A Different take on Post Processing

On 7/17/2017 11:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 17, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
The big question should be; If your career as a PJ depended on your
integrity, and the immediacy of your work, why cheat to circumvent the
policy
of the agency paying you?

What you can also do with the E-M1 II is to set it up to do white
balance bracketing or art filter bracketing (or exposure bracketing,
there are more bracketing modes). Then you choose which OOC JPEG is best
for the particular scene. No "cheating" at all...

...and that is probably a much better way to go about things. Agreed, no
cheating at all, and I have a similar feature with my Fuji X-T2 & X-E2.

I use bracketing for different reasons, mostly Fujifilm “Film simulation”
bracket (probably similar to your “art filter”), and exposure brackets. I
usually avoid WB bracketing, by relying on auto WB.

I can also make appropriate intentional adjustments to the SOOC JPG in my
“Q” or quick menu where I have 7 custom presets. There I can apply the
sort of adjustments I might have made in-camera before I take the shot. Also,
no cheating at all.

I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?
--
==
Later...
Ron C
--




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Jul 17, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 7/17/2017 11:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 17, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In iganews.com,
Savageduck says...
The big question should be; If your career as a PJ depended on your
integrity, and the immediacy of your work, why cheat to circumvent the
policy
of the agency paying you?

What you can also do with the E-M1 II is to set it up to do white
balance bracketing or art filter bracketing (or exposure bracketing,
there are more bracketing modes). Then you choose which OOC JPEG is best
for the particular scene. No "cheating" at all...

...and that is probably a much better way to go about things. Agreed, no
cheating at all, and I have a similar feature with my Fuji X-T2& X-E2.

I use bracketing for different reasons, mostly Fujifilm “Film
simulation�
bracket (probably similar to your “art filter�), and exposure brackets.
I
usually avoid WB bracketing, by relying on auto WB.

I can also make appropriate intentional adjustments to the SOOC JPG in my
“Q� or quick menu where I have 7 custom presets. There I can apply the
sort of adjustments I might have made in-camera before I take the shot.
Also,
no cheating at all.
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

Nothing.
In-camera Raw procerssing and adjustments are just one option for producing
SOOC images. The results are surprisingly good.

When it comes to RAW processing with a desktop/laptop computer, calibration
becomes quite critical for a whole bunch of reasons, not the least of which
is color management. This is essential for consistant post edit viewing of
shared images on different displays, and printing.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!


HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.

--
PeterN

On Jul 18, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

HDR can be a useful tool.

Thatis the point. HDR can be a useful tool, with the caveat, that it should
used subtly. However, in the past the temptation to overcook for many was
irrisistable. That, and that much of the earliest HDR software led folks to
overcook as the adjustment margins were narrow. This are much better today,
with one of the best, subtle HDR processors today being Lightroom.

HDR, like focus stacking for macro work, and exposure stacking all have a
place in the photographer’s post processing tool kit. I wouldn’t be at
all surprised if Davoud didn’t at some stage use focus stacking for some of
his macro work.

Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter effect one gets from overdoing it.

The over saturated, glowing halo is as impressive as a velvet Elvis.

However, digital manipulation is an art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.

Done well, all one should be able to say, is the image is good/impressive,
and how it got to be good/impressive is not immediately obvious.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

Davoud:
I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

PeterN:
HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.

One man's "useful tool" is another man's useless gimmick.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Jul 18, 2017, Davoud wrote
(in article ):

Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

Davoud:
I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

PeterN:
HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.

One man's "useful tool" is another man's useless gimmick.

Do you use focus stacking?

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!


HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.

I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484...017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oec...mer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4e...Shore%231a.jpg

--
==
Later....
Ron C
--




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Davoud:
I don't think your missing anything...

I can't believe that I, the great stickler, wrote "your" in place of
"you're." I cringe when I read stuff by those who don't know the
correct form. I will flagellate myself.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Jul 18, 2017, Ron C wrote
(in ):

On 7/18/2017 9:49 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 7/17/2017 11:43 PM, Davoud wrote:
Ron C:
I'm really confused.
Seems 'we've' spent a tremendous amount of time here
talking about how critical monitor calibration is for photo
accuracy and quality, yet here folks are talking about
in-camera adjustments using the totally un-calibrated
tiny display in the camera.

What am I missing?

I don't think your missing anything; you seem to grasp it. Computer
editing as needed for those to whom image quality is important, camera
tricks for the rest. Hell, there are people out there who still think
that so-called HDR is cool!

HDR can be a useful tool. Yes there are some who like the Harry Potter
effect one gets from overdoing it. However, digital manipulation is an
art form in itself. Some like it, some don't. It depends on taste and
the particular image.
I freely admit to frequently going over the top. I kind of like surreal
stuff.

Anyway, over the top seems like the right mood for my summer twitter header:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ivd7br484ff5m7/Summer%20Header-2017%5Ba%5D.jpg

Then there's this cartoonish snapshot rendition:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v0ek2w2oech6fko/Summer%5Ba%5D.jpg

and lastly this somewhat less extreme HDR of a Jersey Shore moment:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d4zz7lgm4ehez4n/2355~57%20Shore%231a.jpg

Here are two comparison examples of a 0 EV exposure compared with two
different HDR renderings from five exposure brackets:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ti0njqepyzd6v1c/screenshot_105.jpg
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0uiev77xa2ovjru/screenshot_106.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck