PHO­TOG­RA­PHERS , NOT ED­I­TORS

NPhoto - - Over To You… -

I have a sug­ges­tion for a fu­ture ‘Light­box’ sec­tion. How about de­vot­ing the en­tire sec­tion one month to im­ages that come straight from the cam­era? No post­pro­cess­ing. I’m 60 years old and I re­mem­ber ‘the good old days’ us­ing Ko­dachrome film, when you had to get it right in the cam­era. I can not deny that im­ages to­day do look spec­tac­u­lar, but I also re­alise that the com­puter seems to be just as im­por­tant as the pho­tog­ra­pher. Let’s see what to­day’s pho­tog­ra­phers can do with­out any post help.

Scott Erick­son, Cal­i­for­nia Scott, we hear what you’re say­ing, and many im­ages are over-pro­cessed, but if you shoot in RAW (which we tend to ad­vise for most sit­u­a­tions) if you didn’t process them at all, the re­sults would al­most cer­tainly look flat, washed out, and lack­ing in punch. RAW files are meant to be pro­cessed. The myth that in the days of film im­ages weren’t pro­cessed is just that – a myth. Film chem­i­cals were se­lected to pro­vide the punch and vi­brancy that pro­cess­ing now of­fers, and print labs tweaked colour and con­trast to get the best re­sults. The dif­fer­ence with dig­i­tal is you get to take con­trol of the pro­cess­ing.

A RAW file straight from the cam­era will al­most al­ways look flat­ter than the ac­tual scene you saw with your eyes, so some pro­cess­ing is needed to make it look real, not un­real

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.