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

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

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

Panny FZ18 just given away and looking closly at Panny TZ5. Meanwhile using Nikon Coolpix 7900 & Olympus 5060 zoom. I usually work my way through levels, saturation and sharpening. But each needs doing slightly differently for each of the cameras.

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

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

Sorry but not good enough for my use and to me Photoshop sledge hammer to crack a nut.

[Deleted User]

It would be funny to find out that your monitor is calibrated incorrectly

Gordon861

Digital Compact Cameras have the same issues as their old film conterparts.

Most of the issues with digital photos I have seen that need correcting are normally over or under exposed parts of the image. Just because it's digital doesn't mean that the old photographic tricks are no longer required, it just means that the camera will try to compensate for the users lack of skill to give you something that you can work from. It also means that you can see your results before you get home and send your film to a process lab, and retake if needed.

The old film compacts had similar problems, often the answer was to point the camera at an object that would fill the viewfinder and half press the button. Then without taking your finger off the button frame the shot how you want it to appear and then fully press the button. This should mean that the main subject of the photo is correctly exposed.

You may have issues with the camera 'remembering' the focus as well using this method so you might need to read the manual to get it right.

Also : Take a look at PhotoShop Elements, most of the PhotoShop features for £60 instead of £550, and theirs a free trial I think.

Idiophreak

Have to say, I find this whole topic quite interesting...I take casual photos when I'm out and about, so am no expert...but I always find the idea of post processing somewhat...tacky I guess...and completely defeating the point.

I could make some *amazing* pictures with an hour or two on photoshop (you ever seen a dinosaur fighting a wombat?), but I think that's the problem - anyone could do the same.

Whereas getting a nice photo straight from the camera I think is more of a skill.

Now, I'm clearly missing some subtlety here, but I normally find around 1/5 photos I take are good enough for my needs - in focus, good colours, blah blah blah...but then I rarely print above A4 I guess...

isofa

chickmug wrote: »

I have used several differing digital cameras this year compact that sell for £100 to £300 and even a DSLR but all seemed to need tweaking in Photo Software. Are there any compacts that the shot can used straight out of the camera? I despair on this point

As Superscaper said earlier, it's entirely subjective - and depends on the skill of the photographer.

I take photographs both as a hobby and professionally with DSLRs, and sometimes I spend ages working with RAW pictures to get the absolute best from them, other times I'll just use a standard JPEG with no work at all. I'd say 75% of all my images would be fine without post processing, but I'm a perfectionist and like to get the absolute best out of an image - and there is little I can't do with Photoshop!

All good DSLRs will have custom options in the menu for sharpening, colour saturation and other image attributes, so firstly adjust these and make sure you are photographing in Program (or Av or Tv, or even fully manually if you are competent enough and have a light meter!). Auto modes usually override these settings. Next ensure you have the correct white balance selection. Then compose and take your shot - look immediately at the image taken on the screen, and view the histogram to check to see if the image is correctly exposed or over or under-exposed, and make the correct adjustments (shutter speed or aperture) and retake. That way, providing you have a good histogram on the image, you'll end up with a shot that can be used without post processing.

You can set-up exposure bracketing to cover a couple of stops around the chosen exposure too, which can help you.

Obviously I'm omitting checking for a whole host of things, speed, focus etc, but hopefully you'll check these first anyway.

Sometimes post processing, such as auto-levels, can cause a dramatic change in tone to a photograph, taking it well away from the real image. Other times a quick tidy up in Photoshop, even just a basic auto levelling, can work wonders to a lack lustre image.
Nothing comes close to Photoshop in my experience, I've been using it since version 2, and I have quite a lots of imaging software, but I'd never choose anything else.

Remember if your display and output aren't calibrated correctly, you can post-process on screen and end up with a bright or muddy mess on print.

The best "point and shoot compacts" I've ever tried were the Canon Powershots IMO.

[Deleted User]

If you want perfect shots without having to do any work - well, only take photos in perfect lighting conditions

superscaper

You could probably do quite interesting things with visible light filters, since digital cameras pick up infra red as well.

[Deleted User]

Oh man, now I want to buy a infra-red flashgun (do they exist?)

superscaper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Oh man, now I want to buy a infra-red flashgun (do they exist?)

I'd bet they do, you can certainly get infra red spotlights, and of course many things emit IR anyway. First time I found out I was amazed when I started pointing a remote control in front of my camera. You can see it flashing like a torch on the preview screen.

BTW I like the photos (from the link you deleted ).