Postprocessing RAW files: personal differences....

[fcotterill]

An interesting article demonstrating personal preferences for landscape and wildlife images

How Three Photographers Edited the Same RAW Files

There was a time when photography had to defend its place in the sun among traditional artistic disciplines. It was accused of being a soulless reproduction of reality with only a hint of the author's creative imagination. Those days are thankfully over.

photographylife.com

 

[pomkiwi]

Thanks for the posting. Interestiing article and interesting how different from each other but consistently recognisable the three styles of editing were.

 

[bleirer]

Yes, but which one was the real one?

 

[pomkiwi]

Yes, but which one was the real one?

The original unprocessed images were posted at the beginning of the article

 

[JoPoV]

Are each participant's screens calibrated ?

 

[jeffnles1]

Yes, but which one was the real one?

I would say whichever one you want it to be. With film, each brand and even different emulsions within brands had different color palets, grain structures and reactions to light. With digital, an image is nothing more than a bunch of 1’s and 0’s on a memory card. It is not an image until someone uses some software to convert to an image our computers can display.

I would argue there is no such thing as “the real one” when it comes to digital photography, all have had some level of post processing. I could also make a pretty good argument about film not only differences from one film type to the next but differences in the development chemicals used

 

[bleirer]

I was just being provocative but I agree that there is no such thing as real since even a jpeg out of the camera is subject to interpretation via the camera profile settings.

 

[Calson]

It demonstrates the importance of having screen brightness and the ambient lighting color temp and lumens for the room used for editing. An image is going to look brighter on a monitor than in a print and shadow areas will be less of a problem if viewed only on a monitor.

 

[jeffnles1]

It demonstrates the importance of having screen brightness and the ambient lighting color temp and lumens for the room used for editing. An image is going to look brighter on a monitor than in a print and shadow areas will be less of a problem if viewed only on a monitor.

Exactly. When I'm printing a photo, I always boost the brightness a little bit and sometimes the shadows if they are really dark. Sometimes it looks bad on monitor but correct in the print.

 

[Charles Loy]

Interesting for sure. I occasionally edit a photo... re-edit a couple or more days later and compare.

 

[Jadiehl]

An interesting article demonstrating personal preferences for landscape and wildlife images

How Three Photographers Edited the Same RAW Files

There was a time when photography had to defend its place in the sun among traditional artistic disciplines. It was accused of being a soulless reproduction of reality with only a hint of the author's creative imagination. Those days are thankfully over.

photographylife.com

This was great reading and very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Jadiehl]

Yes, but which one was the real one?

They all are!