It kind of stems from comments about filters, "modes," file formats, and "processing and manipulating."
Al makes a really good point. All "destined-for-display" photographs have always had some adjustments made to them between in-camera capture and final display. Anyone who has had serious darkroom experience can attest to that.
As I stated in my "Essay" (thanks, Carol
) on filters in the "thank you" thread, a digital capture is nothing but "zeros" and "ones" or "bits" of digital information which are put together in a way that ultimately results in a photographic display. In a way, this opens a whole new world.In the film world, for the most part we had two choices. One, which most consumers used, was "color negative" or "reversal" film. The idea was to expose the film and then print it. The other choice was "color positive," or transparency film ("slides"). They were generally intended to be projected, but many (perhaps most) "serious" photographers ultimately used transparency film and then attempted to print from it. The characteristics were very different. Because of its nature, negative film was generally much more "forgiving" of poor exposures. Consequently a lot of users never knew how bad their exposure technique really was. As Al stated, the processors made adjustments so the final print looked "good."
As a teaching tool, I have always encouraged would-be serious photographers to use transparency film -- precisely because it was rather unforgiving, and thus demonstrated flaws in exposure in a rather painful manner.
With digital, we have different characteristics (kind of a "mix" between the two) and a whole new technique must be employed. I capture all my photographs in "RAW" format. This is almost at the basic level of the "zeros and ones." The reason I do this (and it emulates many pros and serious photographer's actions) is that it gives me the greatest ability to "work" the photo in post-processing in a non-destructive way, to achieve the result I want. My RAW files become those color-negatives and my Photoshop manipulations, the processor/developer.
When I download my shots from my camera and first bring them up in my RAW processing software, they look really dull. I used have the heart-dropping feeling, until I learned that what I thought I took was really still in there -- just buried in the "ones and zeros." With just a small amount of adjusting, I am able to bring them to the level I want. The reason they come into the computer "dull" is because I have turned off every in-camera adjustment or enhancement.
I don't want the camera to "make it look better." Two reasons: (1) My computer/Photoshop combination is better at it; and (2) I think I will do a better job than letting my camera "guess" at things. The camera is nothing more to me than a tool to capture the image. Adjustments, enhancements, and yes -- manipulation -- that's my area.
I know people who want it to look as good as it can right out of the camera, so they can print it. So the set the camera to "sharper" and "more vivid," etc. Neither view is "right" or "wrong." But to me, second only to getting out there in nature and doing it, the most exciting part is working with an image that "has possibilities" and seeing it develop into a "wall hanger."
I am interested to know what others think; what file format you use, etc.
. I do understand, though, that you mean that regarding post-processing. And, yes there is a certain amount of necessary work to post-process a RAW file that isn't necessary with a jpeg. It is precisely for that reason that a lot of pros (weddings come to mind) shoot in jpeg. You can, however, use the batch processing features in PS to obtain jpegs without having to do each one manually.
