Digicam Users and Post Processing

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk - 29 Sep 2006 12:49 GMT

Digicam Users and Post Processing

When I upload CF photo images to my PC hard drive I never cease to be
struck at their 'unfinished' quality straight from the camera ( I
am using a Canon G6), compared to the post processed result, which
shows such a vast improvement.

It is obvious that relatives, friends and acquaintances who are
'casual' users of digicams don't give a thought to post
processing, although most cameras come with some form of editing
software e.g Adobe Elements. Despite providing this sotware camera
makers do nothing to 'educate' their customers as to the need for
editing their photos: With film processing and printing labs it seems
that however basic their service, there was/is more chance of the
'happy snapper' ending up with reasonably decent results than with
unedited digital photos.

Is there really a benefit to 'casual'converts to digital unless
manufacturers explain that the results leaving the camera are only half
finished?!

Denis Boisclair
Cheshire, UK.

Reply to this Message

m Ransley - 29 Sep 2006 13:16 GMT

For most the results are finished and equal to or better than their
film experiances since they have not experimented with their cameras
potential. Do you use camera factory settings, you won`t get the
potential out of your camera on full auto of any parameter, WB, Iso, EV,
saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc etc. I find on auto not to be
optimum but averaged. When I take time setting my shot often no post
adjustments are wanted, and my results are usualy better with my cheapo
sony P&S than I could have achieved with film with excellent 35mm
equipment. You have a good camera but have not developed its potential
if everything is dramaticly better photoshoped.

Reply to this Message

denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk - 29 Sep 2006 13:41 GMT

> For most the results are finished and equal to or better than their
> film experiances since they have not experimented with their cameras
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> equipment. You have a good camera but have not developed its potential
> if everything is dramaticly better photoshoped.

You make a very good point! But my question remains - where does that
leave the 'average' digicam user who would never know where to start as
regards setting his camera for optimum results???

Reply to this Message

tomm42 - 29 Sep 2006 14:12 GMT

> > For most the results are finished and equal to or better than their
> > film experiances since they have not experimented with their cameras
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> leave the 'average' digicam user who would never know where to start as
> regards setting his camera for optimum results???

This is a small problem, image editors are complex programs. But as the
previous poster said most people I talk to feel their pictures are
better from digital cameras than from their previous film cameras and
are happy with them no matter if they still have flaws. Tutorials that
are on line or in book seem to make editing programs even more daunting
by starting out with selection (in Photoshop at least) instead of minor
color work, resizing and basic cropping. At work I'm teach another
photographer Photoshop. We work in a medical environment so we can't do
major changes to images. What we do alot is scan in old slides crop,
resize to optimum in PowerPoint, clean, sharpen and save, sometimes
color correct because it is a poorly duped slide. It is the same
functions as most people need from their cameras. The tutorials don't
seem to cover these functions until farther in the class.

Tom

Reply to this Message

Steve Stone - 29 Sep 2006 14:14 GMT

> You make a very good point! But my question remains - where does that
> leave the 'average' digicam user who would never know where to start as
> regards setting his camera for optimum results???

It leaves then very happy and satisfied because they don't care, or most
don't care, or don't know any better.
The ones that do care are the ones that owned 35mm SLR's.
The majority of the public just want to point and shoot.
They don't want to take the time to tweak and adjust.
They don't want to read that 289 page PDF manual on CD.

Steve

Reply to this Message

denis@boisclair.freeserve.co.uk - 29 Sep 2006 16:49 GMT

> It leaves then very happy and satisfied because they don't care, or most
> don't care, or don't know any better.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Steve

I showed my wife a photo (of her!) straight from the camera and shot on
'Auto'- she thought it was 'pretty good' but no member here would be
satisfied with it. The main problem was that it needed sharpening as it
was too soft and more contrast was also necessary.

Denis

Reply to this Message

Joan - 30 Sep 2006 03:57 GMT

How old is your wife? If you took of photo of me and sharpened it,
I'd be very disappointed. I'd rather it had a 10.5 Gaussian blur. :-)

Signature

Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

: I showed my wife a photo (of her!) straight from the camera and shot on
: 'Auto'- she thought it was 'pretty good' but no member here would be
: satisfied with it. The main problem was that it needed sharpening as it
: was too soft and more contrast was also necessary.
:
: Denis

Reply to this Message

Marvin - 29 Sep 2006 16:14 GMT

>>For most the results are finished and equal to or better than their
>>film experiances since they have not experimented with their cameras
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> leave the 'average' digicam user who would never know where to start as
> regards setting his camera for optimum results???

I agree with Ransley. It leaves that kind of user pretty
much where he was, but with some advantages over film. For
one thing, he doesn't have to wait to finish a roll of film
to see the photos - weeks or months later. And he can
preview the photos on a kiosk in a local store, to select
the best shots to print, instead of paying to print all the
photos. The kiosk may even give him the chance to crop the
photos.

For those who do want to learn, seeing the results quickly
helps them to learn.

The question should be, what have they lost in moving to
digital from film?

Reply to this Message

David J Taylor - 29 Sep 2006 14:42 GMT

> Digicam Users and Post Processing
>
> When I upload CF photo images to my PC hard drive I never cease to be
> struck at their 'unfinished' quality straight from the camera ( I
> am using a Canon G6), compared to the post processed result, which
> shows such a vast improvement.

[]

> Is there really a benefit to 'casual'converts to digital unless
> manufacturers explain that the results leaving the camera are only
> half finished?!
>
> Denis Boisclair
> Cheshire, UK.

My take on this is that if you have to do a lot of post-processing on each
and every image, you aren't "getting it right first time". Think taking
slides (as I used to), where post-processing is difficult, to say the
least.

David

Reply to this Message

Roy G - 29 Sep 2006 16:18 GMT

> Digicam Users and Post Processing
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> Denis Boisclair
> Cheshire, UK.

You are sort of correct. I spent 5 years part time dealing with the public
in a camera repairer.

It is very obvious that most of the general public have no knowledge
whatsoever about photography.

Some of the crap which was shown to me as being a good Photo was quite
unbelievably bad.

Tha Camera makers are quite aware of this situation, and take full advantage
of it when selling to the "Mugs".

For example APS which can take 3 different sized pictures. Red Eye
Elimination systems, which at the best only reduce it, and it was never a
problem until they started selling small cameras with the flash Window right
next to the Lens.

Do not hold your breath waiting on the general public wanting better quality
from their P & S Digi Cams. They are quite happy to accept over-saturated
and over-sharpened Jpegs.

Roy G

Reply to this Message

jeremy - 30 Sep 2006 02:57 GMT

> Is there really a benefit to 'casual'converts to digital unless
> manufacturers explain that the results leaving the camera are only half
> finished?!

Kodak Perfect Touch Processing addresses the needs of this group of users.
It is available on all images printed through the Kodak Gallery online
service.

Picassa has some easy "One-Touch" print fix-up commands, as does Corel Paint
Shop Pro Photo XI. I believe that PSP XI even allows batch processing,
eliminating the need to manually repeat the process for each image file.

These "One-Click" procedures aren't perfect, but they generally succeed at
improving images to the point that they exceed the quality levels that would
be typically gotten from machine-made film prints.

Reply to this Message