Must Know for 300D Owners

[toasty]

Photography skills and editing skills are what made up digital photography and shouldn't be seen as different sets of skills in the first place. These skills are involved from capturing the image to the finish product. Without one or the other, its incomplete. Much like the relationship between film photography and film processing/printing.

Oh, but the skill set is very different to learn, master and use. Photography skills include things like good composition, correct exposure technique, flash bouncing, effective metering, choosing when to over-expose or under-expose your photo relative to the meter reading, choosing the shutter-speed to capture motion or freeze, choosing the aperture for small or large DOF.

Photo editting involves a different set of skills, completely disjoint from photography, even though they are used to generate a final product.

Like I said, I believe that photo editting skills are useful to enhance a final photo, but if the photo is poorly exposed, poorly composed, out of focus, there is nothing you can do in photoshop to save it. To me, taking good photos is of primary importance, photo-editting is secondary (but useful nonetheless).

I disagree, however that taking a photo without post-processing is an incomplete process. People have been taking photos for years before post-processing was created. And a lot of digital pictures are shot without post-processing. Admittedly, a post-processed photo will look better, but it doesn't mean that if the photo is already almost perfect to begin with, that you could skip the post-processing step...

Again I emphasize, photo-editting is not a skill or practice to be discounted or shunned, but it is a skill, secondary to that of photo-taking, in generating your final picture.

 

[Kit]

Oh, but the skill set is very different to learn, master and use. Photography skills include things like good composition, correct exposure technique, flash bouncing, effective metering, choosing when to over-expose or under-expose your photo relative to the meter reading, choosing the shutter-speed to capture motion or freeze, choosing the aperture for small or large DOF.

Photo editting involves a different set of skills, completely disjoint from photography, even though they are used to generate a final product.

Like I said, I believe that photo editting skills are useful to enhance a final photo, but if the photo is poorly exposed, poorly composed, out of focus, there is nothing you can do in photoshop to save it. To me, taking good photos is of primary importance, photo-editting is secondary (but useful nonetheless).

I disagree, however that taking a photo without post-processing is an incomplete process. People have been taking photos for years before post-processing was created. And a lot of digital pictures are shot without post-processing. Admittedly, a post-processed photo will look better, but it doesn't mean that if the photo is already almost perfect to begin with, that you could skip the post-processing step...

Again I emphasize, photo-editting is not a skill or practice to be discounted or shunned, but it is a skill, secondary to that of photo-taking, in generating your final picture.

I've mentioned this in another Zipper's thread.

Post editing is not about saving badly taken images. There seem to be some misconception about this aspect of digital photography. Its part of the work flow that transform an image captured by the camera to a finished image. Post editing should not be seen as a detached or a secondary process in digital photography. As I've mentioned, post editing equates to the film processing/printing process. Like it or not, images from digicams especially those from DSLRs require a certain amount of post editing to make the most out of those images. In a way, you gain more control of what the finish product will look like, much like why some people insist on processing and printing their images themselves in the darkroom. Post editing does not only make the picture look better but is a necessary stage to make the image captured on the sensor into a finished image.

 

[Kit]

and also you mentioned that post editing is a completely different skill altogether and is disjoint from photography. Then can I say darkroom skills are disjoint from photography as well? Nope, they all work together to sum up the thing we called image making.

 

[AReality]

Done some experiment already...

The pic seems much brighter after I did a "reset all". Think is around +1/3 EV brighter.

It also seems a bit sharper after the "reset all". Except at ISO100, most probably due to tripod shake(longer shutter due to +1/3 EV).

Before & after shot in parameter 1, ver 1.1.1.?.

 

[toasty]

and also you mentioned that post editing is a completely different skill altogether and is disjoint from photography. Then can I say darkroom skills are disjoint from photography as well? Nope, they all work together to sum up the thing we called image making.

Yes, dark room skills are a disjoint set of skills from photographic skills. Photographers do not need to be film-processors to take great photos. Likewise, photographers do not need to edit their photos to have great images at the end. Let me ask you, do you believe it is impossible to have an awesome photo, without post-processing?

I say it's possible. This is why I say the post-processing technique is secondary to the photography technique. They are not the same skill sets. They are different, just as camera-manufacturing and camera-using are 2 different skill sets, although you could argue both are necessary to producing the final image. Lens design is another skill set you need, but you don't say that you need to be a great lens-developer to take good photos.

Let me ask you another question: do you believe it is possible to have an awesome photo with great post-processing technique, but poor photography skills? These two questions will point you to the answer of which skill set is more important to have. Post-processing is useful, but it does not compare to having the correct camera-handling technique.

 

[Kit]

Yes, dark room skills are a disjoint set of skills from photographic skills. Photographers do not need to be film-processors to take great photos. Likewise, photographers do not need to edit their photos to have great images at the end. Let me ask you, do you believe it is impossible to have an awesome photo, without post-processing?

I say it's possible. This is why I say the post-processing technique is secondary to the photography technique. They are not the same skill sets. They are different, just as camera-manufacturing and camera-using are 2 different skill sets, although you could argue both are necessary to producing the final image. Lens design is another skill set you need, but you don't say that you need to be a great lens-developer to take good photos.

Let me ask you another question: do you believe it is possible to have an awesome photo with great post-processing technique, but poor photography skills? These two questions will point you to the answer of which skill set is more important to have. Post-processing is useful, but it does not compare to having the correct camera-handling technique.

I'll have to say this again. Post editing is not about saving badly taken images or will it make up any deficiency in photography skills. If you don't know the basics in metering, focussing, exposure, etc, then no amount of post editing can save you. That being said, I see no reason why post editing skills have to take a secondary position to photographic skills as both can be mastered at the same time and just as important. They're all things that we can take control of. As for the lens developer part, well let's stay within the context shall we? In digital photography, post editing skills are just as important than camera handling skills, like it or not.

The nature of how DLSRs operate means that you have to do post editing in order to get the most out of the images. Post editing skills in digital photography is just as important as photographic skills. People don't need film processors to take good images but without processing, do you think they can judge their skills? Nope, you still need other knowledge other then photographic skills to make it all complete.

 

[Kit]

and BTW, in no way am I suggesting that you can sacrifice good photographic skills with good post editing skills which you seem to dwell at in the last few messages. I'm saying they're equally important. You can't do without one another. No even if you've got great photographic skills, you'll still need to polish up the image to a finish product in the realm of digital photography.

 

[mpenza]

I dunno if it is because I use mostly L lenses, but I don't feel that the pictures right out of my 10D require post-processing. Maybe my expectation of a sharp photo is lower than yours though...

I still post-process pics (a little sharpening helps) taken with Canon macro lenses (as sharp as L).

 

[toasty]

I'll have to say this again. Post editing is not about saving badly taken images or will it make up any deficiency in photography skills. If you don't know the basics in metering, focussing, exposure, etc, then no amount of post editing can save you. That being said, I see no reason why post editing skills have to take a secondary position to photographic skills as both can be mastered at the same time and just as important. They're all things that we can take control of. As for the lens developer part, well let's stay within the context shall we? In digital photography, post editing skills are just as important than camera handling skills, like it or not.

The nature of how DLSRs operate means that you have to do post editing in order to get the most out of the images. Post editing skills in digital photography is just as important as photographic skills. People don't need film processors to take good images but without processing, do you think they can judge their skills? Nope, you still need other knowledge other then photographic skills to make it all complete.

I am not asserting that post-editting is about saving badly taken photos. So, it was not necessary to repeat yourself. I am asserting that post-editting is secondary to taking great photos compared with camera-handling skills. This is pretty much indisputable and I notice you avoided answering my 2 questions which makes it clear that post-processing is in fact secondary. Let me answer these questions and you may dispute the answers if you wish:
1) Can you create great images with good photographic technique and poor or non-existant post-processing skills? Yes
2) Can you create great images with poor photographic technique and great post-processing skills? No.

Conclusion: post processing skills are secondary to generating great images. (note I did not say they are useless as I believe they have their place, it's just that their place is of lower importance).

 

[Kit]

I am not asserting that post-editting is about saving badly taken photos. So, it was not necessary to repeat yourself. I am asserting that post-editting is secondary to taking great photos compared with camera-handling skills. This is pretty much indisputable and I notice you avoided answering my 2 questions which makes it clear that post-processing is in fact secondary. Let me answer these questions and you may dispute the answers if you wish:
1) Can you create great images with good photographic technique and poor or non-existant post-processing skills? Yes
2) Can you create great images with poor photographic technique and great post-processing skills? No.

Conclusion: post processing skills are secondary to generating great images. (note I did not say they are useless as I believe they have their place, it's just that their place is of lower importance).

1) You can create an excellent image without post processing in terms of composition, story that the image is trying to convey, and to a certain extend(depending on who you ask) its aesthetics value. However, without post editing, your image will always lack something that could have been enhanced e.g. sharpening by post editing in the first place, to bring it closer to what film can produce as some people put it. Why do you think camera manufacturers place shooting parameters in their cameras? Its all part of enhancing an image.

Also post editing open up to a whole of other possibilities which can also be achieved in a darkroom e.g. toning, cropping, dodging/burning, etc. By discounting the usefulness of post editing is severely limiting oneself to say the very least.

2)Don't know how many time I have to repeat myself but since you insist on dwelling on it....... no amount of post editing skills can make up for a badly take image or bad photographic skills but that's not what post editing is about in the first place.

Post editing is already in the main stream work flow of digital photographers and is seen in unison with photographic skills in the whole package of image making process.

 

[Kit]

as for avoiding your questions........ don't know where you got that idea from and the claim that post editing is secondary is highly disputable as proven in many cases be it on the internet or in publications. You do see the differences and yes the differences is great enough for post editing to be taken seriously.

 

[Kit]

BTW, I haven't met a professional photographer claiming that he/she can use an image straight out from the camera. Have you? Introduce him/her to me if you have.

 

[r32]

Photographic skills and post-processing skills is like having two eyes - you can see with just one, or the other, but you're going to lose depth perception if you decide all you need is just one eye.

 

[Kobe]

I think the following 2 are must knows for new 300D owners, especially for newbies in DSLR.

1. "Clear all camera settings" will improve sharpness.
2. "FEC" - Flash Exposure Compensation by +2/3 improves underexposure


Hope it does you.

Hi Zipper,

Thanks for info. :thumbsup: I tried that and it works man! I compared two lenses, the EFS and the Prime 50mm/f1.8. Couldn't see any big differences in the Prime 50mm/f1.8. But the EFS is so obvious, after reset the picture became much sharper.

Some people in dpreview forum said probably due when swapping the lenses, the camera/lens can't readjust the focus distance back well.

Before that I really thought that my hand shaked (or EFS is so crap) after seeing the soft/out of focus pictures.

My friend will do some tests on other lenses on his 300D. See the problems really only happen on EFS lens.

Thanks again! Keep us posted for any good tips.

By the way, I'm using the old firmware. 1.01?

 

[toasty]

as for avoiding your questions........ don't know where you got that idea from and the claim that post editing is secondary is highly disputable as proven in many cases be it on the internet or in publications. You do see the differences and yes the differences is great enough for post editing to be taken seriously.

I thought the conclusion was spelt out pretty clearly in my last post. Here it is again:
1) You can generate great images with proper camera handling, and no proprocessing.
2) You cannot generate great images with poor camera handling technique, and excellent post-processing technique.

These two points you have already conceded. The conclusion is therefore clear. Proper camera handling technique is the more important of the two. Good post-processing technique is secondary to good photographic skills. You have not refuted this point which I have been trying to make this while. You have accepted both points 1 and 2, yet your conclusion still remains that post processing and photographic technique are equally important. Would you care to explain that in light of the above 2 points?

 

[Kit]

I thought the conclusion was spelt out pretty clearly in my last post. Here it is again:
1) You can generate great images with proper camera handling, and no proprocessing.
2) You cannot generate great images with poor camera handling technique, and excellent post-processing technique.

These two points you have already conceded. The conclusion is therefore clear. Proper camera handling technique is the more important of the two. Good post-processing technique is secondary to good photographic skills. You have not refuted this point which I have been trying to make this while. You have accepted both points 1 and 2, yet your conclusion still remains that post processing and photographic technique are equally important. Would you care to explain that in light of the above 2 points?

What did I concede? Or is it your unique way of ending an unfavourable debate? Last check, I still stand by my view on post editing, which is just as important as photographic skills.

Read my post carefully again so that I won't have to repeat myself over anover again. For point 1, I said excellent images as in "composition, story that the image is trying to convey, and its aesthetics value" and not as a whole complete image as there are still something lacking without post editing namely sharpening. This makes your statment half correct at best in terms of digital photography.

As for point 2, again when did I concede? Post editing do not fix bad pictures but that's not what its all about. It depends on what your perception of post editing is and your own personal decision as to how much post editing is considered tolerable or accpetable. Ultimately, you still have to do it to make a digital image complete. It is not my agenda to convince you that you can take good images without good photographic skills and its never my belief so stay within the context of this debate , which is the usefulness of post editing skills.

In my responses, never did I dismiss the usefulness of good photographic skills but I firmly believe post editing skills are just as essential in digital photography.

You're beginning to sound like a skipping CD that keep coming back with the same old argument. Do you have something new to support your beliefs? Oh yes, you haven't answered my question. Have you came across a professional photographer that uses digital technology but has not include post editing into his/her work flow? If yes, I would like to know him/her.

 

[Kit]

and BTW, so far you haven't come out with a concrete argument to support your views on why post editing skills should be secondary to photographic except for the forever chanting of "You cannot generate great images with poor camera handling technique, and excellent post-processing technique." Although this statement is true, it doesn't do you any favours in your arguement about why post editing skills should be secondary. As of now, the statement doesn't really displaces the idea of both photographic skills and post editing skillsare equally important, which is my viewpoint.

 

[toasty]

I'd also like to re-iterate, again, that I do not think that post-processing should be shunned or avoided completely. From your reply, you are speaking as if that is my position, but it is not. My position is that it is of secondary importance. If you were to choose a skill to develop, then developing your camera handling technique is the more important skill to have. Certainly, having post-processing technique is nice, and it can be used to rescue some photos which are great in all aspects except for the exposure, for example. It is a useful tool. But it is not of primary importance. It's importance is secondary. You have originally said that you believe them to be equally important, but you have also conceded my 2 points above which lead to the a different conclusion. If you like, please show why they are equally important. If you do not believe they are equally important, then we are in agreement. I am not saying that post-processing needs to be avoided completely. Asking about professionals who do not do post-processing is moot.

 

[Kit]

I'd also like to re-iterate, again, that I do not think that post-processing should be shunned or avoided completely. From your reply, you are speaking as if that is my position, but it is not. My position is that it is of secondary importance. If you were to choose a skill to develop, then developing your camera handling technique is the more important skill to have. Certainly, having post-processing technique is nice, and it can be used to rescue some photos which are great in all aspects except for the exposure, for example. It is a useful tool. But it is not of primary importance. It's importance is secondary. You have originally said that you believe them to be equally important, but you have also conceded my 2 points above which lead to the a different conclusion. If you like, please show why they are equally important. If you do not believe they are equally important, then we are in agreement. I am not saying that post-processing needs to be avoided completely. Asking about professionals who do not do post-processing is moot.

So I'm curious, from when did you decide that post editing should be secondary? I personally know many who developed both photographic skills and PS skills simultaneously. Neither set of skills have had a negative impact on the other and they are happy with the results they got from both sets of skills or should I say a single set of skill because they shouldn't be separated in the first place. So why do you think post editing skills are secondary? Because they come only after the image is taken? Whether you pick up post editing skills or not is not my concern, but to say post editing should take a back seat in the realm of digital photography is seriously misguided and ill-informed.

Me agreeing with your points partly does not equate to conceding or having a different opinion on this issue. Like I said, your points are either only partly correct or taken out of context. They don't really support your argument on why post editing should be secondary at all. Inronically, your points did not dismiss my view of photographic skills and post editing skills are equally important.

If you can quote a professional photographer that does not engage in post editing, then you have a case as to why post editing skills should be secondary. So in what way is this question moot?

 

[toasty]

and BTW, so far you haven't come out with a concrete argument to support your views on why post editing skills should be secondary to photographic except for the forever chanting of "You cannot generate great images with poor camera handling technique, and excellent post-processing technique." Although this statement is true, it doesn't do you any favours in your arguement about why post editing skills should be secondary. As of now, the statement doesn't really displaces the idea of both photographic skills and post editing skillsare equally important, which is my viewpoint.

Gosh if that doesn't show that photographic technique is more important than post-processing technique, then I don't know what does. We've agreed that photo-technique can generate good pictures in the absence of post-pro, while the opposite is not true. It does demonstrate that post-processing is not as important as photographic skills. If you can admit 1) and 2) but cannot admit the conclusion, then I'm sorry, can't help you there.

Ok try this:
1) You cannot survive without taking water (in some form or another).
2) you can survive without taking chocolate.
Conclusion: water is more necessary for life than chocolate.
Or this:
1) A is able to achieve Z in the absence of B
2) B is not able to achieve Z in the absence of A
Conclusion: A is more important in achieving Z than B is.
I really should not be needing to spell it out to this level... In fact, I think I've had enough of this argument.