Post Processing Tools - Which are the same as in camera?

[DanK]

Christina,

There is a lot of good detail in the answers so far, but I think we may have collectively missed an important point. In a few different ways, you asked:

I am just trying to figure out the what are considered normal edits, the same as in camera.

You also used the word "standard."

With all due respect, I think you are asking the wrong question, and you are going to make things harder for yourself. All of the tools in LR are "normal", and there is no standard. Moreover, whatever Nikon engineers happened to use in their algorithms for picture styles are in no way a guide to what is reasonable for you to do.

What I suggest is that you stop worrying about what is in the Nikon engineers' algorithms and instead focus on (1) what you want to accomplish in your image, and (2) which tools (there are often quite a number to choose from) will get you what you want. So, for example, let's say you look at an image--an in-camera jpeg, someone else's image, or whatever--and you see that it has more contrast than the original rendering of your raw image. And, you decide you like the additional contrast. So, add contrast. Your task is then to learn which tools will do that and how they differ from each other. In Lightroom, there are at least 5 things you can do to increase the appearance of contrast: the contrast slider, changing blacks and whites, changing highlights and shadows, using the curves with control points, and increasing clarity. Take an image and play with all of these, perhaps checking out some tutorials along the way, to see for yourself what they do. It matters not at all which of them are closest to what the Nikon engineers did. That is just a distraction, IMHO.

Dan

[nimitzbenedicto]

I guess the popular cliche comes in,

"let's agree to disagree...."

and let's move on..........................

Thanks Christina.

[Brownbear]

Thank you for a very helpful and informative reply, and some great advice that I will follow.

When I used the word standard I was thinking in terms of normal processing (as a jpeg would be produced or as someone would have produced an image in the dark room when that was done) versus manipulating a photo. Simply because I want to follow the standard guidelines for nature photography, and since I am now working with raw photos I just wanted to know what is standard processing and it wasn't obvious to me from the tools in LR. ie; If I choose to manipulate an image, say to create art then I want to be aware that I am doing so.

I completed a tutorial on Contrast today, and I'm going to try and do one tutorial every day... Perhaps I will not allow myself to ask any questions until I've completed a LR tutorial.

Aside... That is a very good exercise that I will do. I have been playing with shadows and was quite surprised to see what this tool does, as up until just a little while ago I thought it was just for lightening things up...

Thank you Dan. Truly appreciated.

Christina,

There is a lot of good detail in the answers so far, but I think we may have collectively missed an important point. In a few different ways, you asked:



You also used the word "standard."

With all due respect, I think you are asking the wrong question, and you are going to make things harder for yourself. All of the tools in LR are "normal", and there is no standard. Moreover, whatever Nikon engineers happened to use in their algorithms for picture styles are in no way a guide to what is reasonable for you to do.

What I suggest is that you stop worrying about what is in the Nikon engineers' algorithms and instead focus on (1) what you want to accomplish in your image, and (2) which tools (there are often quite a number to choose from) will get you what you want. So, for example, let's say you look at an image--an in-camera jpeg, someone else's image, or whatever--and you see that it has more contrast than the original rendering of your raw image. And, you decide you like the additional contrast. So, add contrast. Your task is then to learn which tools will do that and how they differ from each other. In Lightroom, there are at least 5 things you can do to increase the appearance of contrast: the contrast slider, changing blacks and whites, changing highlights and shadows, using the curves with control points, and increasing clarity. Take an image and play with all of these, perhaps checking out some tutorials along the way, to see for yourself what they do. It matters not at all which of them are closest to what the Nikon engineers did. That is just a distraction, IMHO.

Dan

[Manfred M]

I guess the popular cliche comes in,

"let's agree to disagree...."

and let's move on..........................

Thanks Christina.

[Glenn NK]

I'd quote post No.41 by Dan, but it's already been copied.

Excellent points - don't worry about "standard", "normal" or whatever.

One of the greatest and most revered landscape photographers (Ansel Adams), spent hours dodging and burning and I've not heard or read where anyone suggest that he wasn't a photographer.

Glenn

[paldon]

I was reading the LR5 Quick Start by the Lightroom Queen and this thread reminds me a part from it:

WHY DO MY RAW FILES NOT LOOK LIKE THEY DID ON MY CAMERA?

Raw files are unprocessed sensor data, so the raw converter has to convert the raw data into an image. The camera manufacturers, and different raw processors, have their own interpretation of that data. There is no right or wrong—it’s just different. If you prefer the camera manufacturer’s rendering, Lightroom ships with emulation profiles for some cameras (mainly Canon and Nikon SLR’s), which makes Lightroom’s rendering look more like the camera manufacturer’s rendering. If your camera has emulation profiles, you’ll find them in the Profile pop-up in the Calibration panel in Develop. Select your chosen profile before making other Develop adjustments, as they will change the appearance.

I just installed LR5 the other day so haven't got a chance to check this out yet.

[Glenn NK]

I was reading the LR5 Quick Start by the Lightroom Queen and this thread reminds me a part from it:

WHY DO MY RAW FILES NOT LOOK LIKE THEY DID ON MY CAMERA?

And because the LCD on your camera does not reflect what the image will actually look like (even if you shoot JPEG).

Some of them are quite bad - some copies/brands/models are known to have a green colour cast.

DO NOT judge an image by the LCD image.

G

[paldon]

I don't think that's what the queen meant. When you shoot RAW+JPEG, if you look at them side by side on the same monitor, they look different. There is no comparison between camera LCD and PC monitor.

[Manfred M]

One of the greatest and most revered landscape photographers (Ansel Adams), spent hours dodging and burning and I've not heard or read where anyone suggest that he wasn't a photographer.

Ditto for Karsh who is often viewed as the greatest portrait photographer; he employeed a negative retoucher (he shot with an 8" x 10" view camera, so the negatives were retouched before they went off to be printer) and a printer to create his images. If you look at some of his works carefully, you can see that the image was created in post, and what we see as prints are definitely not straight out of the camera.

[Ady]

Hi Christina,

I don't have an answer to the original question posed about LR equivalents to in-camera processing, partly because it depends on the camera.

But when it comes to 'normal' or 'standard' processing pretty much everything you can do in Lightroom is possible in the studio/darkroom. As such I would say if you can do it in Lightroom then it is 'standard' or 'normal'. That's not to say you can you can recreate every function of Lightroom 'in-camera' but there is very little one couldn't recreate in the darkroom, with enough skill, equipment and time.

Even fundamental retouching and editing of photographs started with compositing and airbrushing so as far as I can see everything is game unless specifically excluded by, for example, submission rules for competition or publication, but how are they going to tell anyway?

I do think that one of the issues here is that there seem to be many people (members of CiC excepted of course) who believe image processing is somehow dishonest and something new that only exists in the digital realm, so they try to impose rules or ideas about what is acceptable or truthful based on that misconception. Photography has never been honest or truthful, it offers merely a representation or interpretation. The very fact that one must choose what to keep in frame and what to leave out means you are taking that image out of it's original context the second you press the shutter button. Some strive to be more honest/representative than others but it's not possible to know who and to what extent unless you were there when the shot was taken.

oops, got a bit off topic there but hope it's of interest anyway.

Cheers,
A

[Brownbear]

Hi Adrian,

Thank you for your reply.

Yes, definitely of interest and very informative. Perhaps everyone should receive a lesson in using a darkroom so we could gain an understanding of what that was.

Thank you.

Hi Christina,

I don't have an answer to the original question posed about LR equivalents to in-camera processing, partly because it depends on the camera.

But when it comes to 'normal' or 'standard' processing pretty much everything you can do in Lightroom is possible in the studio/darkroom. As such I would say if you can do it in Lightroom then it is 'standard' or 'normal'. That's not to say you can you can recreate every function of Lightroom 'in-camera' but there is very little one couldn't recreate in the darkroom, with enough skill, equipment and time.

Even fundamental retouching and editing of photographs started with compositing and airbrushing so as far as I can see everything is game unless specifically excluded by, for example, submission rules for competition or publication, but how are they going to tell anyway?

I do think that one of the issues here is that there seem to be many people (members of CiC excepted of course) who believe image processing is somehow dishonest and something new that only exists in the digital realm, so they try to impose rules or ideas about what is acceptable or truthful based on that misconception. Photography has never been honest or truthful, it offers merely a representation or interpretation. The very fact that one must choose what to keep in frame and what to leave out means you are taking that image out of it's original context the second you press the shutter button. Some strive to be more honest/representative than others but it's not possible to know who and to what extent unless you were there when the shot was taken.

oops, got a bit off topic there but hope it's of interest anyway.

Cheers,
A

[Brownbear]

Hi Nancy,

I hope you are still following this thread. The reason being is that today I found a magazine called "The Ultimate Nikon SLR Handbook" and I purchased it even though I thought it was very pricy for a magazine ($34 CAD) because it seems to cover in great detail (ten times better than the Nikon camera manual) everything our cameras do, even the scene modes and post processing in camera (Which I didn't realize was available and that I likely wouldn't use but still interesting)

Also available on www.myfavouritemagazines.co.uk/photo

I also purchased a magazine called The Photoshop Elements Book (same price). Even though I have Elements 9 I expect that most everything will be applicable. I purchased it because it seems very detailed and goes through all the tools available in Elements... So when I finish the LR tutorials I am going to go through the steps in this handbook.

Also available on www.imaginebookshop.co.uk


I thought they might be of interest to you...

Ok, for all of us following Christina's learning process...
What if we buy her PSE 11 and let her start asking all the questions we need answers to? :0
I just got it, but have not used it yet. Also, just graduated to Jpeg and Raw capture, and she is on to just Raw!
I just gotta catch up
Nancy

[Glenn NK]

I don't think that's what the queen meant. When you shoot RAW+JPEG, if you look at them side by side on the same monitor, they look different. There is no comparison between camera LCD and PC monitor.

I know what she meant (I follow her closely for wisdom, advice, etc), but I threw it out because many users think the LCD is an accurate depiction of the image they will get.

I probably have a few hundred (many of which are at the link in my sig), that I almost threw out until they were processed.

Glenn