Photography or Photoshop? What to learn?

[gstark]

Gary - as a photogram is an image made without a camera would not a photogram be both possible and viable on a computer. Darkroom=computer

Chris,

What Phillip said. I'm not sure that I'd call something made on the computer a photogram. Further, being made on the computer, it's unlikely to actually be made by exposure to light.

While you can certainly make a lot of things on the computer, a photogram doesnt seem to me to be one of them.

[adam]

The use of emoticons following that statement did indicate that it was sarcastic, well, to me... but many things can be miscommunicated in writing like this. horhorhor.

I do very little PP, but would like to learn.

[gstark]

All,

It was the combination of James's comment, together with Mark's response, that I was commenting upon. Please, note that my remarks were directed at both of them, and if nothing else, they should serve as a timely reminder of our policies, as many of our newer members might not be aware of them.

And finally, please keep your remarks on-topic.

Thanx for your cooperation.

[jamesw]

your opinion is wrong

guys, ever heard of sarcasm? seriously?

Yes, I'm sure more than a few of us are familiar with sarcasm - and that isn't it.

A sarcastic remark in that context might be something like; "Oh you're absolutely correct! How could I have missed that? I will go away and rethink my whole approach to photography!"

But saying something like "You're wrong" isn't sarcasm.

Look it up.

I'm sure you know how.

Cheers

surely you can understand the irony in saying that an opinion is wrong.

just a cheeky & sarcastic comment, didnt know it'd get taken so seriously.

chill out everyone

[moz]

however there are many features in photoshop that simply are not possible in a darkroom...

Care to name them?

Can we have a hard question please?

Sheesh Gary, here's a few quick ones:
- undo
- HDR merges
- lens distortion correction

[gstark]

Moz

however there are many features in photoshop that simply are not possible in a darkroom...

Care to name them?

Can we have a hard question please?

Sheesh Gary, here's a few quick ones:
- undo
- HDR merges
- lens distortion correction

I think I might contend that undo is not necessary in a darkroom. You have a neg; you treat it with respect. Just as you do with your raw files, right?

HDR merges ... Merely a variation of dodge and burn. NBD.

lens distortion correction - tilt, shift, swing ... at the lens plane, film plane, and/or paper plane.

Next, please?

[gstark]

James,

just a cheeky & sarcastic comment, didnt know it'd get taken so seriously

Was there some part of my earlier statement ...

And finally, please keep your remarks on-topic.

that was not clear?

No response is necessary to this message: again, for the slow learners ...

Please keep your remarks on-topic.

[jamesw]

Moz

however there are many features in photoshop that simply are not possible in a darkroom...

Care to name them?

Can we have a hard question please?

Sheesh Gary, here's a few quick ones:
- undo
- HDR merges
- lens distortion correction

I think I might contend that undo is not necessary in a darkroom. You have a neg; you treat it with respect. Just as you do with your raw files, right?

HDR merges ... Merely a variation of dige and burn. NBD.

lens distortion correction - tilt, shift, swing ... at the lens plane, film plane, and or paper plane.

Next, please?

[phillipb]

As much as I agree with Gary on this one, the clone or healing tools in photoshop can be used by anyone, but a similar exercise in the old days required a skilled air brush operator or negative re-toucher. I certainly could never do that.

[Raskill]

I wonder if Ansell Adams and photographers from his time pondered the use of colour images and thought "you shouldn't need that colour to portray an image, it's all about feelings..."

I PP images. I shoot images with the PPing in mind. To me (and maybe only to me), it's part of the whole digital photography concept. For example:

Original image:



I intentionally exposed for the brighter sky, hoping to get basically sillouettes. I could see there was enough yellow in the sky that I could pump it up in PS.

PP'ed image:



Saturation, cloning, hue, brightness, contrast, cropping all applied. All quickly done, maybe about 5 minutes work onthe shot all up.

IMHO PPing is part of digital photography. That being said, if I'm shooting a race meet and want basic images of cars going by I setup and take images that will require little to no PPing, but thats only to save time later.

There are still plenty of film cameras out there for the purists.

[gstark]

As much as I agree with Gary on this one, the clone or healing tools in photoshop can be used by anyone, but a similar exercise in the old days required a skilled air brush operator or negative re-toucher. I certainly could never do that.

Phillip,

Point taken, to a point, except to say that underlying principal remains - what is there that may be done within Photoshop, that cannot be done within a traditional, silver halide based workflow.

I might even venture to suggest that in order to do this in photoshop requires a level of skill somewhat greater than the skillset of a typical photographer/user, just like your skilled airbrush operator.

I've done print retouching, btw, but never attempted neg retouching.

And please, understand that at no point am I decrying the use of photoshop: what I'm saying is that there are, to me, clear parallels between the two workflows, and I see PP as being a valid and vital part of the process of producing an image.

I don't, however, see PP as being a valid means of trying to pull a good image from a shitty initial photo. Get it right, in the camera, first. Then use PP to finish the task. That's my attitude.

Cheerz.

[jamesw]

As much as I agree with Gary on this one, the clone or healing tools in photoshop can be used by anyone, but a similar exercise in the old days required a skilled air brush operator or negative re-toucher. I certainly could never do that.

Phillip,

Point taken, to a point, except to say that underlying principal remains - what is there that may be done within Photoshop, that cannot be done within a traditional, silver halide based workflow.

I might even venture to suggest that in order to do this in photoshop requires a level of skill somewhat greater than the skillset of a typical photographer/user, just like your skilled airbrush operator.

I've done print retouching, btw, but never attempted neg retouching.

And please, understand that at no point am I decrying the use of photoshop: what I'm saying is that there are, to me, clear parallels between the two workflows, and I see PP as being a valid and vital part of the process of producing an image.

I don't, however, see PP as being a valid means of trying to pull a good image from a shitty initial photo. Get it right, in the camera, first. Then use PP to finish the task. That's my attitude.

Cheerz.

hey gary,

i'm not so sure about your comment re using photoshop... there seem to be a vast number of free tutorials hanging around the net,

whenever i cant work out what i want to do, i just google it, and soon find some sort of an answer to my problem.

as i've mentioned previously i basically never use photoshop for my photography, but i do use it for my graphic design / web design work extensively, as well as for designing tee shirts for a small clothing company that i run.

i am by no means an 'expert' at using photoshop, but i easily get by googling answers to my problems in photoshop.

i suspect many photographers may do the same...

just a thought.

[jamesw]

As much as I agree with Gary on this one, the clone or healing tools in photoshop can be used by anyone, but a similar exercise in the old days required a skilled air brush operator or negative re-toucher. I certainly could never do that.

Phillip,

Point taken, to a point, except to say that underlying principal remains - what is there that may be done within Photoshop, that cannot be done within a traditional, silver halide based workflow.

I might even venture to suggest that in order to do this in photoshop requires a level of skill somewhat greater than the skillset of a typical photographer/user, just like your skilled airbrush operator.

I've done print retouching, btw, but never attempted neg retouching.

And please, understand that at no point am I decrying the use of photoshop: what I'm saying is that there are, to me, clear parallels between the two workflows, and I see PP as being a valid and vital part of the process of producing an image.

I don't, however, see PP as being a valid means of trying to pull a good image from a shitty initial photo. Get it right, in the camera, first. Then use PP to finish the task. That's my attitude.

Cheerz.

hey gary,

i'm not so sure about your comment re using photoshop... there seem to be a vast number of free tutorials hanging around the net,

whenever i cant work out what i want to do, i just google it, and soon find some sort of an answer to my problem.

as i've mentioned previously i basically never use photoshop for my photography, but i do use it for my graphic design / web design work extensively, as well as for designing tee shirts for a small clothing company that i run.

i am by no means an 'expert' at using photoshop, but i easily get by googling answers to my problems in photoshop.

i suspect many photographers may do the same...

just a thought.

and to perhaps further the darkroom / photoshop analogy... how does this sound...

photoshop=darkroom, for the masses?

[gstark]

i'm not so sure about your comment re using photoshop... there seem to be a vast number of free tutorials hanging around the net,

whenever i cant work out what i want to do, i just google it, and soon find some sort of an answer to my problem.

The point being that different people have different skillsets and skill levels.

Being able to read a tutorial doesn't mean that one can understand it. And understanding it doesn't mean that one can actually do what's being instructed.

I've read lots of tutorials on how to rebuild a car engine; I can understand all of the steps, and the pretty pictures help a lot, but by no means would you want me to rebuild your engine.

So, there's a very big gap between having access to the information - which, for both a wet darkroom and a desktop darkroom we all have - and actually having the skillset to pull off certain tasks.

Go back to the photochop thread we had running last year, and look at the variety of efforts that were submitted into that thread. The whole thing was done very much in jest, but I think that it illustrates quite well my point (and, I think Phillip's) that a higher level of skills may be required to do a given job to a higher level of expertise.

And ... I guess that I can rephrase and summarise my point very easily: let's say that you've been admitted to hospital for some serious brain surgery. I'm sure I could find a tutorial that would tell me what I needed to do, but I'm somewhat sure that you might prefer a doctor to perform the op.

[Mr Darcy]

but I'm somewhat sure that you might prefer a doctor to perform the op.

Well no actually. But I would like a surgeon

[Matt. K]

The digital camera is an imperfect light gathering instrument. It is imperfect because it captures light data not in a linear fashion (analogue), but in small discreet steps (digital). Show me your most perfect outofcamera image and I will improve it with just a few steps in Photoshop. The improvement may be slight, but it will be evident with careful scrutiny. If you want to be a purist then get a pin-hole camera and some film.

[jamesw]

i'm not so sure about your comment re using photoshop... there seem to be a vast number of free tutorials hanging around the net,

whenever i cant work out what i want to do, i just google it, and soon find some sort of an answer to my problem.

The point being that different people have different skillsets and skill levels.

Being able to read a tutorial doesn't mean that one can understand it. And understanding it doesn't mean that one can actually do what's being instructed.

I've read lots of tutorials on how to rebuild a car engine; I can understand all of the steps, and the pretty pictures help a lot, but by no means would you want me to rebuild your engine.

So, there's a very big gap between having access to the information - which, for both a wet darkroom and a desktop darkroom we all have - and actually having the skillset to pull off certain tasks.

Go back to the photochop thread we had running last year, and look at the variety of efforts that were submitted into that thread. The whole thing was done very much in jest, but I think that it illustrates quite well my point (and, I think Phillip's) that a higher level of skills may be required to do a given job to a higher level of expertise.

And ... I guess that I can rephrase and summarise my point very easily: let's say that you've been admitted to hospital for some serious brain surgery. I'm sure I could find a tutorial that would tell me what I needed to do, but I'm somewhat sure that you might prefer a doctor to perform the op.

i do not want to beat a dead horse, but i am sorry for not being clear

the point i was trying to make was that it is easy for people to jump in at the deep end with photoshop, perhaps when they shouldnt.

i suspect that you would not try and build an engine yourself because building an engine takes a massive amount of time and effort, costs a s**tload of money, and if you stuff up there is no undo button and your money potentially goes down the drain. hence you would rather send it to a mechanic who has experience.

again, i think for very similar reasons a sane person would not want to operate on themselves. the fact that it takes a considerable level of time and effort, along with the room for error (ie none) leads to someone going to a surgeon in order to have their insides tinkered with.

now having said that, i am happy to stand by my initial comment - a darkroom scares me, photoshop doesnt. i'm happy to tinker with photoshop. im happy to go google up a tutorial in order to learn something new. i'm happy to experiment - i know i can undo my actions.

i guess its just a case of learning by doing, i'm sure the darkroom would be the same - you get better as you do more, but a lot of people simply would not have access to a darkroom. i could never set up a darkroom, i live in a small inner city apartment, on a modest wage.

a pc, a student or pirated copy of photoshop, and away you go. i'm sure there are many users of this forum who often experiment in photoshop, and come away with something they like, as a result of their experimentation. it happens to me all the time when im designing a tee shirt.

however, i feel that again we are talking different languages. you have your opinion of the topic, i have mine. again, yours is wrong (definite sarcasm!!!! ), so if you want to leave it at that, we can leave it at that. if you have something else you want to say, i'm all ears.

as a bit of a sidenote, (i guess an ego wank)
i myself have grown up around computers and used photoshop since version four (maybe even three) so i feel quite comfortable using it as a photo editor as well as for graphic design. i would never consider myself an expert (there is so much you can do with photoshop / illustrator) but i would say im a relatively advanced user. still, often i find myself wanting some effect, and google provides it for me...

edit: actually, i think we are on the same page. i guess the difference, imho, is that the idea of a darkroom seems scary and expensive and time consuming and inconvenient (etc, all the mental barriers to darkrooms); while photoshop does not seem as scary to those proficient at using a computer. however, a tutorial will not make you great at using photoshop, lots of people are crap at photoshop, and lots of people cant use it properly. they still use it though.

[jamesw]

The digital camera is an imperfect light gathering instrument. It is imperfect because it captures light data not in a linear fashion (analogue), but in small discreet steps (digital). Show me your most perfect outofcamera image and I will improve it with just a few steps in Photoshop. The improvement may be slight, but it will be evident with careful scrutiny. If you want to be a purist then get a pin-hole camera and some film.

fair call, i definitely agree with all your points.

definitely put some perspective into the matter for me.

[Matt. K]

As an aside....Folk don't need to spend megabugs for Photoshop. There are many programs that will do everything needed and cost a lot less. The GIMP, available free from the internet, is a supurb imaging program and constantly improving because it is open source. ADOBE Photo Elements has 90% of the functionality of PhotoShop and is available for less than $400. An older version of PhotoShop...say, version 7 which I still use at work is all I need to process digital images and is probably available for the same money. Just as expensive cameras don't make good photographers, expensive imaging processing software does not make a good image enhancement. It is the operator, his judgement and a small amount of skill, that does the trick.

[zafra52]

Just to add a spanner in the works. I look forward to the day when Photoshop or the like are able to convert a photographic image to a vector format and thus reduce the gargantuan file size it normally generates, but still able to keep accurate data and image resolution – just imagine! For it is incredible the amount of data kept in a 35mm negative.

[BullcreekBob]

G'day

PP or whatever we choose to call it, is something we ALWAYS do, in one form or another. If we shoot raw and convert to jpg making no adjustments whatsoever, it is a form of (minimalist) PP'ing. If we set the camera to create a jpg, again it is a form of minimalist PP'ing. Fiddling with the camera's menu options and letting it produce a jpg is similarly a form of PP.

So to my mind, it's really case of how much PP we do and where we do it. Some mods can be done easier than others, but all foms of PP'ing does represent a choice on our part. Even to choose not to actively PP or set camera options is a form of choice.



This image has been fairly poorly PP'ed by the camera, it made things vivid and pumped up colours before creating a jpg. However I believe it's misleading to say the image is straight out of the camera (although it is). Perhaps I don't know what "straight from the camera" actually means?

Cheers
Bob in Bull Creek

[Reschsmooth]

James, what if you didn't have Google? Or, to ask the question in reverse: if I am using a darkroom, can I not, similarly, google any troubleshooting I may need:

1. Developer brews
2. Paper types.
3. Exposure times.
4. General techniques.

I think you are confusing the resources available to the use of the tool (PS or DR) with the validity of using the tool itself. If a person didn't have internet access, how would they cope with Photoshop? They would require a fair amount of skill to understanding burn/dodge techniques, etc.

Incidentally, my best resource for Photoshop has been a good old book. My second best has been the great folk here on DSLRUsers.

Finally, is there a great deal of difference in terms of 'validity' if I shoot film and print in the darkroom versus scanning the developed neg and printing the photo via Photoshop?

As Gary has said time and again, getting it right in camera first is most important because you can't turn a crap image into a great photo (although you can then call it art )

[jamesw]

James, what if you didn't have Google? Or, to ask the question in reverse: if I am using a darkroom, can I not, similarly, google any troubleshooting I may need:

1. Developer brews
2. Paper types.
3. Exposure times.
4. General techniques.

I think you are confusing the resources available to the use of the tool (PS or DR) with the validity of using the tool itself. If a person didn't have internet access, how would they cope with Photoshop? They would require a fair amount of skill to understanding burn/dodge techniques, etc.

Incidentally, my best resource for Photoshop has been a good old book. My second best has been the great folk here on DSLRUsers.

Finally, is there a great deal of difference in terms of 'validity' if I shoot film and print in the darkroom versus scanning the developed neg and printing the photo via Photoshop?

As Gary has said time and again, getting it right in camera first is most important because you can't turn a crap image into a great photo (although you can then call it art )

firstly, i wasnt really questioning the validity of darkroom or photoshop. i was simply analysing the analogy of photoshop and darkroom. i initially stated that photoshop has brought the darkroom to the masses, or something to that effect.

i was thinking the same thing while i was eating dinner. im sure you can gain a lot of knowledge from google re darkroom processes as you can with photoshop.

i guess photoshop, or more broadly - editing your photos on a computer, has a sense of immediacy that shooting film and processing in a darkroom, does not.

but heck, thats just me. i'm sure there will be people who disagree with what i've just said, i'll leave it at that.

i am with you re: getting it right in camera, and minor touch ups/fixes in pp. by no means do i advocate shooting a bad photo and bringing it up to par on computer. in fact, i was speaking with a young fellas father at a comp the other day, who has some interest in photography. he mentioned to me that he does not worry about blowing sky highlights when shooting, he will photoshop a different sky in later.

i guess its people like that who have drawn out my distaste for heavy PP. i guess what he is doing isnt even PP - it's chopping an image.

[Reschsmooth]

I think we are agreeing about most things and there is no right or wrong answer (unless it differs to mine! )

I reckon the shots of yours I have seen have generally been great, irrespective of whether there has been much or minimal PP work. And that is the real aim, isn't it - images you are happy with?

Now, if you don't need that F4.......

[jamesw]

I think we are agreeing about most things and there is no right or wrong answer (unless it differs to mine! )

I reckon the shots of yours I have seen have generally been great, irrespective of whether there has been much or minimal PP work. And that is the real aim, isn't it - images you are happy with?

Now, if you don't need that F4.......

i think much of what is being talked about is a moral/ethical discussion, rather than something that can be talked about with hard&fast facts. how much pp is too much pp is just a question that cant be answered. 'straight out of the camera is another' - some people think straight out of camera is a raw, others think a jpg... it's all stuff that is completely opinion based, with a few facts or pieces of information that influence that opinion...

a


RE MY F4 ,BITCH
nah uhhhhh, although i love my digis, there is something mystical about film... an intangible (or is it untangible... i think its intangible) GOODNESS. i guess the digi is for work and pleasure, the f4 is for pleasure

unfortunately due to all my commitments... full time work... full time uni... shooting for mags and random clients.. web design... clothing design shit... shooting on the f4 has gone out of the window.

but at the end of this month,i've got a month off uni and a week off work. granted, the week off work is because i am having one of my front teeth ripped out and replaced with an implant (the result of a bmx crash years ago )... but i still reckon i'll have a few days where i can take some time out and shoot some nice black n white stuff

and isnt shooting photos what it's all about

[gstark]

how much pp is too much pp is just a question that cant be answered. 'straight out of the camera is another' - some people think straight out of camera is a raw, others think a jpg... it's all stuff that is completely opinion based, with a few facts or pieces of information that influence that opinion...

Well, no.

Straight out of the camera is exactly that: straight out of the camera.

It's not raw, it's not jpg, it's straight out of the camera.

[stubbsy]

I have been reading this discussion with some interest, but have little extra to add other than to amplify on what Gary said. No matter how I look at it "straight out of the camera" is at MOST what is on the card when you transfer the image to some other storage. If you do subsequent work OF ANY KIND in PP then the image is no longer what it was when it was copied from the card. So to say something is straight out of the camera AFTER having made changes to it is just an abuse of the language. Otherwise all my images (which receive mild to strong PP) could be said to be "straight out of camera"

Edit: Just to be clear. I'm not commenting on whether jpeg changes in camera affect whether an image is "straight out of camera" or not, but for me there is one unarguable certainty and that is that the moment the image is manipulated in any way AFTER it's out of the camera it is definitely no longer "straight out of camera" even if what's done could have been done in camera

[bwhinnen]

What about when you use a custom curve in camera for JPEG conversion? Does that still mean straight out of camera (I know it is technically) but you've just changed the conversion process from RAW to JPEG in camera...

I suppose this is akin to using different films in a film camera...

Just a couple of extra 2c worth

[methd]

it's still straight out of the camera... even if there's different in-camera editing modes available to you.

[bwhinnen]

it's still straight out of the camera... even if there's different in-camera editing modes available to you.

I agree but some may not, there is a hell of a lot that can be done with a custom curve. The same as curves under PS or NC or NX to a degree...

[Raskill]

But don't many curves just offer a 'simulation' of the different types of film that were available to film shooters. You'd consider a negative shot on film 'straight out of the camera' so surely you should consider a custom curve to be similar?

[the foto fanatic]

I'm going to start by saying that I won't refer to "PP" in this post, because it arouses sentiments of one sort or another in most of us.

So I want to discuss "image enhancement".

An image can be enhanced in a multitude of ways. When photographers first see a subject worth photographing, the first thing they do is find the best vantage point from which to present the image they see in their mind. This is a form of image enhancement.

Then they determine where they want the focus to be sharp. Is it right through the whole image, or in the foreground or in the background, or on the RHS or LHS of the image? This decision will enhance the image.

Then we have exposure, and without boring everyone with the whole process, the same thing occurs. The photographer seeks to enhance the image by selecting an appropriate exposure value, which may or may not be what the meter says is the optimal exposure.

Similarly, with the in-camera controls that the photographer has at his/her disposal. The photog seeks to enhance the image by manipulating these controls a certain way.

Now, and I'm sure you catch my drift, we come to tools which can be used once the image has been captured, be they in the darkroom or on the computer. The photographer seeks to enhance the image to present the subject in a particular way and/or make it pleasing to the viewer.

So, my theme is that "image enhancement" is a continuum that starts from when the photographer first envisages a photographic opportunity right through to when the final image is presented to an audience.

Is any one of these steps wrong? I would argue NO.

Is any step less valid or less ethical than another? Again, I would argue NO.

We all have certain tools that we can elect to use or not use. Let's not get hung up on which of them are real and which are not.

[phillipb]

What's so important about the phrase "Straight out of the camera" anyway?
If I could get photos as good as a lot of our top photographers in this forum, I wouldn't give a stuff if they were coming straight out of my ass.
... and if straight out of the camera was only dependent on what the sensor sees, then all cameras with the same sensor would be identical.

[gstark]

I wouldn't give a stuff if they were coming straight out of my ass.

I might.

And that would certainly add a new dimension to the phrase "that photo stinks."

[macka]

If I could get photos as good as a lot of our top photographers in this forum, I wouldn't give a stuff if they were coming straight out of my ass.

How many mega pixels would that be, Philip?

[the foto fanatic]

If I could get photos as good as a lot of our top photographers in this forum, I wouldn't give a stuff if they were coming straight out of my ass.

How many mega pixels would that be, Philip?

Astronomical!

Pictures of Uranus!

[jamesw]

What's so important about the phrase "Straight out of the camera" anyway?
.

yesm, i dont see why it is so important. the whole discussion seemed to flare up when i reffered to a few photos that i shot as jpgs as 'straight out of camera'. i guess its just an ambiguous term.

i'm not even going to go into what i consider straight out of camera. its a pointless discussion, simply because its irrelevant (imho). its far more relevant to say this was shot as JPG, or this is unprocessed raw, or this is processed raw...

[ATJ]

I'm going to try something odd here - get back to the original question, or at least what I think that question is...

What is more important, learning about photography or learning post processing techniques?

I actually think there is a 3rd option here and that is to learn about the advanced options on the camera...

The priority order I would put here is:

1) Learn photography

2) Learn the advanced features of the camera

3) Learn advanced post processing techniques

1) includes generic technical aspects such as lighting, aperture, shutter speed, focal length, depth of field and so on. Armed with 1) you should be able to take great photographs in average situations with the camera on most of its default settings. Certainly, the camera will be doing some "post processing" and the photographer will still need some basic post processing (cropping, resizing and saving as jpeg) but that is all pretty straight forward and not a whole lot to learn. The emphasis is to learn about photography.

2) would allow you to do custom curves, changing ISO and also varying the way the camera captures or "post processes" the image. This is probably akin to film choice or the use of filters in the film camera days.

3) goes beyond the basic cropping and resizing and would include the use of levels and/or curves and other techniques that might help to save a problem image, improve a satisfactory image or create other effects in addition to "capturing reality".

In my opinion the desired position is to have images copied from the memory card of the camera that are almost ready to go as is, decreasing the amount of time required to fiddle with the image. Yes, there will be some "post processing" going on in the camera and on the computer, but ideally you want to minimise (or at least automate) this.

Note that in practice, the order might be:
1a
2a
3a
1b
2b
3b
1c
2c
3c

as you learn bits, but the basic idea is the same.

[jamesw]

I'm going to try something odd here - get back to the original question, or at least what I think that question is...

What is more important, learning about photography or learning post processing techniques?

I actually think there is a 3rd option here and that is to learn about the advanced options on the camera...

The priority order I would put here is:

1) Learn photography

2) Learn the advanced features of the camera

3) Learn advanced post processing techniques

1) includes generic technical aspects such as lighting, aperture, shutter speed, focal length, depth of field and so on. Armed with 1) you should be able to take great photographs in average situations with the camera on most of its default settings. Certainly, the camera will be doing some "post processing" and the photographer will still need some basic post processing (cropping, resizing and saving as jpeg) but that is all pretty straight forward and not a whole lot to learn. The emphasis is to learn about photography.

2) would allow you to do custom curves, changing ISO and also varying the way the camera captures or "post processes" the image. This is probably akin to film choice or the use of filters in the film camera days.

3) goes beyond the basic cropping and resizing and would include the use of levels and/or curves and other techniques that might help to save a problem image, improve a satisfactory image or create other effects in addition to "capturing reality".

In my opinion the desired position is to have images copied from the memory card of the camera that are almost ready to go as is, decreasing the amount of time required to fiddle with the image. Yes, there will be some "post processing" going on in the camera and on the computer, but ideally you want to minimise (or at least automate) this.

word

[the foto fanatic]

In my opinion the desired position is to have images copied from the memory card of the camera that are almost ready to go as is, decreasing the amount of time required to fiddle with the image. Yes, there will be some "post processing" going on in the camera and on the computer, but ideally you want to minimise (or at least automate) this.

Sure . This might be valid for you. It might even be valid for most people, most of the time, with most of their pix.

But it is not uncommon for people to take an image with the intention of making substantial "enhancements" to it on the computer.

That's still photography; and there's nothing whatever wrong with it.

[ATJ]

In my opinion the desired position is to have images copied from the memory card of the camera that are almost ready to go as is, decreasing the amount of time required to fiddle with the image. Yes, there will be some "post processing" going on in the camera and on the computer, but ideally you want to minimise (or at least automate) this.

Sure . This might be valid for you. It might even be valid for most people, most of the time, with most of their pix.

But it is not uncommon for people to take an image with the intention of making substantial "enhancements" to it on the computer.

That's still photography; and there's nothing whatever wrong with it.

Agreed. I was in no way meaning to preclude that and I'm sorry if my comments could be inferred that way.

[the foto fanatic]

Agreed. I was in no way meaning to preclude that and I'm sorry if my comments could be inferred that way.

No apology necessary.

I'm quite sure that is the case. I wasn't taking issue with your post (I tried to indicate that with the smiley emoticon), rather expanding it to make it clear where my views lie.