Submitting Photo Projects for School (Opinoins Needed)

[ncmedix]

I am taking the NYIP Photography Course. Here's a little background information. The first photo project includes three photos. One photo showing great depth of field, another photo showing shallow depth of field, and another photo showing motion (panning, short shutter speed, or fast shutter speed that stops actual motion).

Here's my dilemma. I know I will have to make my own decison, but I'm curious as to what others would do if they were in my shoes. Do I submit photos straight out of the camera with no PP or do I submit photos I have taken that have been PP? One one hand, I get feedback on what I can accomplish straight out of camera. Part of me really wants that. On the other hand, there are not many, if any images I would give to someone that I had taken that had NO PP done. I'm not talking about extensive PP, just a minor color correction (if needed), a curves adjustment, etc.

I usually shoot extensively in RAW, but I have been shooting in RAW and large JPEG so both options are available to me. So please, put yourself in my shoes and choose which path you would go down. If you feel strongly one way or another please do your best to convince me to take your path.

I don't know how to make a poll, but if a moderator could help me out with one I would greatly appreciate it. Something like 1) Submit JPEG straight out of camera or 2) Submit RAW file converted to JPEG with minor PP.

Thanks in advance for your replies and / or suggestions.

[Mr. Pickles]

I think the "real" answer lies in NYIP guidelines or "rules".

If it was me, I would shoot the NYIP photos in JPG only, or just use the JPG portion of the RAW. I would think that the end result of the NYIP course you are taking is suppose to make you a better photographer. Working with RAW files is after the fact, in my book.

Yes, the JPG will be "processed" to some extent. You SHOULD be aware of the lighting conditions and especially the white balance (WB) and try to get those "correct" so the camera doesn't make radical changes when creating the JPG.

There is a mountain of time available to tweak RAW files later on in the Photography Life....

[oldugly]

kncmedix, I vote with Mr. Pickles. The more you learn to get "in camera" the less you have to do in post processing. While I shoot in RAW 99% of the time, I force myself to shoot JPG everyonce in a while just to make sure I'm not using RAW as a crutch. Good Luck.

[stdon]

I'm on the other side. RAW files are your negative. JPG's are the camera's prints after the fact and whatever settings you told the camera and it's interpretation of those settings.
I don't see where shooting jpg will teach you more. Quite the opposite, you are just letting the camera know what you'd like it to do. It will still do as it pleases. I view jpgs as a crutch just like the P,S, A and other canned modes. The only way I'd bother with shooting jpg is if I was shooting sports that had to go out on wire ASAP and you didn't have anything to do with the final image. In those instances image quality doesn't really matter that much as the medium it's presented on isn't that good for images anyway.

I can see converting ones RAW images to jpg to view on screen for class or on line but why would anyone want to start with a lossy format to begin with?

If you want to learn I'd say shoot manual mode only even focusing and the RAW files will tell the tale if YOUR decisions were correct real fast. In fact, for a reasonable security/damage deposit I'll lend you a Nikon FM2 and basic lens that is capable of taking great pictures but, there are no camera making decisions to fall back on.

[rshunk]

As a graduate of NYIP and a former manager of the student forum over on MSN - I can tell you that some editing is not only allowed, it's encouraged.

Yes, getting it correct in camera should be your first priority - you're paying for classes where they teach proper techniques for getting the best shots possible, don't waste your time and money by thinking: "I'll fix it in Photoshop". However, there are times when a photo could be enhanced to make it better.

Anything that can be done in a traditional darkroom is allowable. This includes: cropping, color correction, conversion to B&W, levels, contrast, brightness, straightening horizons, etc. What is not allowed is adding things to an image that was not originally included - no chromakey, etc.

If you want to visit the student forum, here's a link: NYIP Roundtable Part 2


Hope this helps,

Bob S.

[Mr. Pickles]

While I can understand some saying to shoot RAW and do some work to the images, I don't understand why for this "event".

Taking a photo course is about getting the best shot you can. It is about learning the art of photography and what makes an image a good one.

Why color and such is a part of that, if you have to add it later, then how much did the course really help? I understand the B&W conversion. I understand using a bit of levels or curves. The contrast or brightness of a scene is there and you have to work to get it. If you do, you're better off at photography and not as lazy.

Straightening the horizons is a complete crazy idea to fix later. Getting one right in the camera is pretty easy. Yes, it is easy to fix later, but you learned nothing about your camera or composition if you fix it later. Same with cropping an image. Visualize the image in the viewfinder or LCD screen. Use the zoom in and zoom out abilities of the lens, switch lenses, or walk close or farther back.

The crop tool and some others don't do anything to help make you a better photographer. They make you a better post processor. Every year, in this new digital age, there are far more post processors than photographers. I'm seemingly one of a handful that think they are different "occupations".

[rshunk]

Mr. P.,

I'm not saying he "should" do any type of post processing - I was saying it is "allowable". That's why I specified that "anything done in a traditional darkroom" was allowed.

People who print/printed their own images in a darkroom are the original post-processors. Years ago when I had my own darkroom, I did most of the things that I now do on the computer: dodging, burning, contrast, brightness, cropping and straightening horizons. Sometimes, no matter how good you think the image is in camera, once you see the print you know you can make it better.

Ansel Adams was the king of post processors.


Bob S.

[ncmedix]

Mr. P & rshunk,

Thank you both for your replies. This is exactly what I was looking for (a little controversy). I wanted the opinions of other photographers and of NYIP students and graduates. You both make great and valid points. I wanted to hear the passion in responses (it in itself can be inspirational).

I have just finished all of the reading and audio material for Unit 1 and I am getting ready for my first photo project. Thank you for the link to the MSN group, rshunk! I have submitted my request to join and I look forward to sharing and learning from the students in the group.

Thanks again! I think my goal will be to take the best possible picture I can in camera. That being said.......I think I may submit both types. Maybe one JPG straight out of camera and 2 RAW files converted with minor PP (sharpening and curves) come to mind to make it pop! Or maybe I'll go the other route 1 RAW and 2 JPG's. You both get carma from me.

I would still love to hear from others. I know you're out there!

[Mr. Pickles]

Originally Posted by rshunk

Mr. P.,

I'm not saying he "should" do any type of post processing - I was saying it is "allowable". That's why I specified that "anything done in a traditional darkroom" was allowed.

People who print/printed their own images in a darkroom are the original post-processors. Years ago when I had my own darkroom, I did most of the things that I now do on the computer: dodging, burning, contrast, brightness, cropping and straightening horizons. Sometimes, no matter how good you think the image is in camera, once you see the print you know you can make it better.

Yeah, I know what you are saying, and I know that it is probably allowed at NYIP and other places. I just don't get why, that is all. This isn't meant as an argument.

When you say this:

Originally Posted by rshunk

Sometimes, no matter how good you think the image is in camera, once you see the print you know you can make it better.

I think, yes, and that is the judge on how well a "photographer" is learning. The less they see in the print, the better they are as a photographer.

I know that in the darkroom days, people did all this stuff. But people didn't do all this stuff "learning" photography. It was about composition and subject and that kind of stuff. Developing the film with "advanced" techniques like Ansel Adams and others (you) did are...advanced techniques.

I just think that people that want to learn photography need to learn about compositions, subjects, lighting, etc. before going in and fixing a WB or crop before submitting the work, thats all.

Maybe it is me being old school, but after a few classes and a test, I'd rather get a B for an image I didn't do anything to, than get an A for some re-cropped and dragonized image I massaged in PS.