noimmunity
scratch my niche
To what extent is post processing necessary when shooting with the R-D1s? It seems to me that some jpegs are quite good just out fo the camera. But others obviously take great pleasure in raw conversion and PP. I hope this question doesn't sound hopelessly naive. Perhaps it would be better to ask under what conditions is PP necessary, and under what conditions is it a matter of just personal interest?
Been thinkin about an R-D1 as a complement to my kit to economize on film costs and to keep in touch with digital... I suspect that much of the time I will not want to devote much tiime to post processing of images. I love film for its emphasis on preparation (though I've seen lots of others get plenty of mileage out of post processing on scanned film images, too; just not for me given my priorities now).
Been thinkin about an R-D1 as a complement to my kit to economize on film costs and to keep in touch with digital... I suspect that much of the time I will not want to devote much tiime to post processing of images. I love film for its emphasis on preparation (though I've seen lots of others get plenty of mileage out of post processing on scanned film images, too; just not for me given my priorities now).
Graham Line
Well-known
Even if a frame looks good, it doesn't hurt to look at levels/curves, brightness and contrast, and consider a bit of unsharp mask. Sometimes it depends whether you're going for a print or online display.
Terao
Kiloran
I shoot RAW and post-process everything but that's because I like the flexibility of digital. If I locked myself into a single look I'd just as well be shooting film (which I do as well). I shoot RAW/digital if I'm unsure what I'm going to be shooting that day, or what look I want. If I know its going to be dark then chances are I'll be out with a film body stuffed with Neopan 1600. I also tend to use my R-D1 for colour more than B&W and whilst its pretty good at turning out decent jpgs I'm still not one to trust auto white balance and the like...
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I shoot raw + jpeg, and for posting to the web often work with jpegs. The amount of PP depends on the shot. And much more when I print, and for printing I almost always start with the raw image. I find the white balance to be amazingly good.
JohnL
Very confused
RAW gives you much more flexibility in PP. You don't always need it, but it is often desirable. You can't tweak a JPG very far.
monkeypainter
Established
Postprocessing digital is like developing film. same thing.
Always shoot RAW. Always postprocess. Don't let the camera choose the saturation, brightness, contrast levels for you. This is the photographer's job.
Always shoot RAW. Always postprocess. Don't let the camera choose the saturation, brightness, contrast levels for you. This is the photographer's job.
LCT
ex-newbie
No choice but jpeg is you have to shoot fast, otherwise raw gives a better IQ and more flexibility.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Terao said:
monkeypainter said:
Interesting responses... Thanks! Plus the thread above this one ("remind me...") also has some excellent advice about exposure.
I have to admit that I come to the whole question of PP with a definite handicap or predisposition: I don't disagree with the necessity of doing it, it's just that I'm not really ready to prioritize it. That's one of the reasons I really like film, too, although I'm ready to admit that my nonchalant attitude is artistically irresponsible. I don't want to stop using film; I love it. But I do want to keep shooting rangefinders a lot and at the same time cut down on the expense of film and in some situations have the convenience of instantly available web-ready images. (Film always requires for me a 5-10 day turnaround for quality outside processing)... Sounds like some engagement with PP is going to be desirable and necessary, but that satisfaction can also be obtained without.
Terao said:
That's the first time I saw anybody say anything like that. I had thought one of the advantages of the digital format is the adjustable ISO. Most but not all of my photography is done when its darker out...
rsl
Russell
noimmunity said:
When you shoot film do you post-process, i.e., develop the film, dry it, make contact sheets, set up the darkroom, expose, develop, stop,, fix, wash, dry? If you don't, you don't have pictures. Of course you have to post-process. If you're really careful when you shoot to do things like geting the dynamic range of the scene within the latitude of the sensor, etc., etc., then post-processing may be nothing more than a small amount of sharpening. But every photograph, film or digital needs post-processing, at least if you expect to have something you'd be willing to show. Let's face it, the amount of post-processing you need to do with the R-D1 or any digital camera is a whole lot less than the post-processing you have to do with film.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
To me it's more like the difference between sending the film to a minilab for "processing" versus taking the time to print the negative the way I want it printed - with the big difference that, especially with the R-D1, I find I can usually get away with very speedy "development." Lightroom (or an equivalent program) may take care of 95%+ in 90%+ cases - maybe more. In other words, good results without hours of work on each picture.
One thing that interests me is that my other digital camera is a D100, which has exactly the same sensor. I find the Nikon needs more PP than the Epson. I assume this is a result of the software, but I never thought about it much until I started reading this thread.
One thing that interests me is that my other digital camera is a D100, which has exactly the same sensor. I find the Nikon needs more PP than the Epson. I assume this is a result of the software, but I never thought about it much until I started reading this thread.
jbf
||||||
Post work is almost always necessary. Just as with a negative you have to do some sort of contrast filter work, exposure work, and dodging/burning of a negative so too must you do that to digital files.
Obviously there are times when you luck out. But from my experience in both the darkoom and with photoshop, the majority will all at least needs some exposure/contrast adjustments as well as some dodging/burning.
Obviously there are times when you luck out. But from my experience in both the darkoom and with photoshop, the majority will all at least needs some exposure/contrast adjustments as well as some dodging/burning.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
Here's a quick test, d/l the free picasa software, if clicking "Feeling lucky" makes a lot of the photos look better, then consider that your original exposures could have used different settings and adjust accordingly.
When you get to the point where "Feeling lucky" doesn't make things look better, you've reached the point where they are great out of camera.
When you get to the point where "Feeling lucky" doesn't make things look better, you've reached the point where they are great out of camera.
Terao
Kiloran
Re my "If I know its going to be dark..." comment its a personal preference - I just prefer the grain of film to the noise of high ISO digital. People say they like the noise in R-D1 shots @ 1600, well personally I don't (if I had to choose I'd take the very obvious noise that my GR-D makes instead if I had to shoot digital).
Don't get me wrong, the R-D1 does a very good job at high ISOs, but my problem is that I've never NEVER been able to get that film look out of my R-D1 at any ISO. I guess I'm just addicted to the look of film. My R-D1 has sat on the shelf for a couple of months whilst I've been using my GR1V, Canon P, and Bessa T to shoot a load of film. If I'm wanting the immediacy of digital I find myself using my cellphone camera these days (it does an admirable job -
You say you love film, perhaps this is a cautionary post from me to say that you *might* be disappointed with the digital experience...
Don't get me wrong, the R-D1 does a very good job at high ISOs, but my problem is that I've never NEVER been able to get that film look out of my R-D1 at any ISO. I guess I'm just addicted to the look of film. My R-D1 has sat on the shelf for a couple of months whilst I've been using my GR1V, Canon P, and Bessa T to shoot a load of film. If I'm wanting the immediacy of digital I find myself using my cellphone camera these days (it does an admirable job -
You say you love film, perhaps this is a cautionary post from me to say that you *might* be disappointed with the digital experience...
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Terao said:
Terao said:
Thanks, Terao, for sharing your experience. I've told myself that digital and film are just two separate mediums, and I will have different expectations for each. It's like when I go for Chinese food in most parts of Europe or North America, I don't expect food like I can get in Taipei, Hong Kong or Beijing. But it can be very good for what it is once you dispense with the idea that it has to conform to a category. (There are some restaurants in North America that do serve food that will taste very much like what is available in Hong Kong, Taipei, or Beijing). I cannot afford to pursue an uncompromising vision, so I'm willing to settle for what is within my reach--and that's already waaayyy overextended considering my means.
I'd like to see if the digital aspect of the R-D1 wouldn't meaningfully expand my capabilities while saving money and keeping me in touch with the totally different digital medium.
Terao
Kiloran
I think that's the way to look at it - a different medium. Its not exactly the same but no doubt its the same conversation people had when Leica brought out the 35mm format, or when colour became widely used. There are distinct formats now - film, large sensor digital, and small sensor digital (compacts, cameraphones, etc).