|
|
WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Hi all
This week's poll is inspired by the rise in post-capture image processing - as we've seen in the Pentax K10D/Samsung GX-10 and now the Nikon D60.
These cameras let you process raw files in-camera to alter the white balance, ISO, contrast etc after you've taken the shot. You can also apply colour tones, turn pictures black and white and all sorts of excitements. Does this sort of control appeal to you at all, or do you think it's a bit of a gimmick?
I predict we'll be getting more of these sort of controls in the future, and we may see the day when computer-based imaging software is something we use only occasionally.
Go to the home page to let us know what you think. The question is -
Would you be interested in more in-camera post capture controls, such as curves, levels or straightening tools?
damien
|
|
Fen
|
|
(BAD WOLF)
|
|
16/02/2008 20:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I voted No
I don't want the camera making the decisions, I'd rather do this sort of adjustment myself.
How are you supposed to be able to tell what you are doing on a 3" screen?
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Morning Damien,
I voted yes but, truth be told, I really don't know
how often I would use it 
Cheers,
Jack
|
TheFatControlleR
|
|
(L'éminence Grise, Devil's Advocate & AP Fanboy!)
|
|
16/02/2008 20:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I voted No
I don't want the camera making the decisions, I'd rather do this sort of adjustment myself.
How are you supposed to be able to tell what you are doing on a 3" screen?
^What he said^
I'd rather that processing power was put to better use in terms of capture quality and/or speed.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I voted No
I don't want the camera making the decisions, I'd rather do this sort of adjustment myself.
You know what? I think that's been your problem all along. Maybe you should let the camera do the thinking more often. Not saying you're ...
|
|
Fen
|
|
(BAD WOLF)
|
|
16/02/2008 20:33
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
You know what? I think that's been your problem all along. Maybe you should let the camera do the thinking more often. Not saying you're ...
You've seen that bit where Homer tries to strangle Bart?
WHY YOU.... 
|
|
Mojo_66
|
|
(Rain Kat)
|
|
16/02/2008 20:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I voted No
I don't want the camera making the decisions, I'd rather do this sort of adjustment myself.
How are you supposed to be able to tell what you are doing on a 3" screen?
^What he said^
I'd rather that processing power was put to better use in terms of capture quality and/or speed.
What they said. I reckon a lot of people (not everyone, I know) using a DSLR will have a good idea of what they're doing and would rather process their own photos on a PC/Mac anyway. The R&D would be better directed elsewhere.
|
|
fabs
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
16/02/2008 20:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Is this to let the user actually do things to RAW files in camera that you would normally do on the computer?
If so, I would say no, purely because whilst I am out with my camera I would rather use the time to take photos and so the processing when I get home. Also, even with the new big and bright screens we have on our cameras now, I still couldn't confidently make any changes in camera. I have taken many pictures that have looked good on the screen, even when I zoom in, but when I get them uploaded they often turn out to be not what I wanted.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
NO!
Charlie
|
|
Bettina
|
|
(Kein Titel)
|
|
16/02/2008 21:21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
IIRC, don't know where I got it from, but I've heard that if you delete pictures or chew around with them in-camera, you run the risk of corrupting them on the card. Might be an interesting issue to test.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
After today's interesting expedition, I vote "Yes" (up to a point!)
|
|
Dave_Cox
|
|
(old'n'grumpy)
|
|
16/02/2008 22:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I voted No
I don't want the camera making the decisions, I'd rather do this sort of adjustment myself.
How are you supposed to be able to tell what you are doing on a 3" screen?
^What he said^
I'd rather that processing power was put to better use in terms of capture quality and/or speed.
What they said. I reckon a lot of people (not everyone, I know) using a DSLR will have a good idea of what they're doing and would rather process their own photos on a PC/Mac anyway. The R&D would be better directed elsewhere.
^^^^^^ Same as^^^^^^. The less decisions the camera makes the better. All it has to do is get the exposure reading correct and give me a file to work on.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I voted No, on the basis that this is not done within current camera design layouts. If the image was outputted (wirelessly) to a decent sized screen, (A4?) with dedicated processing chips built into it, maybe this might be a viable proposition. Quite how you ensure that the ambient light doesn't impact on the screen's colours, would be the greatest problem. Somplicity in the processing architecture would be paramount!
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I would say no, purely because whilst I am out with my camera I would rather use the time to take photos and so the processing when I get home. Also, even with the new big and bright screens we have on our cameras now, I still couldn't confidently make any changes in camera.
Couldn't agree more. Eliminate lots of the stuff there is in the camera already, which simply complicates the business of taking a photo. Simplify, simplify, simplify ... no need for white balance correction, exposure compensation, ... that's what the raw converter software is for. 
I don't want to print straight from the camera, and I don't care if I can't output JPEG format without going through the Intel/AMD powered "developing tank".
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I can't see myself using them on a DSLR that only uses CF cards.....but have used the resize options and perspective correction stuff on my compact that uses SD cards which I can put in a phone to email or MMS pics.
Isn't photography about seeing how right you can get it in-camera? Wonder if there will come a time when levels and curves etc can be set pre-capture???? 
|
|
Carrie
|
|
(journeywoman)
|
|
16/02/2008 23:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Why would I want to try to get it right in the middle of taking photos, on a 3" screen, when I can wait until I've finished shooting, upload the photos onto the computer, make a back up copy, and then edit them (nondestructively) on a 19" colour calibrated monitor?
Guess what I voted?
Having said that I can see that some people will not want to play around on the computer and can imagine that they would appreciate as much as possible being done in camera before they take their SD card into the local print booth.
(edit to correct a typo)
|
|
Monobod
|
|
('Phantom' of the forum!)
|
|
16/02/2008 23:18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I think not, personally. I much prefer to do this later in the comfort of my home when things are not being rushed.
I can see some people may have a use for it if they are sending images dirctly to a magazine, or whatever, but it is not my cup of tea.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
No, definitely not.
I like to see what I'm mangling, not mess around with a fiddly little screen, even if my camera is cleverer than I am... 
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
The idea of MS or similar getting inon the act with their reputation for 'Keeping things simple' horrifies me.
|
|
Siuya
|
|
(Cool Hand Chris)
|
|
17/02/2008 00:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I can’t wait for the digital camera to be fully automatic! Hey, let it go out on a cold and frosty morning and take the pics. I’ve got better things to do with my life...
Now where did I put that copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People Without Leaving the Bedroom"
|
|
john_g
|
|
(Pooh-bah Hoo-ha)
|
|
17/02/2008 08:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I've got my hacksaw out and am busy trying to get my Paterson developing tank attached to my Canon T90. It's going to be awesome - imagine being able to take pictures, then develop them on the spot and see them immediately! Ok, so the enlarger mounted on the other side of the camera is going to make it slightly unbalanced but the benefits are going to make it worth it.
But seriously, why waste the time? I take mainly landscapes and have found the best way of working, and one that gets gasps of admiration from those that see my photos, is to take as many snaps as I want and then go to the computer and download pictures of the same place from Flickr. My photographs have improved out of all recognition since I adopted that work-flow.
Or, to put it another way, no - I have the option to post-process in my GX-10 but have never been remotely interested in exploring what it can do.
|
|
parisian
|
|
(Over the hill and far away...)
|
|
17/02/2008 08:36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I think I predicted (very tongue in cheek) that new models would have Photoshop included in the on-board software sometime last year. I thought it was ridiculous then and think it it ridiculous now.
The last few years have times of wonder for photography but also times of dumbing down making capture easier than ever and output merely an afterthought. How on earth accuracy in processing can be achieved on a 3" LCD I don't know unless folk out there have eyesight that is a damn site better than mine.
Photography used to be relatively simple, once the eternal triangle of shutter speed, aperture and ISO had been mastered alongside the basics of composition then we could set off relatively assured of bringing back the goods. Now we have to understand the intricacies of multifunctional cameras (the new swiss army knife?) but also the minefield of computing and image manipulation.
Tom Lee in my latest book purchase suggests that, "Digital imaging is a monster, but it can be tamed." I agree entirely, it can be tamed and that journey is surely one of the joys of the modern game but it takes time and patience. More automation in camera means more shots lost while button pushing, more frustration as perfection isn't achieved immediately and queues 40 deep at the counter of the retailers as imperfect prints are examined and complained about.
The willingness to learn has been lost in our quick fix society, everything has to be 'now'. These new cameras technically superb as they undoubtedly are; are bad news I am afraid.
For those of us that care this latest move is symptomatic of the ongoing degradation of our art.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
17/02/2008 08:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
That's a big Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!! from me.
I have enough difficulty getting it right on a full size monitor let alone on a poxy camera screen... I simply don't think a reliable enough judgement could be made on any screen that's fitted to a normal size camera. We're often advised not to delete pictutres in camera for the very reason that the screens are inadequate for making these kind of judgement calls.
I suppose it might work if you had a 10x8 digital camera with full size live veiw screen though...
Anyhow do we really want to faff about with exposure/saturation/whatever adjustments while taking pictures? How many great shots might we miss because we were fiddling with the curves... You can practically guarantee that the perfect moment of lighting or action will always occur right in the middle of a bit of editing. Yes, I know the designers will point out that it's intended for use when you've finished taking your pictures but let's face it it's almost certain that many people are going to be tempted to try and tweak that borderline shot there and then rather simply retake it. Equally if they can resist such temptation and wait 'til later then why not do it properly on a sensible size screen?...
I wouldn't say it's a gimmick but I do think it's a compliction that's largely unecessary and very likely to interrupt the smooth flow of one's picture making.
|
|
Hotblack
|
|
(Dead Horse Flogger)
|
|
17/02/2008 09:11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I'm in agreement with the majority. Most of the points I would make have already been made. A big fat NO from me.
|
|
mjc7uk
|
|
(Am I banned yet?)
|
|
17/02/2008 09:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Would say "Nah"!
Can't see what the point of it, as the LCD on the back of the camera are far too small for such thing.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I'm quite happy to take the film out and process it externally.
|
|
OneTen
|
|
('Two Breakfasts')
|
|
17/02/2008 09:53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
That'll be a NO then for all the reasons stated previously. I wonder if the manucturers understand what enthusiast photographers really want from a camera.
|
|
parisian
|
|
(Over the hill and far away...)
|
|
17/02/2008 10:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if the manufacturers understand what enthusiast photographers really want from a camera.
No, but they do like bragging about their skills. 
|
|
Siuya
|
|
(Cool Hand Chris)
|
|
17/02/2008 11:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I wonder if the manucturers understand what enthusiast photographers really want from a camera.
Ah, but you have to realise that the money is not with the enthusiast photographers but with Mr & Mrs Average who really do need this type of in-camera processing - however, more importantly for sales is what colour the camera is - pink ones sell better than blue ones so the girl in Superdrug informed me 
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I really cannot see any point in it whatsoever  Definitely the most ludicrous add-on junk yet
|
|
Burgy
|
|
(Grateful not to have one)
|
|
17/02/2008 13:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
What would be useful would be to create and edit IPTC captions and associate them with images in camera. Other than that No...
|
|
parisian
|
|
(Over the hill and far away...)
|
|
17/02/2008 15:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
pink ones sell better than blue ones so the girl in Superdrug informed me
Vibrators?
|
|
Nod
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
17/02/2008 15:24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I take a little Canon postcard printer on my hols so I can create unique (and often personalised) cards for those at home as well as being able to do prints for people on the spot. For this reason, a little bit of PP in camera would be useful - B&W conversion and horizon straightening mainly - with cropping as well. I can do some of this in camera on the D200.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I take a little Canon postcard printer on my hols
How big is this little printer? You got any links, might be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Yo be careful Erm, that e-mail from a 'little printer' might be BigWill!
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
17/02/2008 16:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I take a little Canon postcard printer on my hols
How big is this little printer? You got any links, might be interesting.
Canon Selphy...
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
*hands up* I do
I hate to make time sitting in front of a pc and paffing around with photos. The more I can do in-camera the better and if I'm not satisfied with the results then there's the pc..
I wouldnt like gimmicky stuff like multi-star points etc then that IS naff but proper adjustments hell yes!
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
17/02/2008 18:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Sorry but I don't see the logic of your stance. You don't want to sit in front of a PC faffing about with photos yet would be prepared to do the self same same thing in the camera though.
Faffing about is faffing about whether you do it on a PC or on the back of your camera....... and it's gonna be a hell of a lot easier, quicker and accurate on a PC...
Perhaps you'd be better off with film, then someone else can do the processing...
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Faffing about is faffing about whether you do it on a PC or on the back of your camera.......
or outside in a meadow or downtown at a cafe, preferable in many instances to being cooped up in a back room 
as for film...no. I could never afford all the wasted and rubbish shots!
p.s. Hasnt nikon brought out a couple of new perspective control lenses - horribly expensive but what a handy piece of glass to have at hand on site.
|
|
El Sid
|
|
(Going potty)
|
|
17/02/2008 18:41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Faffing about is faffing about whether you do it on a PC or on the back of your camera.......
or outside in a meadow or downtown at a cafe, preferable in many instances to being cooped up in a back room
Well that's a fair point....... on the other hand that's valuable picture taking time going to waste!!! 
Quote:
as for film...no. I could never afford all the wasted and rubbish shots!
Been there.......... still doing that.....
|
|
Siuya
|
|
(Cool Hand Chris)
|
|
17/02/2008 20:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
pink ones sell better than blue ones so the girl in Superdrug informed me
Vibrators?
Well, we have vibrating phones, so why not cameras
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Gimmicks, gimmicks, pointless gimmicks ... but I'm not likely to buy that sort of stuff, But whaddo I know? I still consider autofocus and TTL metering gimmicks.
|
|
bdr2
|
|
(member)
|
|
17/02/2008 23:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Not functionality I'd use, but then I've never pressed the direct print button on the back of my DSLR either. Still, pointless features sell cameras - especially to people who don't know any better - so I'm expecting to see much more of this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
but then I've never pressed the direct print button on the back of my DSLR either.
I actually find that feature quite useful sometimes. The last time was when I was photographing our drama group's dress rehearsal. Got home from the rehearsal about 11pm, and needed a selection of photos up in front of house by 7pm the next day - and had a full day's work at my day job in between.
So, rather than uploading to the PC, tweaking and then printing on my not too speedy Epson 1280, out came the Canon Selphy, picked the shots I wanted and pressed print. Job done and I still got to have a good night's sleep!
As far as in camera editing tools go, one thing I find with my DSLR is that pictures can sometimes look bad on the LCD (too much contrast) and fine when I upload them to a PC, so I've learned to hold fire a bit on what is a keeper and what should get deleted straight away. I'd be worried about accurately adjusting colour balance and levels based on the camera LCD.
|
|
bdr2
|
|
(member)
|
|
18/02/2008 10:11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
but then I've never pressed the direct print button on the back of my DSLR either.
I actually find that feature quite useful sometimes. The last time was when I was photographing our drama group's dress rehearsal. Got home from the rehearsal about 11pm, and needed a selection of photos up in front of house by 7pm the next day - and had a full day's work at my day job in between.
I'm not saying that the function doesn't have it's place. I've never used it, but I can see that others may occasional find it helpful. However, does the direct print function really need its own dedicated button? I can think of several far more important functions that Canon have chosen to hide in the menu system of my 5D.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Gimmicks, gimmicks, pointless gimmicks ... but I'm not likely to buy that sort of stuff, But whaddo I know? I still consider autofocus and TTL metering gimmicks.
and as for wind on film and viewfinders the right way up....
|
|
Nod
|
|
(Carpal \'Tunnel)
|
|
18/02/2008 17:59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I take a little Canon postcard printer on my hols
How big is this little printer? You got any links, might be interesting.
Canon Selphy CP 710. I keep mine (and transport it) in a little case that also holds the paper and ribbons (it's dye sub so no nasty wet inks to leak everywhere!) as well as the power supply and chargers for the cameras. This case is 11" x 8 1/2" x 6" (case loaded with paper and ribbons for 108 prints)- the printer on its own is 7" x 5" x 2 1/2". It produces 6x4" prints for about 17p each (7dayshop prices) in about a minute. Prints either from memory cards (CF, SD or MS), PictBridge cameras or PC. The paper is printed with a postcard pattern on the reverse but can be marked by some post sorting machines - as can "real" postcards!
|
|
cpfc12
|
|
(newbie)
|
|
18/02/2008 20:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
As some-one who has recently entered the "more serious" type of imaging recently, I would personally say no.
I have just paid out for Elements 6 !
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
No, the camera shouldn't try and solve problems that are already handled better at home on the computer - BUT if the camera did more to support work on the image later that would be really good...
...I wrote to Nikon to suggest they stuck a couple of gyroscopes in their bodies to measure tilt and pitch so photoshop could automate the perspective correction - but they didn't seem to understand the concept of people volunteering imrpovements...I just got an e-mail back saying they don't like to talk about the future...
|
|
spinno
|
|
(Curmudgeonly Fellow)
|
|
19/02/2008 09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
No, the camera shouldn't try and solve problems that are already handled better at home on the computer - BUT if the camera did more to support work on the image later that would be really good...
...I wrote to Nikon to suggest they stuck a couple of gyroscopes in their bodies to measure tilt and pitch so photoshop could automate the perspective correction - but they didn't seem to understand the concept of people volunteering imrpovements...I just got an e-mail back saying they don't like to talk about the future...
you're only a photographer...what would you know about cameras
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I voted No
I don't want the camera making the decisions, I'd rather do this sort of adjustment myself.
How are you supposed to be able to tell what you are doing on a 3" screen?
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I think it is an excellent idea for people who only get their cameras out for holidays and special occasions and don't like to faff around on the computer. Anything that helps the infrequent photographer get a better final image must be a good thing?
peter
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
But won't they just shoot JPEG anyway?
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
hi Nick
i am sure you are correct, JPEG will be the normal shooting mode for fun photographers (and i do not mean that in a derogatory way). But as i understand it, the question posed suggested that this was just the beginning and in-camera post processing is likely to increase. As technology 'improves' what is presently limited to RAW hopefully will extend to JPEG which could be of some benefit to fun photographers, and hopefully improve their final image - and maybe they will take even more photographs, which in my opinion can only be a good thing.
peter
|
|
Per
|
|
(old hand)
|
|
20/02/2008 10:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
I think it is an excellent idea for people who only get their cameras out for holidays and special occasions and don't like to faff around on the computer. Anything that helps the infrequent photographer get a better final image must be a good thing?
peter
And I think this is inevitable, sadly.
I was in Bath this weekend for a Valentine break and the weather had brought out lots of infrequent users - I saw plenty of small Canon and Nikon plus the odd Sony.
They all followed the same approach - stand right in the best spot, take the picture (too quickly) and then remain on the spot for several minutes reviewing the picture, pressing lots of buttons, navigating menus etc. without any consideration for other photographers waiting for them to get out of the way... The inclusion of more post-processing options will just make this worse I fear.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
without any consideration for other photographers waiting for them to get out of the way...
I tend to tell them to just move their butt... 
|
|
Hotblack
|
|
(Dead Horse Flogger)
|
|
20/02/2008 10:45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
without any consideration for other photographers waiting for them to get out of the way...
I tend to tell them to just move their butt...
[tiresome pedagogue mode]That's one solution. The other is to not take the tired old hackneyed shot they are all taking and find another angle.[/tiresome pedagogue mode]
|
|
Per
|
|
(old hand)
|
|
20/02/2008 10:55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
without any consideration for other photographers waiting for them to get out of the way...
I tend to tell them to just move their butt...
[tiresome pedagogue mode]That's one solution. The other is to not take the tired old hackneyed shot they are all taking and find another angle.[/tiresome pedagogue mode]
Absolutely. The other is to walk more than half a mile from the carpark. Sadly, in places like Bath, even the more unusual views have a photographer in them somewhere!
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
You can also choose to wait, or feature them in the image...unless I'm at home doing still life I try to avoid imposing myself on the world that presents itself to the lens - that means I never ask people to move out of the way of a picture or pick up plastic bottles from a beach scene just to sanitise the view... maybe that's just me though.... ;^D
|
|
Zou
|
|
(Pooh-Bah)
|
|
22/02/2008 11:16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I said no. The amount I can do already with my K100d is plenty enough.
|
|
Wheelu
|
|
(member)
|
|
22/02/2008 20:35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
It's called polaroid isn't it - and they've just given up on the idea.
Can't see any use for it and certainly don't want to have to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I say No...
Though as it can be done... so it will be done...
I just wish that camera makers would concentrate on things that improve the basics.
for canon that should mean more and better IF lenses.
|
|
Adesw
|
|
(The phantom flasher)
|
|
29/02/2008 08:40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHO WANTS IN-CAMERA POST-CAPTURE PROCESSING?
|
|
I want better lenses, better tonal ranger shutter speeds colours etc etc.
I don't want in camera processing. How can you process an image properly on a 2 inch screen? I know I can't.
|
