# I shoot JPEG and I refuse to post process my images - Can I still be successful?



## Student (Jan 10, 2011)

Photography is all about capturing an instant, an emotion, a personality or an idea. I know how to use photoshop and if I wanted I could make my models look perfect and adjust all the colour and all that but I don't. I want to shoot JPEG and I want to produce natural images with natural landscapes, natural people in order to make all my pictures 100% natural. Can one be successful and produce beautiful images without post processing? Discuss...


----------



## mjhoward (Jan 10, 2011)

News flash... JPEG's are processed.


----------



## JAFO28 (Jan 10, 2011)

Beat me to it!


----------



## xjoewhitex (Jan 10, 2011)

I would really hope to think so, I completely feel your opinion on wanting to keep a natural looking picture. This business is so competitive there's no way to say you would be successful if you did edit, let alone not. But as I can see there always has to be a "little" editing to remove blemishes and what not, but I wont touch skin texture and make models look plastic. Ive always shot JPEG fine, and probably always will. All the effects I do, are done with camera.. alot of people disagree with how I feel, but thats how I roll.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 10, 2011)

Define successful.

If all you care about is 'recording a moment', then sure - who cares if you edit anything.

BTW - if you're shooting JPEG, the camera is still doing some editing to it.

If you want zero editing done to them, shoot film and after you finish a roll stick it in your sock drawer instead of developing it.


----------



## Student (Jan 10, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> News flash... JPEG's are processed.


 
It doesn't feel as dirty, it is more natural, more artistic!


----------



## CCericola (Jan 10, 2011)

I think it is an interesting learning technique. In fact I think its a typical Photography 101 first assignment. 

It could be your niche in the photography world. It all depends on what you think success is. Is it money? Critical acclaim? Personal satisfaction?

There has always been post processing. Think of it this way. Remember the days before photoshop? Any adjustments would be made by developing the negatives a certain way, adjustments in the dark room or after they were printed (airbrushing)


----------



## white (Jan 10, 2011)

Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## Big Mike (Jan 10, 2011)

> It doesn't feel as dirty, it is more natural, more artistic!


It doesn't feel artistic to have the camera apply some preset adjustments, which were designed by some engineers in Japan, to my images automatically.  

I'd rather get the unadjusted date from the camera (RAW file) and take full control over the process of 'cooking' that raw data into the image I envisioned.  

Of course, you can choose to do a minimum about of processing.  There are still a million things you can do before the shot, to capture that natural moment the way you want.


----------



## xjoewhitex (Jan 10, 2011)

I am curious tho, shall we see one of your 100% natural photos?


----------



## mwcfarms (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > News flash... JPEG's are processed.
> ...



Lol and some would say that Dave Hill is more artistic because of all the envelope pushing he does. Does that mean when we use strobes, we are cheating since its not natural light. 

I mean this poor horse of a topic has been beat to death a million times. If you want to see the discussions there's a search button in the top right portion of the screen.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 10, 2011)

1) machines do not create art.

Definition of Art from wiki 


> *Art* is the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, and even disciplines such as history and psychoanalysis analyze its relationship with humans and generations.


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> Photography is all about capturing an instant, an emotion, a personality or an idea. I know how to use photoshop and if I wanted I could make my models look perfect and adjust all the colour and all that but I don't. I want to shoot JPEG and I want to produce natural images with natural landscapes, natural people in order to make all my pictures 100% natural. Can one be successful and produce beautiful images without post processing? Discuss...


 
Define "natural" and then we might get some headway in understanding each other. Otherwise with the automatic editing settings applied to JPEGs I can't see how they are more natural or less natural than a RAW image. 

A part of me also says "stop being lazy and learn to edit properly and then edit your work" :mrgreen:


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 10, 2011)

oh shut up


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2011)

Dominantly said:


> oh shut up


 
but but but


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

where is that popcorn?


----------



## kundalini (Jan 10, 2011)

I'm having to lay off the salt though.


----------



## mwcfarms (Jan 10, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> 1) machines do not create art.
> 
> Definition of Art from wiki
> 
> ...



I'm confused, where in there does it say machines do not create art. Are you trying to support the OP's monkey nutty statement or.....


----------



## Student (Jan 10, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> > It doesn't feel as dirty, it is more natural, more artistic!
> 
> 
> It doesn't feel artistic to have the camera apply some preset adjustments, which were designed by some engineers in Japan, to my images automatically.
> ...


 
I only shoot manual and IMO it is all about finding the right spot, the right person and the right position to shoot from, then it is also a lot about exposure.


----------



## Formatted (Jan 10, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> Define successful.
> 
> If all you care about is 'recording a moment', then sure - who cares if you edit anything.
> 
> ...



Nail hit on head!


----------



## kundalini (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> I only shoot manual and IMO it is all about finding the right spot, the right person and the right position to shoot from, then it is also a lot about exposure.


But your rant is about output..... JPEG vs RAW, no editing, blah, blah, blah. 

What you just described (in brevity) is input that is required of every photographer.


----------



## Student (Jan 10, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Student said:
> 
> 
> > I only shoot manual and IMO it is all about finding the right spot, the right person and the right position to shoot from, then it is also a lot about exposure.
> ...


 
And that is all that should suffice. We are photographers, not graphic designers or image manipulators.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 10, 2011)

To each his/her own but



Student said:


> I want to shoot JPEG and I want to produce natural images with natural landscapes, natural people in order to make all my pictures 100% natural.



What exactly is natural about a digital process? Maybe you shouldn't photograph at all. That would be a lot more natural...




Student said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > News flash... JPEG's are processed.
> ...



Letting someone else decide on how to process your images is more artistic? How?

As mentioned jpegs are processed. Just not by you. It seems to me you have decided on an approach to photography before you have even learned about photography. There is more to RAW than just having to PP the images.

It is your right to do as you please but, in this case, it makes very little sense...


----------



## Student (Jan 10, 2011)

When I shoot an image it is meant to be perfect, no twisting needed because I did everything I should.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> When I shoot an image it is meant to be perfect, no twisting needed because I did everything I should.



You mean within the limitations of the gear... Films or sensors do not have the range of the human eye and therefore, without PP, photos will rarely be perfect according to what we see.

Yes, you have a lot to learn.


----------



## KmH (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> When I shoot an image it is meant to be perfect, no twisting needed because I did everything I should.


Utter nonsense. Perfect doesn't exist, and can't exist because each person has a different definition it.

Your perfect is my fucqup.


----------



## white (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> We are photographers, not graphic designers or image manipulators.


It's not 1840 anymore.


----------



## Tee (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> I know how to use photoshop and if I wanted I could make my models look perfect and adjust all the colour and all that but I don't.


 
You probably won't be hearing from your models then.  Or maybe you will.  They'll just find a retoucher to complete the process.  Either way, your "natural" look most likely won't end up in an aspiring models book.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 10, 2011)

It is about the photo really.. who cares how you got it.  If you can take photos of celebrity being drunk and stupid on your iPHone, I bet people magazine will pay for it.  Does that count as successful?


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 10, 2011)

If I looked back and thought about all the shots I took with my Nikon N90s, I'm sure I could have felt a lot more successful had I not processed them.

I feel you OP.


----------



## flightless_beaker (Jan 10, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Student said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you have a lot to learn.
> ...


----------



## Overread (Jan 10, 2011)

Remember all film photography was edited/processed as well from the negative to the final print. White balance, exposure, dodging and burning are more were all done to film negatives and prints to get to the final output. 

Of course this can be done at home manualy in the darkroom or you could send prints off to a commercail lab where some technician made all the choices on how to process the shot for the ideal output


Photography -its a two part process of capture and process - you cut one stage out or try to underperform in it and the end product will suffer as a result.


----------



## Stephen.C (Jan 10, 2011)

Jpegs are edited inside the camera...compare a raw file to a jpeg file. Raw file IS unedited, straight outta compton...err camera. SOOC. So IMO id rather have the chance to edit my file than software that does it auto. 
I see what you're saying, it feels like cheating...I kind of felt that at first, UNTIL I saw how more powerful your images can become.
Art is what YOU make of it. Editing photos gives YOU The ability to create the "Perfect" image that you wanted when you shot it.


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

It took me a long time to come to gripes with pp. I use only manual modes, try to "get it right" in camera, and all that other jazz. However, I have also been doing darkroom work for over 60 years and came to realize that i can and may want to have the same control over my digital images as my film images. That means pp. 

There are limits, i.e. I would never 'skinnie" some one down, but anything I can do in the darkroom is fair game for a digital file, after all where do you think most of these techniques come from? Not graphic designers. Yes, editing has gone much further, but one has to deside what guide lines they wish to use when defining their work.

WHen i take a photo and go beyond what I feel is the "norm" for a photograph i describe it as digital art. THat is my guide line, others may differ , which is fine. We all need to set our own boundaries. However, your handle indicates you have much to learn and a long journey ahead, don't be so quick to speak so louding that it gets in the way of the progression of your journey.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 10, 2011)

Student, if you are trying to say that you are altruistic and into a pure shot that was taken as good as it could be taken technically then I think you are on the right track. However, there is always more work available to enhance a photo to take it to a higher level of achievement.

Now if you think your compositions are so exceptional that your folio is one that is of a stunning nature, then I'd love to see your unedited work since I might be able to learn from you as I have from so many others here who may be edit fiends despite a poor composition folio. 

Thanks!


----------



## Canon AE-1 (Jan 10, 2011)

I think i understand where Student is coming from, i feel similar about it. Sounds like he is applying 35mmSLR shooting configurations to Digital media. Adjust your AV, TV, focus, ISO and compose to get the photo you want. But with digital there will always be processing be it raw or jpg. The image formed on the CMOS element goes through processing from the circuits and firmware to the memory any way you look at it. PP from the camera or from a computer makes no difference, it's all PP. 
Perhaps the best that could be hoped for is setting the camera up yourself, WB, RBG, color, etc and take some test shots of something static and see if you can get the photo to match the colors, hues, WB that you see in real life. When your happy with that then be creative with your shots, if they are perfect or screwed up, then that will be on you. I just got my "high end" digital and it has 1000 functions and settings i have to learn. Once i get the setting to my liking then getting "the" shot is up to me.
Just my 1 cent.

Oh, btw, i dont think i will be using pp after the camera, it makes me feel like i could have bought a 100.00 walmart 10mp camera 
and edit the photo to make it look like it came from a 3000.00 camera from National Geographic. I would think, then what is this
high end camera for if i could do that instead. I have no want to be a Pro, just an amateur run of the mill photographer for fun.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 10, 2011)

Canon AE-1 said:


> Oh, btw, i dont think i will be using pp after the camera, it makes me feel like i could have bought a 100.00 walmart 10mp camera
> and edit the photo to make it look like it came from a 3000.00 camera from National Geographic. I would think, then what is this
> high end camera for if i could do that instead. I have no want to be a Pro, just an amateur run of the mill photographer for fun.



It makes me think you probably could have just bought a $100 from Walmart.

$100 for camera...$1000 for PS, if you're looking for spending to be a determining factor on your photography...you coulda saved yourself some money becoming a run of the mill photographer. :lmao:


----------



## Canon AE-1 (Jan 10, 2011)

Very funny Farts, lol. 1000.00 for PS? not in my lifetime. I have PS, AI, AP, and some others. I did not know those programs cost anything. lol.
I'm only worried about cost right now cause I'm on unemployment.
But when i go back to work, I'll grab me one of those pro 21mp cameras for a few large.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 10, 2011)

Canon AE-1 said:


> Very funny Farts, lol. 1000.00 for PS? not in my lifetime. I have PS, AI, AP, and some others. I did not know those programs cost anything. lol.
> I'm only worried about cost right now cause I'm on unemployment.
> But when i go back to work, I'll grab me one of those pro 21mp cameras for a few large.



  I'm quite uncertain their actual cost too, but I know it's up there.  I've gotten PS for free through my work the last 7 years, so I never had to figure out the cost.  Which reminds me I have to upgrade to CS5 at some time!


----------



## ann (Jan 10, 2011)

Even with all the years I have been a serious photographer I can't remember more than maybe one photo that didn't have to be touched when  printing in the darkroom.
No matter how correct the exposure, and compostion, a negative, or file isn't perfect. If your doing studio work and control every inch of light , little needs to be done, but most of us aren't doing that kind of work.

There is nothing wrong with getting as much right in camera as possible, I encourage my students to work in that manner and i work in that manner but that does not mean that even the "computer chip" knows everything and applies it's formula exactly the way the photographer saw the image.

It drives me crazy to hear people say, oh, well, i can fix it later. That is much different than being a craftsman.  

And by the way, just how do you purpose in handling black and white? For outstanding grayscale imaging, postprocessing is an important element.


----------



## Canon AE-1 (Jan 10, 2011)

MichiganFarts said:


> Canon AE-1 said:
> 
> 
> > Very funny Farts, lol. 1000.00 for PS? not in my lifetime. I have PS, AI, AP, and some others. I did not know those programs cost anything. lol.
> ...



Well Farts, all i can say is, there is a Lot of "free" software out there. A good computer tech never pays for software......so i've heard. lol.


----------



## skieur (Jan 10, 2011)

Student said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > News flash... JPEG's are processed.
> ...


 
Actually it is NOT more natural or more artistic at all. Your blatantly INCORRECT assumption is that digital reproduces the scene the way you see it with your eye.  You are dead WRONG.

Keep it simple.  Look at any scene with shadows in it.  Your eyes see more detail and colour in the shadow areas than any unprocessed digital photo.
Your eyes see distances between objects that the focal length of your camera lens distorts.  It may make them seem closer or farther away. Wide angle camera lenses distort perspective even when the photo is unprocessed.  The bottom line is that your camera isolates a very small portion of what you see with your eyes and puts an importance on the elements in your photo rather than all the elements in your scene.

That seems EXTREMELY UNNATURAL to me, and that is without any editing or postprocessing.

skieur


----------



## Dominantly (Jan 11, 2011)

Overread said:


> Dominantly said:
> 
> 
> > oh shut up
> ...


Oh, not you.. I should have clarified that was for the OP.


----------



## kezsaj (Jan 11, 2011)

So if you and your wife decided on having a baby, you wouldn't work on it, and the baby might look like me


----------



## MattxMosh (Jan 11, 2011)




----------



## Turbo (Jan 11, 2011)

RAW vs JPEG....much like a penguin with a scrotum on a platter.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 11, 2011)

Dominantly said:


> oh shut up


 
I declare WINNER!


----------



## swimswithtrout (Jan 11, 2011)

Student said:


> Photography is all about capturing an instant, an emotion, a personality or an idea. I know how to use photoshop and if I wanted I could make my models look perfect and adjust all the colour and all that but I don't. I want to shoot JPEG and I want to produce natural images with natural landscapes, natural people in order to make all my pictures 100% natural. Can one be successful and produce beautiful images without post processing? Discuss...


  No.   Plain, blunt, and simple.  Even if you were trying to capture a moment in time, JPEG would be the last format I would choose.   You'd be better off shooting real film/scanning from a film cam than shooting JPEG.  As far as PP, I don't know of anyone that was able to make living without major amounts of it.


----------



## kevinjesmain (Jan 11, 2011)

JPEGs are not natural. It requires editing to look good. Just the camera does it for you. Sharpening profiles ect. Id personally rather be able to have more control in your image to make it exactly how you want. You can just do so much with a raw file without damaging it.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 11, 2011)

Who's idea of natural? JPEGs shot with a Canon camera look different to JPEGs shot with a Nikon. Different colour, different tone. 

I use post processing to correct these inconsistencies. If you think your JPEGs look like perfect real life, maybe you should spend some more time outside looking at nature rather than looking through a camera lens.


----------



## ghache (Jan 12, 2011)

!? whats wrong with you


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 12, 2011)

I want to see his perfect work. I'll put money on it that it's anything but. 

And the mentality of "If I don't see it happening, then it isn't happening", is quite scary.

Well, as long is an individual is happy with what their doing, regardless of the quality, then they can go about their blissfully ignorant existence doing what ever they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect me.

Photographers like that generally help me to look better though, so thanks.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 12, 2011)

I just don't want to pay "sit down" restaurant prices, just to get served a microwaved Lean Cuisine meal.

For me, my picture's gotta start like my food...


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 12, 2011)

I think the OP has succumb to peer pressure

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...re-buy-cheap-legal-old-photoshop-version.html


----------



## manaheim (Jan 12, 2011)

"peer pummeling"


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

Ah, troll threads, aren't they great?


To answer your question, putting aside the philosophy of being successful, you can have a great career in shooting only in JPG and not doing any processing.  I know a few people who do, have been working pros for 30+ years.  One has travelled the world doing that.

What type of photos do they do?  Sports journalism.  A 30+ year sport journalist gave a speech during one of my classes years ago and I stayed in touch with him and we crossed paths a few times. 

When he did the Bejing Olympics, he only shot in JPG and did no processing.  He had to send images out on the wire as soon as humanly possible.  Cropping, exposure and everything is all handled in camera.

Not that he doesnt want to process.  He did a spread of Yoko Ono a while ago when she was in town,  using strobes to light, had her climb into a window frame, and did some edits on the image.

But for sports journalism, you don't need to edit.  However, you need to 100% master your craft to get consistent results as there is no margin for error.  Nail every exposure, understand how all the lights will affect your shot,...

Ok, back to the


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> I want to see his perfect work. I'll put money on it that it's anything but.
> 
> And the mentality of "If I don't see it happening, then it isn't happening", is quite scary.
> 
> ...



What 'their' doing and 'blissfully ignorant' go together like hand and glove...


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 12, 2011)

*they're


----------



## Student (Jan 12, 2011)

Trever1t said:


> I think the OP has succumb to peer pressure
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...re-buy-cheap-legal-old-photoshop-version.html


 
I did not, I do some graphic design as well and needed an upgrade from GIMP...


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

So whats the point of this thread?


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 12, 2011)

Student said:


> I did not, I do some graphic design as well and needed an upgrade from GIMP...



Illustrator was choice for graphic design last I knew...But what do I know, I only work for a multi-million dollar printing company and talk to the graphic artists on a day to day basis.


----------



## Warren Peace (Jan 12, 2011)

I still shoot a lot with my film camera.    Mostly cause it has been my hobby, and I like to capture the image and see it in print.  I shoot in manual mode, and try to be creative with my light source, or my compositions.
 My other hobby is my digital camera, and granted it is only a Canon XT with a kit lens, and Im by no means a pro like everyone here.  But I like to capture my digital images with the intent to manipulate them in photoshop, either by altering, masking, or whatever I want to do with my image.   We have that technology available to us, so why can we not use it for whatever we wish. :er:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 12, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > I want to see his perfect work. I'll put money on it that it's anything but.
> ...


 
Hay tyepoe Nazi, Aihm et werk en doan awlwais haev teh tyeme tou bodder tyepeeing slewoughly ohr prewfph reedeng. Goh troll sum udder threahdes.


----------



## chito beach (Jan 12, 2011)

I understand where Student is coming from, but if he wants an un edited version of the shot he needs to shoot in RAW, otherwise the camera is applying a bunch of editing for him.  

I find it funny that guys like this never seem to post up their work,  why is that?


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 12, 2011)

Student said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > I think the OP has succumb to peer pressure
> ...


 

My mistake, I thought people joined forums such as this to learn.


----------



## PASM (Jan 12, 2011)

Student said:


> I know how to use photoshop and if I  wanted I could make my models look perfect and adjust all the colour  and all that but I don't. I want to shoot JPEG and I want to produce  natural images with natural landscapes, natural people in order to make  all my pictures 100% natural.



By natural, do you mean the people are not cosmetically enhanced, the landscapes are not digitally altered to remove distractions and ugliness?



Student said:


> Can one be successful and produce  beautiful images without post processing? Discuss...



What do you regard as post-processing? Are you referring more to digital manipulation of picture elements rather than basic adjustments of brightness/lightness, color etc?

Most of these parameters are chosen within the camera menus pre-shot and give the JPEG its look. If you're happy with the results ...success!


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

chito beach said:


> I understand where Student is coming from,


 
Really?  You have been to the magical Troll land and made it back alive?  Sweet!


----------



## chito beach (Jan 12, 2011)

bigtwinky said:


> chito beach said:
> 
> 
> > I understand where Student is coming from,
> ...



I understand where you are coming from too. a bitter, little sole who feels the need to belittle others make themselves feel validated......sad


----------



## mar1u5 (Jan 12, 2011)

Student said:


> I know how to use photoshop and if I wanted I could make my models look perfect and adjust all the colour and all that but I don't. I want to shoot JPEG and I want to produce natural images with natural landscapes, natural people in order to make all my pictures 100% natural.



I know how to drive faster than everyone else in formula 1, but I just want to drive my car to and from work following the speed limit and beeing one out of several million people doing exactly the same. Can I be more of a liar? Oh, I mean: success?

People really should spend more time developing their own skill, and less time envying others. Anyone who could make their model look perfect with photoshop would do just that. Anyone who can't, and wish they could, make threads like this instead.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

chito beach said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > chito beach said:
> ...


 
 :thumbup:

But bitter is more bitter than I am, really.  And you forgot to throw in there a sense of humour, which seems to be lacking around these parts.

And watch that pot calling the kettle black thing there bud, you are practicing your own words there! :mrgreen:


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 12, 2011)

bigtwinky said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> But bitter is more bitter than I am, really.  And you forgot to throw in there a sense of humour, which seems to be lacking around these parts.
> 
> And watch that pot calling the kettle black thing there bud, you are practicing your own words there! :mrgreen:



I think there's a study about the amount of smileys, and random thumbs up you need per post for people to get the hint that you're not completely serious.

I fail to use them enough, I know that...but there is a balance needed.  For now, you're just a dick though.  And I won't put smilies in this post so you can get offended.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

I figure 2 would be enough.  1 might make someone think I am serious, 2 would be enough to put the point accross without having to spam smileys.

I don't think I've seen a post on TPF or any internet forum for the last few years that actually offended me. 

Hopefully, my dickyness will wear off soon, but until then I'll let ya get back to your multimillion dollar company


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 12, 2011)

bigtwinky said:


> Hopefully, my dickyness will wear off soon, but until then I'll let ya get back to your multimillion dollar company



Well...it's not mine...but if it were, I'd be rich!

It is a good company though, and I love the work I do.

Check it out and then order a 40' x 60' print .

Britten Banners - Vinyl Banners - Banner Maker Online


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

Cool!  Do you have Canadian clients?

I used to work for a printing company, although it was more of printing press place, magazines, presses... I quit about 10 years ago, but they are still going strong (2nd biggest in Canada) and turns out, they are actually behind blurb books (to some degree, and according to friends still working there) 

...and #2


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 12, 2011)

bigtwinky said:


> Cool!  Do you have Canadian clients?
> 
> I used to work for a printing company, although it was more of printing press place, magazines, presses... I quit about 10 years ago, but they are still going strong (2nd biggest in Canada) and turns out, they are actually behind blurb books (to some degree, and according to friends still working there)
> 
> ...and #2



Not too many, we did redo some signage at a raceway in Toronto.  Can't remember the name of it right off hand, but fairly large project.  Only thing I can think of.

Edit:  found it, Honda Indy Toronto


----------



## SJGordon (Jan 12, 2011)

MichiganFarts said:


> bigtwinky said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully, my dickyness will wear off soon, but until then I'll let ya get back to your multimillion dollar company
> ...



Very nice.  You at the GR or the TC location?  I see they offer a tour through the either plant.  I may have to take an hour drive one of these days and go through either place.  Always looking for something different... and I have something in mind that would be right up that ally.  Might have to check it out.


----------



## CCericola (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm sure others who work with printers and designers have heard the same rants. GIMP is not a professional or supported program in the Graphic Design industry!!!. Photoshop is for editing photos, Illustrator is for vector graphics and InDesign (and still QuarkXpress) for page layout. Corel products are usually supported as well.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jan 12, 2011)

Student said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Student said:
> ...


 


crap guys/girls were all photographers.   i thought i was a project manager who happens to like taking photos. apparently we need to do it this way or were doing it wrong. crap didnt know art had so many rules to follow.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 12, 2011)

oh my god someone put three bullets in the head of this thread...


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 12, 2011)

But.... then forum life would be boring and useful


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 13, 2011)

SJGordon said:


> Very nice.  You at the GR or the TC location?  I see they offer a tour  through the either plant.  I may have to take an hour drive one of these  days and go through either place.  Always looking for something  different... and I have something in mind that would be right up that  ally.  Might have to check it out.




TC, I've never been to the GR location, but I don't think it's anywhere  near as big as the TC headquarters.  We've also got the newer, faster  presses at our location too.  This building was set up with tours in  mind, while the GR location is just your average print shop, from what I  what know of it.




12sndsgood said:


> crap guys/girls were all photographers.   i thought i was a project manager who happens to like taking photos. apparently we need to do it this way or were doing it wrong. crap didnt know art had so many rules to follow.



But...there's gotta be rules....so we can show you how wrong you're doing it all!


----------



## UUilliam (Jan 13, 2011)

1. as stated above.  Jpeg is already processed and RAW is processed when open in an image viewer in order to create a jpeg representation of the data therefore "technically" all photographs are processed!

2. A camera does not see the world like us therefore what is "natural" to us, Is definitely not "natural" to the camera therefore will usually require editing to make it look "natural" to us!

3. We could debate about this, but for me, Photography isn't about capturing an instant light, it is using light creatively to create a piece of artwork, an image that can bring emotion to the viewer, if that means editing it, That is what I'll do!  If the image is perfect straight away, that is fine too!

4. Your images (un-edited) will NEVER be quite as good as someone who "tweaks" (note the difference, tweak < Editing) their image.

5. for purists who say "oh no, I buy my camera to get the result in camera, I am staying true to photography, I am not editing"
The darkroom had means of editing, Adding magenta to the enlarger to create more contrast, burning / dodging the image etc...


----------



## SEMPER (Jan 13, 2011)

UUilliam - is 100% right

JPEG - is an edited format. And plus this one is a compressed format. You eddit RAW, compress it - and you got JPEG. Compare the size of RAW and JPEG.
Go to Wikipedia and check out the post about JPEG.

You wanna get the most natural pictures - use a Pinhole. It does not have even lense (any lense brings more or less of a distortion). And besides you can make Pinhole by yourself. In fact - it's not a problem to make the B/W film and photo paper by yourself. These all WILL bring the nature and a bit of soul in your pictures!


----------



## manaheim (Jan 13, 2011)

No one has mentioned this yet, so I will...

Even film photographers "edited" their images.  There's a lot of work that can (and was often) be done in the dark room to make images just right.

In truth, even if you just drop your roll off at the local penny saver... the dude behind the counter makes choices on your images when he puts them to paper that could be construed as edits or tweaks.


----------



## ann (Jan 13, 2011)

nope, it has been mentioned several times.


----------



## Overread (Jan 13, 2011)

*has a feeling that Mana forgot to use the sarcastic font when he made his post*


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jan 13, 2011)

I wonder what the OP thinks about landscape togs and their extensive use of filters to alter the scene.


----------



## ann (Jan 13, 2011)

ah, i missed that point, in fact i thought "this is a strange comment from him"

too much cabin fever from the iced bound south.


----------



## GraphiXimage (Jan 13, 2011)

I think he is on to something here!... Maybe I should stop using soap when I shower, might not be as effective but I bet its more natural


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 13, 2011)

GraphiXimage said:


> I think he is on to something here!... Maybe I should stop using soap when I shower, might not be as effective but I bet its more natural



Lots of Michiganders on this forum...

Hail from the pinky!  And what's this soap you speak of?


----------



## Overread (Jan 13, 2011)

GraphiXimage said:


> I think he is on to something here!... Maybe I should stop using soap when I shower, might not be as effective but I bet its more natural



Why only go half way? Stop using that water piped from aquifers and processed and purified and get back to proper natural bathing. Find a fresh running stream/pool or if you want a shower a waterfall :mrgreen: (I would suggest rain but human pollutants in rain can be a problem)


----------



## GraphiXimage (Jan 13, 2011)

If noting wanting to post process his stuff is his thing, more power to him, its all art and he is the artist of his own work..being sucessfull is only determined by what you call success, if you are happy with the jpg right out of the camera then I guess it was successful... Ive heard so many photography and photoshop instructors say 
"Don't retouch just because you can" but I like going thru my files an re-retouching
some... just because I can... sometimes taking stuff way over the top is fun or experimenting trying to get an effect that just makes you say WOW that can not be done in camera, I don't like Picasso stuff but look how many others do


----------



## Overread (Jan 13, 2011)

GraphiXimage said:


> If noting wanting to post process his stuff is his thing, more power to him, its all art and he is the artist of his own work



People are not disagreeing with the fact that - as the photographer - the OP may make his own choice as to what he does and does not do with and to his photography. 
However what people are taking issue with is that the OP is taking a distinct course of action (or inaction in this case) whilst under a misunderstanding of what he is gaining by taking this course of action. This is why people are disagreeing and making suggestions and points aimed at trying to educate the OP as to the error or misunderstanding in their viewpoint. 

This isn't a fight for control, but a desire to educate and help further anothers photographic understanding. In the end though no matter what we say the OP still has the choice to listen or not to listen.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 13, 2011)

Overread said:


> GraphiXimage said:
> 
> 
> > If noting wanting to post process his stuff is his thing, more power to him, its all art and he is the artist of his own work
> ...




I thought we were arguing about pie now...maybe that was a different thread.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 13, 2011)

Has this guy posted any of his amazing SOC images?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 13, 2011)

Are you sure you can handle that much awesomeness?


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 13, 2011)

Him and sobolik (whatever his name is) must be related.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 13, 2011)

Overread said:


> *has a feeling that Mana forgot to use the sarcastic font when he made his post*


 
More like I didn't realize how long this thread had become when I responded to it and missed a number of replies.


----------



## Drake (Jan 14, 2011)

Since when are the out of the camera JPEGs natural looking? I've been already through 6 different cameras, tried countless setting combinations, and the result actually never got close to natural. Take any unedited photo from your library and look at it. Does it look exactly the way the scene you pointed your camera at did? Does it have the right contrast and saturation? White balance? How about a sunset for an example. They are always beautiful. But have you seen a stunning sunset photo straight out of the camera? Most of the ones I've seen were dull, unsaturated, and thus uninteresting and unrealistic. 

And above all, photography is subjective. Everyone sees the world in a different way. Even if we both witness the same scene, a photo of it that you consider natural may not necessarily be realistic for me.


----------



## swimswithtrout (Jan 14, 2011)

Drake said:


> Since when are the out of the camera JPEGs natural looking? I've been already through 6 different cameras, tried countless setting combinations, and the result actually never got close to natural.



  I actually have to profess that I haven't shot a JPEG in 8 or 9 yrs. I gave it up quickly when I switched to a DSLR and RAW.

Until today... 

 I tried it with my now, long in the tooth, Nikon D2Xs for for the sake of science/art.  

Thank God for the recycle bin.  

RAW to Jpeg conversion in PS is fine if not excellent and it's hard to see the difference. 

In cam Jpeg is atrocious. And that's at maximum settings.  Blocked, muddy compressed shadows and mega blown highlights.  

Sorry, in cam Jpeg is the most _unnatural_ thing I've ever seen !


----------



## ChadHillPhoto (Jan 14, 2011)

Yes!
Myself, I personally LOVE PS.
However, I appreciate your desire for more natural images.
Photojournalist are not supposed to edit their images so you can certainly be successful in that route. If you are a product or fashion photographer it may be an uphill battle. 
However, Terry Richardson is famous and he shoots with a point and shoot and probably doesn't know much photoshop. Most of all...be yourself and you will be more successful. Make natural your niche/style.

Post some of your stuff...I d love to see !

a couple examples of my own stuff from my site & blog
Examples: Natural (Minimal headshot retouch)






Fashion retouch (a bit more polish)


----------



## Drake (Jan 15, 2011)

swimswithtrout said:


> I actually have to profess that I haven't shot a JPEG in 8 or 9 yrs. I gave it up quickly when I switched to a DSLR and RAW.
> 
> Until today...
> 
> ...


Exactly, JPEGs also differ a lot between various cameras. Which one is real then?


----------



## Arch (Jan 15, 2011)

Hmm this thread doesn't have much to offer other than a misinformed OP, enough now.


----------

