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

[Deleted User]

chickmug wrote: »

No it is calibrated. Even used my pro photgrapher friends hardware device.

Have you tried checking the contrast settings on your corneas?

chickmug

Gordon861 wrote: »

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

I have tried so many inc Elements and PSP but have stayed with PhotoImpact Version X3 which seems to work well for me.

chickmug

isofa wrote: »

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

When I go to the loca camera shops the staff always seem to like all types of Canon cameras. My problem is really wanting a wide angle lens say 28mm and most Canons are mid 30's mm. If there were Canon compact (but NOT ultra compact) with 28 mm Iwould look.

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

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

This is where the camera sellers are naughty. They make getting a cracking photo look so easy but you are so right. If it is outside, in sun, no problem, cloudy or inside is where the fun and games start.

chickmug

Don't think anyone has yet suggested a camera that can do this as per OP?

---

"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"

[Deleted User]

Yes, and if anyone finds the 'magic camera' that takes perfect photos in any lighting conditions, without any manual setting changes or post-processing.. let me know also!

chickmug

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Yes, and if anyone finds the 'magic camera' that takes perfect photos in any lighting conditions, without any manual setting changes or post-processing.. let me know also!

Right you are and I will order two to get a bulk discount? :beer:

Marty_J

I made my existing camera no longer require post-processing, and I did this by simply resolving not to use any post-processing and shooing in JPEG rather than RAW.

I've noticed a big improvement in my photography as I'm no longer thinking if the composition is a bit off, I can crop it later, or if the exposure isn't quite right, I can tweak it afterwards. I keep shooting until I get the shot I want, as opposed to before when I kept shooting until I got a shot close to the one I wanted.

Until you can get the photos you want directly from the camera most of the time, unsing post processing is more hindrance than help.

unrich

The digital process mirrors the chemical development. Getting the image is only a stage in production of the final finished photograph. The darkroom process mostly was left to professionals. You send your film away and pictures are returned with labels saying "out of focus", "incorrect exposure" and the like. You don't see the chemicals and the exposure test strips, the dodging and burning. You don't think of the selection of filters or paper for contrast. You don't see the cropping and framing and straightening going on. Only the keen saw the darkroom processes.

You are now in charge of the production of the image for the world to see, you just use your computer and printer to control things. Photographers like William Egglestgon may only take one photograph but they either develop the photo themselves or they pass it on to a professional person who will produce the final image. The philopsophy Eggleston uses is that wasting time selecting the image detracts from getting more great images, but the image in the camera can't be seen until its is processed.

This stage of tweaking has always existed. And you will have to do it as well unless you become more proficient at your art than Eggleston. You will have to understand how to use your equipment to the extent where you can take the shot in the knowledge that the final print will come out just how you imagine. (I think that's called experience)

---

If you are asking if one models of camera is more suited to producing the kind of final images you want, then that's for you to find out. Ask about and see if you can borrow loads of different cameras.

---

By the way, its either the Fuji F31FD or the Lumix LX3.

Marty_J

unrich wrote: »

The digital process mirrors the chemical development. Getting the image is only a stage in production of the final finished photograph. The darkroom process mostly was left to professionals. You send your film away and pictures are returned with labels saying "out of focus", "incorrect exposure" and the like. You don't see the chemicals and the exposure test strips, the dodging and burning. You don't think of the selection of filters or paper for contrast. You don't see the cropping and framing and straightening going on. Only the keen saw the darkroom processes.

You are now in charge of the production of the image for the world to see, you just use your computer and printer to control things. Photographers like William Egglestgon may only take one photograph but they either develop the photo themselves or they pass it on to a professional person who will produce the final image. The philopsophy Eggleston uses is that wasting time selecting the image detracts from getting more great images, but the image in the camera can't be seen until its is processed.

This stage of tweaking has always existed. And you will have to do it as well unless you become more proficient at your art than Eggleston. You will have to understand how to use your equipment to the extent where you can take the shot in the knowledge that the final print will come out just how you imagine. (I think that's called experience)

---

If you are asking if one models of camera is more suited to producing the kind of final images you want, then that's for you to find out. Ask about and see if you can borrow loads of different cameras.

---

By the way, its either the Fuji F31FD or the Lumix LX3.

You're forgetting one of the major advantages of digital over film; the ability to see your shots right after you've taken them. There will always be special effects that need some degree of post-processing, but if you're shooting digital, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a particular shot had a crooked horizon, was out of focus, or was under or over exposed.

I would very much disagree that post-processing will be necessary unless you're better than William Egglestgon. Digital photography and film photography are very different media; post-processing is a necessary stage of film photography to one degree or another (unless you just want to shoot pretty negatives), but it doesn't have to be that way with digital photography.