Quite often I read posts on Facebook, or hear in camera clubs, from folk who loudly and proudly proclaim that the photographs that they show on here ARE STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CAMERA AND HAVE BEEN NOWHERE NEAR EDITING SOFTWARE! It is as if they have to prove some point or other and almost as if no-one ever, in the world, processed their work in a darkroom or a photo lab.
I have shown below a shot I took in the Brecon Beacons yesterday; one untouched and in its RAW format, and the other, processed to bring the shot to life.
RAW, as you may know, is what it says and there is minimal editing in camera. It therefore needs some processing to bring it back to what YOU saw when taking the shot. The second shot has been processed. Does it look odd to you?
I fail miserably to understand what the point is here – if you shoot in RAW it is because the files are larger, no pixels are stripped out and we are able to use the captured ingredients the way we wish to – be it as faithful a representation of what we saw as is possible, or an opportunity to be a bit creative with our work. Either, or indeed both, are OUR personal choice.
I do wonder if some of the proclaimers are just plain missing the point or shoot in .jpeg, failing to realise that IS editing, albeit in the camera 🙂
Would love to hear your views.
RAW file, untouched and as came out of camera
Post processed to bring out an image closer to what I saw when taking the shot
Leave a Reply