Fred wrote: > quoting Frank... > > Well, in all seriousness, I'm not much for post-processing. For me, the > > fun is getting the shot in the camera, with nothing more than printing it > > full frame. Of course, sometimes a bit of burning and dodging and even > > cropping may be necessary.
ann sez My attitude about shooting whether film or digital > somebody said.... > > But fiddling in PS or whatever isn't what I enjoy. So, I can't see using > > post focusing. Still, it's nice to know that such a tool may soon be out > > there, just in case... > This pretty much sums up my own thoughts. Photography is "fun with a > camera". Lots of post-processing is not fun (for me). It's nice to know > that I can salvage some poor photos in a pinch, but a minimum of processing > is my ideal. > > Fred ann again.... What I want is something that fixes camera shake without changing DOF :) Fred, you probably didn't mean quite what you said about poor photos - unless it is necessary for imparting information to a viewer, no amount of "fiddling" using Frank's word, is going to turn a poor photo into a good one. OF course if you captured something in part of a frame that is wonderful and something weird happen way over to one side, or at the bottom,well, that's what cropping is for, right? I've got much to learn about post processing that is necessary to do, and I can't easily wrap my mind around some of the terms used, but if I have to do more than slightly brighten or lighten, slightly adjust color or add a border and my (c) or crop for how the photo will be presented on paper or the web, I tend not to bother with the image. Exceptions happen, of course - but it seems to me there are too many manicured images out there - much too much fiddling that take away the life of the photo. well, I'm sure I'll regret leaping into the fray - but with two thanksgiving dinner invites I'm home nursing a cold and sipping chicken soup so I might as well chat a bit. ann
