Photoshop CC 2020 has arrived

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

There is true color rendition, but I think Peter's point is that a camera doesn't produce a rendering.

---

? My cameras can produce JPEGs fully rendered.

Quote:

---

One way or the other, one has to process the captured image to display colors, either by selecting an in-camera recipe or by choosing how to process the file yourself. There are exceptions--some product photography, perhaps--but virtually no one I know of simply tries to render colors--not just hue, but all the other attributes--with 100% accuracy.

---

Yes, color is not just 'hue' ... we both know that hue comes with normally two other attributes, such as saturation and lightness; or, more scientifically, color is something device-independent like XYZ.


While you were responding, I did edit my post #18 ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

So if I want "true colour" or "straight out of the camera colour" in a jpeg, please tell me which setting I choose. I use a Pentax K1

And tell me which other camera will deliver the exact same result.

---

I'm not stupid and I don't respond to rhetorical questions.

I'll retire from this discussion and leave you gentlemen to your own devices.

Quote:

---

? My cameras can produce JPEGs fully rendered.

---

sorry. sloppy writing on my part. What I meant is that they don't provide a rendering without postprocessing.

In the case of Canon cameras, you can choose a rendering that doesn't increase saturation, change color balance, sharpen, or increase contrast. I don't know of anyone who uses it other than to get a more accurate histogram for raw captures. But even if one did, that wouldn't be identical to, say, Adobe's current default rendering, which is in turn different from the defaulr rendering Adobe used until a year or so ago, etc., etc.

I think the point is just that it's hard to avoid imposing some manipulation on an image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

I'm not stupid and I don't respond to rhetorical questions.

I'll retire from this discussion and leave you gentlemen to your own devices.

---

Don't see why you don't just answer the question ?

You clearly have a far greater technical knowledge than myself.

The point I am trying to make is that I see folk poo poo ing digital processing techniques in favour of some holy grail that the "camera" itself only gives the correct output. If that is correct tell me how to set up my camera to reveal this "correct output"?

It seems to me to be identical to a discussion that an image captured on film negative and printed can be some benchmark, when that ignores the fact that film and paper are both infinitely variable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

There is no such thing as "true colour" or "straight out of the camera"

---

Let me disagree. Speak to high volume wedding or event photographers and they would generally spend less than 20 or 30 seconds per image in post. If the image needed more than that amount of work, they would skip it and find one that needed very little work. It's just the nature of those businesses; delivering images that are "good enough" and doing so quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

There are exceptions--some product photography, perhaps--but virtually no one I know of simply tries to render colors--not just hue, but all the other attributes--with 100% accuracy.

---

Dan - i know two high end product photographers. They work with customer teams that can get into 10 - 20 people on the shoot including the art director and creative director of the client and advertising agency.

Both have told me that there is ZERO TOLERANCE when it comes to getting things like the company logo and company colours accurate. If it is a product shot, then the product has to be correct too. All of these will have standards that need to be adhered to, generally based on the Pantone Color System specs.

Anything else is up to the art director and creative director based on the advertising program they are working on. Colour grading will be carried out on the finished images to produce the look and feel of the advertising campaign.

Manfred that is using an identifiable benchmark to ensure that the output colours are correct eg. company logo. I understand that.

But If I set my camera on a bright or even neutral setting for jpeg, I am not to get that correct hue "straight out of the camera". This is the point I am trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

Manfred that is using an identifiable benchmark to ensure that the output colours are correct eg. company logo. I understand that.

But If I set my camera on a bright or even neutral setting for jpeg, I am not to get that correct hue "straight out of the camera". This is the point I am trying to make.

---

To quote a highly regarded photographer and printmaker that I've gotten to know quite well: "Colour is an opinion".

I'm really not sure what a correct hue is. Perhaps its what the photographer decided is working for them today?

Further to Ted's comments, I will say the same thing about saturation and lightness. It is whatever the photographer had decided these properties of the image are going to be. An experienced photographer can generally get away with this because he or she will create an image that carries off those creative choices. A less experienced photographer may not be able to pull this off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

........

There is no such thing as "true colour" or "straight out of the camera"

---

Passport photos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escape

Passport photos?

---

I don't see a lot in common between passport photos (or any other government issued ID) and the types of images that CiC members tend to shoot. If you look at news sites, their images tend to be SOOC, as do sports and events photography.

That being said, I have done studio shots where SOOC JPEGSs were certainly "good enough" and the colours great (studio lights and neutral studio space helps a lot). I've also done events that were "rush jobs" that were shot as JPEGs and had little more than a few seconds of cleanup work because of time constraints. These images would never end up in my portfolio.

A lot of photographers on this site will shun shooting in anything other than raw, so SOOC is out of the question. I generally use a custom profile for my camera, versus the built in profiles that come with the conversion software, so I get pretty close to "true colour" (whatever that might be).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by escape

Passport photos?

---

I am sorry for leading this thread well off topic. I obviously didn't make myself clear enough in my earlier posts.

There are some photographers who believe any kind of pp is wrong. They believe that only an unaltered image represents an accurate representation of the scene that has been captured. The point I was trying to make is that depending on camera brand, model, and individual jpeg setting (bright/natural/vivid etc), no two cameras are going to produce the same image.

This is what I mean when I say there is no such thing as "true colour" or "straight out of the camera" image if one is trying to hold that image up as a benchmark.

Quote:

---

There are some photographers who believe any kind of pp is wrong.

---

Leaving aside concerns about manipulation in photo journalism and the like: I don't understand why this notion persists or why it is given any credence. First, all digital photos are processed, as your post indicates. It's just a question of whether the photographer chooses to process by using a recipe in the camera or doing the word by him or herself. In my limited experience, many of the people who insist that SOOC is somehow purer don't understand this. I don't see why it is more virtuous to use a processing recipe written by a stranger who has never seen the specific image and that necessarily includes no local adjustments at all. Second, photographers have manipulated their captures for generations. It's just that the tools available now are orders of magnitude more powerful than the ones available during the wet darkroom days, or before. The example that is often used is Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico. http://www.shutterbug.com/content/wa...us-photo-video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

There are some photographers who believe any kind of pp is wrong.

---

This is not new to the world of digital photography. The same kind of nonsense was spouted in the film days. I even knew photographers that would print the edges of the negative to prove that they hadn't cropped the image. Too bad that it was a significant distraction that resulted in a poor image... :D

Now, just as I did then, I will ask people to show me their images. In general they would give me an excuse not to. The few that do manage distinguish themselves by being mediocre photographers and rationalize their lack of skills by suggesting that this is by choice because they don't post-process.

I do know a few commercial event photographers that do create "good" images straight out of camera. They are the exception, not the rule and generally also admit that they could improve their work in post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

The point I was trying to make is that depending on camera brand, model, and individual jpeg setting (bright/natural/vivid etc), no two cameras are going to produce the same image.

---

In many ways that is because some Japanese camera manufacturer's software development team have made the call for the photographer. When people write about the Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. look, that is what they are writing about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pschlute

This is what I mean when I say there is no such thing as "true colour" or "straight out of the camera" image if one is trying to hold that image up as a benchmark.

---

Agreed.... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

Leaving aside concerns about manipulation in photo journalism and the like:

---

I had an interesting chat with a local former photojournalist (he was a staff photographer at the local newspaper for 30 years).

From what he told me "traditional" photographic techniques; straightening the image, cropping, changing the lightness and dodging and burning are allowed. Anything else is not.

The "no cropping" idea, which is still surprisingly common, is the least sensible of all. The aspect ratios used in cameras vary and are for all practical purposes arbitrary. In FF and APS-C cameras, for historical reasons, it's 1.5:1. In MFT and many medium format cameras, it is 1.33:1. Back in the days of 120 film, camera manufacturers produced cameras with aspect ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1. One common was 6 x 7, 1.2:1, simply because that matches 8 x 10 paper, which is itself arbitrary and is an aspect ratio not found in most of the world today.

So, suppose you take out your FF camera and carefully compose an image. And let's say that by chance it happens to match the 1.5:1 aspect ratio of that camera. then suppose that you decide you want to use your medium format camera instead. Would the ideal composition change?

This isn't an entirely irrelevant issue for me, as I normally use 1.5:1 cameras but often travel with an MFT with a native 1.33:1 aspect ratio. The MFT has on option to change aspect ratios; it will also do 1.5:1 and 1:1, but at the cost of losing pixels. So, after I bought it, I thought hard about how often I leave the entire 1.5:1 frame uncropped on the long side. The answer was not all that often. So, I usually shoot the MFT in 1.33:1 (4:3) to maximize the pixels on the image that I want.

One other forum that I occasionally follow has a bunch of participants who nonetheless insist that cropping should be avoided if possible. Once or twice I asked why, pointing out that if they switched cameras, they would often get a different uncropped composition. No one has ever answered.

I fully understand the rule for photojournalism that Manfred mentioned. The intent there is to produce an image that is accurate and not misleading. But even they cropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

The "no cropping" idea, which is still surprisingly common, is the least sensible of all. The aspect ratios used in cameras vary and are for all practical purposes arbitrary. In FF and APS-C cameras, for historical reasons, it's 1.5:1. In MFT and many medium format cameras, it is 1.33:1. Back in the days of 120 film, camera manufacturers produced cameras with aspect ratios ranging from 1:1 to 4:1. One common was 6 x 7, 1.2:1, simply because that matches 8 x 10 paper, which is itself arbitrary and is an aspect ratio not found in most of the world today.

So, suppose you take out your FF camera and carefully compose an image. And let's say that by chance it happens to match the 1.5:1 aspect ratio of that camera. then suppose that you decide you want to use your medium format camera instead. Would the ideal composition change?

This isn't an entirely irrelevant issue for me, as I normally use 1.5:1 cameras but often travel with an MFT with a native 1.33:1 aspect ratio. The MFT has on option to change aspect ratios; it will also do 1.5:1 and 1:1, but at the cost of losing pixels. So, after I bought it, I thought hard about how often I leave the entire 1.5:1 frame uncropped on the long side. The answer was not all that often. So, I usually shoot the MFT in 1.33:1 (4:3) to maximize the pixels on the image that I want.

---

I am lucky enough to own a Panasonic DMC-GH1 MFT camera. It's aspect ratio options all have the same diagonal value (oversized sensor), so fewer pixels are "lost" when selecting other than that:

https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/a...ordiagram.jpeg

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1

DPR copied the diagram from a G1 review - the GH1 has 1:1 also. :)

So I normally shoot the M43 at 3:2 ... 4128x2752px which more nearly matches my 1920x1200px monitor.

Dan - it baffles me too, especially when the people who are most adamant are the ones that never or hardly ever print and only view images out of their 20+ MP camera on 2MB (or even 8MB) screens. If you are throwing away pixels when downsizing to a screen, it really doesn't matter where they come from.

Printing is a somewhat more complex issue, especially when it comes to using a crop frame sensor image for a large print.

I use two different approaches here; one when I mat only (competition prints) and when I mat and frame.

For competitions, mat boards are fairly inexpensive (I cut my own), so while I do try to stick to standard sizes, based on maximum image size in the competition rules, I will customize to a non-standard size, as required. Just as an aside, the reason I try to not submit digital images, as much as possible is that I have found that prints tend to score better. That is both a result of loss of detail in downsampling to the standard 1920 x 1080 pixel format of screens and the details lost / washed out in sRGB displays.

When it comes to framing and matting, I will stick with standard frame sizes and will crop and mat to the frame. Lower resolution (crop frame) camera images, rarely end up as prints larger than A3+ (13" x 19") prints that I frame based on an 11 x 14" standard frame size )my rule of thumb is I try to frame an image in a frame that is a 2x larger frame size to make sure it looks balanced when matted. By that I mean I will put an 8" x 10" print in a 16" x 20" frame.

Manfred,

I used to use standard sizes as much as I could when framing, but lately, I haven't been. This requires ordering custom frames, which are considerably more expensive. What I have been doing instead is standardizing the frame sizes and varying the mat dimensions so that I can re-use everything but the mat. I also bought an additional cutter for my Logan mat cutter that will cut the 8-ply mat board that I prefer. However, 8-ply mat is also expensive, particularly when you use sizes that leave a lot of waste from a standard board.

Now that I am trying to display prints more, this extra expense is an issue, and I may revisit it.

Dan

Getting back on topic I watched the video and tried out the new selection tool. Very impressed. I know Adobe often gets knocked for the subscription thing, but my experience so far is that I am certainly getting my moneys worth when it comes to program updates.

Like Peter, I suggest you have a look at this video about the new features in Photoshop CC
I have installed the new version and I am on my way to play with it.
What impressed me much was how easy it is now to start a good selection.
:)

EDIT - Sorry. It is the same video as Manfred pointed ! :o