PHOTOGRAPHERS , NOT EDITORS

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