What Digital cameras can't do, The mind can!

[O]

Using only natural lighting and no cropping as well as no photoshop usage. Let's see what you can do with your camera! Use your imagination! Next time I will challenge you to Themes! Enjoy and have fun!

Fantastic challenge, love it is all i can say, it’s a challenge we sometimes put to club members, and going black and white was also allowed.

A twist, Honestly, one of the best challenges is try going without a phone or lap top or the internet for a week or a month, you will defiantly be very different at the end of that experience.

Trending in some clubs now is the use of the internal adjustment pre-setting of your camera when using JPEG fine, your allowed to set the camera to a level or sharpening, suitable contrast saturation etc etc etc fitting to the environment, its been interesting for many and quite enjoyable.

The Challenge shows how much we are dependent on editing software and modern tools.

It also makes us think about composition of the story telling, the most powerful tool of all and getting things right in camera, a art being lost these days.


Only an opinion

 

[Larry S.]

Okie Dokie! Straight out of the camera? Yup..got some …60’s forward.. they tell a story. No “fudging” of images.. some converted to digital from Tri-X, Plus-x, Panatomic-X, Ektachrome, and whatever film I could get…. 35mm, 2-1/4 square, 4X5 sheet… whatever. If you have been with this endeavor for a while you know the smell of Microdol-X and other chemicals.. not to mention the halzid chems in the “fix”… We “dodged“and “burned in“ back then because what we saw on the paper easel was blown out or too dark to give a decent print…. not unlike what we do today with a bit of help from technology. Ansel Adams and others found ways to make marginal negatives produce outstanding prints. Straight out of the camera means “instamatic” or Polaroid to me. Even phone cameras have advanced editing capabilities. Here’s a couple “straight digital conversions” from 69 w/Nikon Ftn and Pentax Spotmatic….Bad times…good photos… converted w/D850+ES2
…Yes..a story, without image manipulation

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Lance B]

I also don't particularly see the point of these sorts of "challenges". The RAW file out of the camera bears little resemblance to what your eyes perceive the scene to look. The highlights are much lower and the shadows much lighter to my eyes yet the image may have very dark shadows and the highlights near clipping or blown. When I post process the image, it is to make it close to reality, to what my eyes saw not what the camera actually records.

This obsession with some where "you cannot do any adjustments in post process" is a relic from film days where the average Joe had no way to adjust an image taken on film as they just sent it off to the photo lab and it came back "as is". If you were shooting negatives, the lab actually did some adjustments to make the print look decent. The only "untouched" images were generally slides. The few that actually developed their own film images probably had more chance to adjust certain aspects for printing but they still had limited ability to do anything about making it look more like reality, especially as film was generally way lower in DR, way lower DR than your eyes.

Again, I think this is just an obsession with film and the "nostalgic" belief that film was somehow pristine and virgin when in fact it wasn't for the pro's, just the amateurs who didn't do their own processing and printing. For me, the whole purpose of photography is to make the final image look closer to reality, closer to what my eyes saw, not what the camera "saw" because the camera "sees" things differently to what my eyes actually saw in real life. To add to this in the film era, there is pre-photo manipulation which includes flash, special lighting (colour castes etc), removal of rubbish from the scene (now we can clone it out!). This was mainly done in the film days as it was more difficult to do in processing and printing. Yes, it is still done in the digital era but it is less important than it once was. What is the difference in boosting shadows in post process compared to boosting shadows with lighting or flash? Changing white balance in post compared to putting a filter over the lens or use special lighting or reflector? How the heck do you do that with a bird or animal in the wild? However, and again, the bird looked different in reality than what the camera gave me as a result due to the way the camera captures the range of tones and light compared to my eyes. There is no way to do a controlled shoot with a wild bird or animal as it an anathema for the pristine wildlife image that the pundits demand. I mean, in many ways it is absurd.

Film used in a creative way due to it's limitations is a different story. Film with certain look due to the lower DR, or certain colour saturations, or grain etc but that was an inherent film limitation but it didn't make it right, just different. However, that can still be achieved by judicious post processing for digital, but oh wait, then here we go again that you can't do post processing in the digital realm to make it look like film.

The point is, there is always some manipulation made whether it be pre or post photo whether in the film or digital realm. Why is pre photo deemed to be the benchmark when post photo can be so much better and more accurate to your eyes and simpler. Why are some trying to make out that it is better to pre photo manipulate compared to post photo? Why is that an advantage?

 

[Doug Herr]

Here's an example of SOOC as the camera and Kodachrome X saw it, and post-adjustment the way my eye saw it.

50 years ago the sky in the high Sierra Nevada mountains was deep blue and when a cloud covered the sun that was the light I had to work with. Ideally, to get it right in the camera I'd have told the Pika to wait while I hiked 5 miles to the trailhead, driven 200 miles to Samy's in Los Angeles to get a 72mm color correction filter, driven back to the trailhead & hiked back to the camera hoping the light hadn't changed much. The CC filter would have dropped the shutter speed well below the 1/60 sec the light & film required which means that instead of leaning against a rock for steadiness I'd have to find a way to set the tripod up in the scree. Or, I could have gone back to Samy's for some High Speed Ektachrome (ASA 160) and push-processed it as ASA 400. The size of the grain would have rivaled the rocks, and I'd still have needed the CC filter.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

​

Somewhere in this thread was a comment that the SOOC nearly always looked better than the processed. You decide.

 

[O]

Using only natural lighting and no cropping as well as no photoshop usage. Let's see what you can do with your camera! Use your imagination! Next time I will challenge you to Themes! Enjoy and have fun!

The way i understand the challenge is No lighting added, no editing in software, do the very best you can in your camera within its capabilities.
Using the right glass the right settings and above all as cropping is not allowed its imperative that the composition be done to the very best possible.
Getting it right in camera to the very best you can is the objective.
This puts pressure to select the right time to photograph in order to optimize light and colour along with avoiding shadows where necessary.
Selecting the optimum combination of time light and speed for sharpness, colour, exposure.
Let me know if i am off course here please.

With DSLRS or Mirror Less or any camera that is used other than film, the shots have to be in JPEG or RAW or TIFF etc.
Ok JPEGS by default are slightly optimized in camera compared to raw.
The internal settings available in picture quality ie: sharpening, contrast, saturation brightness etc etc have an influence on JPEGS only not RAW.

The main challenge is composition, natural lighting, exposure, tolerable has to be JPEGs, unless the challenge is only for film which i find unlikely to be the case.

The objective is to get great usable photos with out editing in PS LR or using added external lighting, the answer is absolutely you can, you just need skill sets, something these new cameras are eroding and slowly introducing new computerized controls requiring different skill sets more IT based.

I can produce out of a Z8 Z9 Z7II a perfect JPEG fine image in camera using a 50mm 1.8S in P mode, iso is defaulted to 12800 auto.

My girlfriend can nail money shots with this set up, and she doesn't even know anything about photography or the camera or how to use it other than when i tell her
" hold it up, look in the back screen till you see what you like in the way you want it and then push the big button on the top right hand side"
Instant money shot......her reaction

boring she says i would rather use my I Phone LOL

If its getting the best in camera with out editing in software or using lighting externally or cropping then hey love it, its what we do in the club sometimes.

Only an opinion

 

[kmhphotography]

To go a bit farther in the direction Lance was speaking of, many people have a real problem with manipulation and yet what is often forgotten (or not even realized) is that in photography, manipulation is baked in.

Even at the most basic level what you, as the photographer, choose to include in the frame is a manipulation. What you leave out of the scene is as well. The lens you select is another way the reality gets altered. I shoot songbirds, moths, and butterflies. It's a practice where we love to get those clean, out of focus backgrounds to isolate our subjects. But our eyes don't work like that - it's an artificial result of using a telephoto lens.

Every decision you make in creating an image is a version of the reality you encounter, but it isn't the reality itself. Manipulation begins in your mind and then flows though every mechanical, chemical, and digital aspect of the process.

 

[bleirer]

I don't think even the OP posted an example.

 

[Palouse]

The way i understand the challenge is No lighting added, no editing in software, do the very best you can in your camera within its capabilities.
Using the right glass the right settings and above all as cropping is not allowed its imperative that the composition be done to the very best possible.
Getting it right in camera to the very best you can is the objective.
This puts pressure to select the right time to photograph in order to optimize light and colour along with avoiding shadows where necessary.
Selecting the optimum combination of time light and speed for sharpness, colour, exposure.
Let me know if i am off course here please.

With DSLRS or Mirror Less or any camera that is used other than film, the shots have to be in JPEG or RAW or TIFF etc.
Ok JPEGS by default are slightly optimized in camera compared to raw.
The internal settings available in picture quality ie: sharpening, contrast, saturation brightness etc etc have an influence on JPEGS only not RAW.

The main challenge is composition, natural lighting, exposure, tolerable has to be JPEGs, unless the challenge is only for film which i find unlikely to be the case.

The objective is to get great usable photos with out editing in PS LR or using added external lighting, the answer is absolutely you can, you just need skill sets, something these new cameras are eroding and slowly introducing new computerized controls requiring different skill sets more IT based.

I can produce out of a Z8 Z9 Z7II a perfect JPEG fine image in camera using a 50mm 1.8S in P mode, iso is defaulted to 12800 auto.

My girlfriend can nail money shots with this set up, and she doesn't even know anything about photography or the camera or how to use it other than when i tell her
" hold it up, look in the back screen till you see what you like in the way you want it and then push the big button on the top right hand side"
Instant money shot......her reaction

boring she says i would rather use my I Phone LOL

If its getting the best in camera with out editing in software or using lighting externally or cropping then hey love it, its what we do in the club sometimes.

Only an opinion

RAW vs Jpeg. RAW comes SOC rather flat and lacking contrast. JPG comes SOC with various corrections and adjustments cooked. An iPhone does all kinds of adjustments and such that SOC has a completely different meaning.

 

[O]

The way I understand it is that the OP was intended to just challenge yourself to do the best you can with your camera using your photographic skill sets, excluding PS LR etc and added or extra external lighting, as well as no cropping, meaning everything else must be allowed.

Logically that means whatever you have access to in camera is certainly allowed and therefore usable, that's my understanding, that's the way we have in the past asked club member's to do this challenge, let me tell you many members were taken back how hard it was to NOT use editing or lighting.

If you use your computer mouse with your right hand try using your left hand, it’s hard, but over time with practice it gets better easier and becomes defiantly an incredibly healthy thing to do for exercising the mind.

Only an opinion

 

[Palouse]

The way I understand it is that the OP was intended to just challenge yourself to do the best you can with your camera using your photographic skill sets, excluding PS LR etc and added or extra external lighting, as well as no cropping, meaning everything else must be allowed.

OK, I get this and agree it is good advice to get and good advice to give—get it right in camera. But what is the value of posting here?



If I shoot an image with my Z7 using RAW and a B&W Picture control and open the NEF in DXO, I get a color image. If I open it in Nikon NX Studio it opens as B&W.
Which one is straight out of camera?

 

[JoPoV]

Which one is straight out of camera?

The jpeg ooc with your tweaked picture control adapted to the kind of image you have to shoot.
I think It's easy to understand.
It's easy to understand but I won't do it.

PS : a lot of professionals do this and don't post process their images. But not really doable in wildlife photography. Maybe wrong forum.

 

[Viathelens]

I'm saddened by most all of the comments and not a single picture. Has the world reached a place where every word posted or said must be analyzed? When I read the original post I understood exactly what the OP was saying. He just wanted to see some photos sooc that we had taken without editing. Yes even a RAW photo is edited so we can see it to edit it. Duh. Everyone of us here also understand that a jpeg is processed in camera depending on our choice of settings. I believe if I was a new member and posted the original post and got nothing but these responses I would not be to impressed by the fuddy duddy attitudes. So in response to the IP here are a couple of jpegs I took last weekend. The are sooc with only the camera itself processing the jpeg. Sorry they aren't anything except stones and a couple pieces of jewelry but I created everything including the pictures. View attachment 97257View attachment 97258View attachment 97259View attachment 97260View attachment 97261

I'm a bit saddened by what you stated and telling those of us who replied that we had "fuddy duddy attitudes." In this forum we don't throw out accusations, we respect the opinions of others and understand it's their right to have an opinion that differs from our own. I'm also saddened by the fact that what you posted has absolutely nothing to do with nature/landscape or wildlife and that is what this forum is about, not photographing still life scenes, people, objects, children, cityscapes or city scenes, but instead focusing on nature/landscape and wildlife. Thus, all of our posts should focus on those two subjects and photos should go into the appropriate presentation forum, wildlife or nature/landscape, or maybe in this case the processing forum, but not into the general discussion forum. If people want to post a lot of other types of subjects I suggest they try Ugly Hedgehog, a forum that I hope this nature-wildlife forum never emulates although at times recently I fear it is going in that direction.

 

[O]

The jpeg ooc with your tweaked picture control adapted to the kind of image you have to shoot.
I think It's easy to understand.
It's easy to understand but I won't do it.

PS : a lot of professionals do this and don't post process their images. But not really doable in wildlife photography. Maybe wrong forum.

I can see it could very well be the wrong forum being wild life or even sports action.

The general theme is to see what you can achieve in camera to the best you can by whatever means are available in camera and your choice of glass and composition selection, just don't use PS LR etc or crop or additional lighting, the rest is open.

The other option is we don't bother trying the challenge. I wont do the challenge as i have done it plenty of times in the camera club and enjoyed it.

There is no question that every image can benefit from PS LR post processing and shot in RAW, the more you get the photo right in camera at the source certainly helps especially for minimizing post processing requirements.

As to myself shooting JPEG fine and using the internal adjustments to enhance or tweak the final out comes out of the camera is a optional beneficial tool for JPEGS, that doesn't stop you shooting RAW at the same time.

I have found in some lighting conditions at night to avoid using VIVID with high ISO.

There is no right or wrong only choices.

Important or challenging shoots i always shoot RAW and JPEG fine at the same time, the raw file being a para shoot if i ever need it.

I avoid post processing as much as possible.

Only an opinion

 

[Paul Hilts]

To each his/her own. Whether you choose to do this challenge publicly in a forum like this, in your camera club, or on your own, I think you will find it useful in improving your field- craft, regardless of whether or not you do this all of the time. I have read many professional and successful wildlife photographer's blogs where they claim they do very little (and in some cases no) post processing of their images. Others choose to do major work on their images. Often times, while out in the field I will set my camera at single shot even though I can shoot up to 200 frames per second. Its kind of like an old school hunter who loads only one round into the chamber. You get one shot. The same goes for your internal camera settings. Its amazing how this challenge, discipline, and practice has improved my wildlife photography when I do use all of the "tools" available on my mirrorless camera. Don't be deterred by the naysayers. After all, isn't seeing improvement much of the journey here?

 

[Bat Pup]

I also don't particularly see the point of these sorts of "challenges". The RAW file out of the camera bears little resemblance to what your eyes perceive the scene to look. The highlights are much lower and the shadows much lighter to my eyes yet the image may have very dark shadows and the highlights near clipping or blown. When I post process the image, it is to make it close to reality, to what my eyes saw not what the camera actually records.

This obsession with some where "you cannot do any adjustments in post process" is a relic from film days where the average Joe had no way to adjust an image taken on film as they just sent it off to the photo lab and it came back "as is". If you were shooting negatives, the lab actually did some adjustments to make the print look decent. The only "untouched" images were generally slides. The few that actually developed their own film images probably had more chance to adjust certain aspects for printing but they still had limited ability to do anything about making it look more like reality, especially as film was generally way lower in DR, way lower DR than your eyes.

Again, I think this is just an obsession with film and the "nostalgic" belief that film was somehow pristine and virgin when in fact it wasn't for the pro's, just the amateurs who didn't do their own processing and printing. For me, the whole purpose of photography is to make the final image look closer to reality, closer to what my eyes saw, not what the camera "saw" because the camera "sees" things differently to what my eyes actually saw in real life. To add to this in the film era, there is pre-photo manipulation which includes flash, special lighting (colour castes etc), removal of rubbish from the scene (now we can clone it out!). This was mainly done in the film days as it was more difficult to do in processing and printing. Yes, it is still done in the digital era but it is less important than it once was. What is the difference in boosting shadows in post process compared to boosting shadows with lighting or flash? Changing white balance in post compared to putting a filter over the lens or use special lighting or reflector? How the heck do you do that with a bird or animal in the wild? However, and again, the bird looked different in reality than what the camera gave me as a result due to the way the camera captures the range of tones and light compared to my eyes. There is no way to do a controlled shoot with a wild bird or animal as it an anathema for the pristine wildlife image that the pundits demand. I mean, in many ways it is absurd.

Film used in a creative way due to it's limitations is a different story. Film with certain look due to the lower DR, or certain colour saturations, or grain etc but that was an inherent film limitation but it didn't make it right, just different. However, that can still be achieved by judicious post processing for digital, but oh wait, then here we go again that you can't do post processing in the digital realm to make it look like film.

The point is, there is always some manipulation made whether it be pre or post photo whether in the film or digital realm. Why is pre photo deemed to be the benchmark when post photo can be so much better and more accurate to your eyes and simpler. Why are some trying to make out that it is better to pre photo manipulate compared to post photo? Why is that an advantage?

Well, just like you said. To learn the limitations of your camera and how to use it. I quit using Photoshop and Blender and other picture enhancing programs because it fake. If you're in business of commercial or to promote someone then enhancing is a necessary thing to do.

 

[kmhphotography]

It's all fake, it always has been. We don't create the actual subject or scene - we create a likeness of it.

 

[Lance B]

Well, just like you said. To learn the limitations of your camera and how to use it. I quit using Photoshop and Blender and other picture enhancing programs because it fake. If you're in business of commercial or to promote someone then enhancing is a necessary thing to do.

Well, actually no. As I said, what the camera actually delivers as far as light and shade etc bears only a reasonable facsimile to what my eyes saw the scene as being. Using post process makes it more accurate to what my eyes saw.

 

[Larry S.]

Here's an example of SOOC as the camera and Kodachrome X saw it, and post-adjustment the way my eye saw it.

50 years ago the sky in the high Sierra Nevada mountains was deep blue and when a cloud covered the sun that was the light I had to work with. Ideally, to get it right in the camera I'd have told the Pika to wait while I hiked 5 miles to the trailhead, driven 200 miles to Samy's in Los Angeles to get a 72mm color correction filter, driven back to the trailhead & hiked back to the camera hoping the light hadn't changed much. The CC filter would have dropped the shutter speed well below the 1/60 sec the light & film required which means that instead of leaning against a rock for steadiness I'd have to find a way to set the tripod up in the scree. Or, I could have gone back to Samy's for some High Speed Ektachrome (ASA 160) and push-processed it as ASA 400. The size of the grain would have rivaled the rocks, and I'd still have needed the CC filter.

View attachment 97310

View attachment 97311
​

Somewhere in this thread was a comment that the SOOC nearly always looked better than the processed. You decide.

Doug, great reply and example on your reply here… pikas look to be a cool critter to photograph

 

[ccirelli]

Because maybe it's a fun challenge? And perhaps a good exercise for honing our get-it-right-in-camera skills (always good, regardless of post tools). This is a common assignment / challenge in many beginner photography classes.

Excellence is mastery of the basics.

Post processing is part of capturing an image. Even when shooting jpeg, the camera is set to post process to get a viewable image.
To go completely natural why use a camera in the first place? Lol..

 

[O]

Because maybe it's a fun challenge? And perhaps a good exercise for honing our get-it-right-in-camera skills (always good, regardless of post tools). This is a common assignment / challenge in many beginner photography classes.

Excellence is mastery of the basics.

Perfectly summarized, its an exercise we use in our club training often.
The use of time light and speed with a strong composition is all powerful and everlasting.

 

[gKhan]

If you mean no post processing at all that's, kinda' like asking someone to mix all the ingredients for a cake, then don't bake it.

Right on!!
Or it's like baking the cake without mixing the ingredients. If you shoot RAW you have to edit to recover the images' detail, luminosity etc.

 

[JoPoV]

Or means making image color like your camera manufacturer imagine it since you can create and use picture control (so in fact develop like NXStudio) and the same for other brands.
But it seems lot of people prefer adobe colors than their manufacturer colors ...
Real big difference then is noise reduction.

EDIT : oh, and catch up on missed shots with tools like topaz.

But as I said, I won't do it.

 

[dabhand16]

But it seems lot of people prefer adobe colors than their manufacturer colors ...

I use a Colorchecker Passport to make custom profiles for my cameras to ensure my colours are accurate as I'm a bit colour blind. I have stock ones for various weather conditions but always carry the Colorchecker Passport in case I encounter unusual conditions.

You would think that the manufacturers would aim at reproducing colours accurately, but there are variations between systems that seem to get a lot wider if the WB is not nailed.

 

[JoPoV]

You would think that the manufacturers would aim at reproducing colours accurately,

Of course they don't. If they did every camera should give same result.
And yes, colorchecher is required for accurate color reproduction (I do packshot sometime - and customers are very demanding when it comes to the colors of their corporate identity.).
But who search really accurate color reproduction when it's about wildlife or landscape photography ? it's more about the mood. And what light can give you.

 

[dabhand16]

But who search really accurate color reproduction when it's about wildlife or landscape photography ?

People who are colour blind?