Can any digital camera take shots that don't need post shot processing?

Rikki

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Could this requirement to post-process images be due to your settings on the camera? Sometimes leaving it on fully auto doesn't cut the mustard

I set my DSLR in manual rather than auto. This certainly improves the picture quality.

I've always used an SLR camera. I think many people go straight to DSLR cameras without fully understanding how to to use them manually.

chickmug

TiTheRev wrote: »

:rotfl:

With the right f-stop, ISO etc you can create effects with a standard SLR that would need no alteration at all.

DSLR not of me need something easier to carry around and so will get used far more than a heavier camera.

chickmug

anewhope wrote: »

Could it be you need to learn how to take better pictures

No my pictures are to a good standard but as I keep saying I feel annoyed having to spend so much time porcessing. Hence is there a compact camera that turns out good quality usuable pictures.

[Deleted User]

A lot of 'bridge' cameras have the same abilty to set manual ISO, f-stop etc like SLRs.. they're a lot easier to carry

tbh.. i get great shots of my little Panasonic FX33 (yes, i like pannys) and even my 4 year old Panny FZ5.

I got told by a photographer to always shoot one f-stop lower than you need on a digi-cam so you don't blow your highlights

chickmug

superscaper wrote: »

As I said surely it is subjective and depends on what you want. I've never seen a picture taken with a digital camera yet that needed post processing. Are the photos for sending to a friend's mobile, personal momentos, for international publishing, gallery photography exhibition.... ?

As for comprehension, I understood the OP (although it was open ended, hence my response), but your second post seemed to be more of a vent which made me wonder if the OP was simply a vent with a rhetorical question. And considering your other thread which does seem to be a rhetorical vent/warning as well...

Sorry but I find your posts are confusing me.

[Deleted User]

chickmug wrote: »

No my pictures are to a good standard but as I keep saying I feel annoyed having to spend so much time porcessing. Hence is there a compact camera that turns out good quality usuable pictures.

What kind of post-processing do you need to do? What camera is it?

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

It's part of photography to need to tweek an image after it's been taken. I'm sure it happened in the days of film and i'm sure it will always continue.

In my case I am more interested in the composition and find the time spent on tweaking just annoying but each to their own. I used to own a film SLR with loads of lenses, light meter and other bits but didn't really find this sort of frustration.

[Deleted User]

You sound like you're not an easy person to please. Download a copy of Google Picassa, then click auto-level on all your photos. Bang, instant post-processing

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Could this requirement to post-process images be due to your settings on the camera? Sometimes leaving it on fully auto doesn't cut the mustard

My photo taking has two sides. One for work where some of the shots I need to take very quickly and daren't risk usuing manual. For my leisure time I do fiddle but as just said in another post I am more into the composition.

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

A lot of 'bridge' cameras have the same abilty to set manual ISO, f-stop etc like SLRs.. they're a lot easier to carry

tbh.. i get great shots of my little Panasonic FX33 (yes, i like pannys) and even my 4 year old Panny FZ5.

I got told by a photographer to always shoot one f-stop lower than you need on a digi-cam so you don't blow your highlights

I like Pannys and bought the FZ18 in January and just gave away to my son. Good camera but to big to go in my pocket.