quote:Originally posted by Arnold
For those that say ... that pictures must come out great straight out of the camera, are plain ignorant and incompetent to even say anything on this subject. Why on earth I would trust automatic camera settings to process my pictures?
I'm hoping that comment wasn't directed at me because I said “quality photos come that way out the camera”. If so, you misinterpreted what I said. I said if you compose the shot correctly and use the right settings in the first place, you don't need to add things that aren't there, or alter the settings extensively after the fact. I never said anything about using auto settings or the having no need to post process RAW files.
My comment is not unfounded or ignorant. I've been shooting RAW and using photoshop for many years and the keepers have always been the ones that used the correct exposure, that didn't need to be cropped heavily, were taken during optimal light, that used a tripod/timer and mirror lock up etc. The ones that require a lot more time to re-work or fix, generally aren't a good shot to begin with.
Sure digital cameras still aren't perfect at capturing the whole dynamic range and often I need to blend in areas from a second exposure, and that takes time, but it is not compensating for something that I could have done in camera. Photoshop is a great tool for photographers, but this video is about the new cloning tool, which if you took a good photo, you as a photographer shouldn't have much use for. If you're a graphic artist for example and need to remove trees to add words, then sure, this is a huge improvement.
The point of my comment was advances in photoshop will not create a dime a dozen photographers because good quality work will always come from those that are more experienced and understand the basic principles behind photography, not computer whizzes that know how to alter images after the fact. We're arguing the same point.