera
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
James Micheal, you make a good point...Post Processing if done well can't be recognized. A while back a member that was against any post processing at all went to my profile page and complimented me for all the non processed pics that he liked...the trouble was...all the the non processed pics he liked were indeed post processed! All of my pics get some kind of editing and processing.

The problem here is not processing but instead it is "bad" processing. If we have a new separate category it should be for no "noticeable" post processing. That is harder than it sounds and takes a lot more skill and knowledge than it does to point a camera at something, I have nowhere near the image processing ability that some folks here have, they are awesome!
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Just my humble opinion, but I think everyone who wants to debate post processing of photos should understand what the "18% gray card" is. The 18% gray card is what most cameras and light meters are oriented toward. That is if you take an auto exposed pic of a completely white surface the resulting pic will show the surface to be gray...18% gray...on a scale of 0 to 100.

This is how most light meters see things, and they try to see all image elements this way to blend them together so as to better analyze which shutter speed and F stop to recommend for each scene...(even with spot metering chosen).

In other words your camera tries to make everything neutral gray. Once you understand this principle you will began to recognize photos which are straight from a digital camera with no post processing because of all the grayed out tones and colors, And overall dull appearance.

The 18% gray effect can be negated by opening the lens wider 2 stops and your whites will be white but that will cause overexposure in most cases. This is why post processing is necessary to get the scene just as it looked to your eye... A camera alone cannot do this, proper post processing is a must for a realistic depiction of your chosen scene,

Myself, I get just as tired of seeing the boring, poorly contrasted, and grayed out scenes straight from folk's cameras as I do seeing the over-processed HDR nightmare scenes. I realize it should be to each his own...but post processing is as much a part of photography as pointing your camera at something is... Photography is and always has been a 2 step medium. Step 1...Expose your film or sensor. Step 2 ..Process your Image or negative.

Over post processing and no post processing are the same thing, neither is a realistic depiction of the original scene...Once again just my humble opinion..I'm happy.Pixoto welcomes everybody whether they agree with this or not, so it's all good!
Photo of Jane A. Spencer

Jane A. Spencer

  • 116 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
I had forgotten about the "18% gray card" from my Photography Course - or perhaps, at the time, I didn't understand it. Thanks to you, I do now. I try to post process my images to look like my eye sees the image to the best I can. No processing and over processing are what is unnatural. What is natural is how the human eye perceives it. Thanks for the reminder - it turned on a glimmer of light in my head.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Thank you for the kind comments.
Photo of Claire ~ Chinchilla Photography

Claire ~ Chinchilla Photography

  • 140 Posts
  • 33 Reply Likes
amen to this Tim!
Photo of RJ Photographics

RJ Photographics

  • 435 Posts
  • 134 Reply Likes
well said tim hall
Photo of Shooting America

Shooting America

  • 741 Posts
  • 381 Reply Likes
For me, taking a shot of a scene is not taking an accurate image of the reality of the scene but what I wanted it to look like in my mind's eye. That's what makes us artists not mere recorder of nature and human conditions.

Some photographers are realists, others are not and some straddle the fence. But all have a place in this big community of artists.
Photo of Tim Hall

Tim Hall

  • 486 Posts
  • 228 Reply Likes
Well said! There is a video documentary from the 70s of an Interview with Ansel Adams I like to refer to on this subject. I always thought Mr. Adams was the most realistic photographer ever. But in this interview he flatly says, "None of my images are realistic" .

He says exactly what you just said! He says, " One must first visualize in their mind's eye what they want the final image to look like, and then choose their exposure values according to how they want to process their final image".

When asked about this subject he actually said that without image processing, his images would make the world look like an ugly place. The Library of Congress on line collections has some of Ansel's photos developed straight from his glass negatives and I was completely stunned at how bad they actually are.

The video is available on Youtube in three parts.
Photo of Jane A. Spencer

Jane A. Spencer

  • 116 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
WOW!
Photo of Jane A. Spencer

Jane A. Spencer

  • 116 Posts
  • 21 Reply Likes
The photographer may be a realist - but the camera isn't . . ..
Photo of James Michael

James Michael

  • 47 Posts
  • 34 Reply Likes
it is a fantasy that the image out the camera should be the end product ( image)

This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies.