RAWr Creativity! Show your raw self(ies)!

[Bagnu]

Basically, I feel I shouldn't claim anything as raw that has any sort of processing. Whether with the Firestorm cam or afterwards. So please judge any of my images that appear obviously processed as such. If you have to wonder if it is or not, it isn't. I have no issues being honest about it. To me, our photog is not a contest. It's about inspiring and being inspired (to roughly quote in a different context someone I know).

[Rowan Amore]

39 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Basically, I feel I shouldn't claim anything as raw that has any sort of processing. Whether with the Firestorm cam or afterwards. So please judge any of my images that appear obviously processed as such. If you have to wonder if it is or not, it isn't. I have no issues being honest about it. To me, our photog is not a contest. It's about inspiring and being inspired (to roughly quote in a different context someone I know).

Personally, I don't see in viewer filters as post processing.  It's in the process and not afterward.  Now if I use those same filters in an editing program, that's obviously post.  It's the same to me as using dof or zoom.  It's taken in the initial shot.

[MoiraKathleen]

3 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

Personally, I don't see in viewer filters as post processing.  It's in the process and not afterward.  Now if I use those same filters in an editing program, that's obviously post.  It's the same to me as using dof or zoom.  It's taken in the initial shot.

I agree that anything that happens prior to the shot being taken should not be considered post-processing.   "Post" implies afterwards.

[Nalates Urriah]

49 minutes ago, Fauve Aeon said:

Thank you so much for your feedback @Nalates Urriahand @RowanMinx. I’m using my self-made projectors to see how far I can get with them as my start point. 
 

As far as Raw shots, I think I consider using lights, projector lights, windlight/eep and anything ambient within the world and the settings for those as ‘fair game’ but not the viewer photo filters. If you allow for filtering, what about HUDs?

I have a photo HUD from AM Radio that adds an overlay of noise, a vignette, even a couple of frames. 😉 

That’s just me though, I’m sure different people define it differently and I know I just like learning about the things so I just want to know *what* someone uses. 

I had never really thought about whether using all the stuff in the viewer counts as raw when making an image.

As I think about it, the changes we make in the viewer are "setup" for the shot. Much like RL studio shots arranging of lights and poses. The environment settings are always in use in the viewer. We always have it on 'default', region settings, or a selected Windlight. But, the viewer uses something for every frame it renders. So, only tweaks to the environment? 

So... is it raw if we don't change settings in the viewer? The more I think about it the harder and more complicated it gets for drawing a line based on what we do.

I think I will go with "raw" as any image that has not been processed post-snap. Like Rowan, for me when something is done is the deciding factor. So, if one were to use the viewer's vignette filter and takes a picture... I would still accept it as being a raw image. Yet I think many of us would have some problem with that. 

Many crop the image and still consider it a raw image. Others likely have some question about that. But RL photographers crop images when printing them. 

We put pictures in frames. Is adding a digital frame post-processing? Technically, yes. But that is getting pretty picky.

I suggest you decide what works for you as a definition of "raw image". Ignore the minutiae. 

[Bagnu]

I personally consider raw as anything that was taken through the viewer with nothing afterwards, No cropping, no adjustments in any way after the initial pic was taken.

[LittleMe Jewell]

IMO, cropping doesn't take away the "raw" aspect.  

[Orwar]

   And what do actual photographers answer when people with the same 'editing is cheating' attitude ask why photographers edit their shots?

Quote

In a discussion early in the digital era, a participant said something like “In the past, I would drop off my film at a lab and get back a set of very good prints. Now with digital, my quality is all over the place. Why can’t digital deliver like film did?”

What he failed to notice was that there was a skilled technician sitting at a large machine, saving every exposure he took. Of the billions of snapshots taken, every single one was interpreted by an operator. So it has been since the beginning of photography.

A century ago, if you were an enthusiast, you would have your own darkroom and do your own developing and printing. Monochrome (B&W) processing was entirely practical to do at home. However, the growing popularity of colour photography presented problems.

While early B&W film and printing could be done under a “safelight”, with a relatively wide range of chemical temperatures, color required total darkness and temperatures as accurate as ±¼° for some processes. Kodachrome slide film could 0nly be done in a relatively small number of specialized labs equipped with the expensive machinery required to process it. One-hour labs began to pop up everywhere, making the processing of snapshots quick and convenient. Home darkrooms were packed away as photographers abandoned processing to anonymous third parties.

Digital has not changed the fundamental steps of photography. One still does the concept stage—choosing the sensitivity of the medium, focal length of lens, fundamental camera settings—prior to making the exposure. The decisive moment is no less important now than it was in the early days of photography. Seeking the best light on location is exactly the same. Cameras do not see as the eye sees, so interpretation in the digital darkroom (Photoshop) or in the traditional fume-room is used to match the image to the photographer’s vision of it. Finally, presentation has grown from magazines, prints and slide-shows, to web galleries and multimedia as well. The intended presentation may strongly govern the interpretive steps.

Ever since Henry Fox Talbot made the first negative/positive print in 1836, interpreting the image in processing has been an integral part of the art of photography. Perhaps the biggest gift of digital has been to liberate us from the guy at the big print machine, returning the whole process to the photographer from concept to presentation.

Quote

There have been several questions on this subject already and often it seems that the people asking the question intend to question the proficiency of photographers that work with digital media (implying they are not really photographers anymore, but pixelpushers), and often it also seems that those asking have a very poor grasp of what photography entails and the history of photography, making the intent of the question dubious at best.

Editing of photographs is as old as photography.

Just by choosing the type of film stock, the filters that are used on the lens (red, blue, green, orange, soft focus, etc) the photographer has made his first edits.

Then the type of developer and the dilution and time of developing the film introduces further editing to the image, followed by the choice of paper and the gradation (contrast) of the paper for printing.

Then comes the process of dodging and burning in order to enhance or hide details in highlights and shadows. A process that was used extensively, even Ansel Adam's pictures were manipulated in the darkroom to achieve the best possible image.

Simple cropping is editing. Using an unsharp mask (yes that terms comes from the darkroom) is editing as well.

The same goes for colour photography. Cross processing for instance could be seen as editing. But far less dramatic than that, just determining which colour hues to take out or leave into the final picture is editing the photograph.

Many other techniques were used, like exposing paper under an angle to correct perspective. Or to create an artistic distortion. Holding deformed glass between the lens and the paper or coloured pieces of gels, or prisms, gratings/gobos, or as per Man Ray, by solarising the photo. Film negatives were also distressed and scratched.

Should I start about the practise of airbrushing on both black & white and colour prints to edit or smooth out elements in the photograph?

Long story short. There were hundreds upon hundreds of ways photos were edited and manipulated in the analogue/chemical days.

There really is a reason why most of the tools in Photoshop are named the way they are, complete with icons that relate to the original tools that were used in analogue photography.

So why would a photographer that makes a great shot, a photo with all the elements, framing, timing, light, colour etc, suddenly be "just" an editor/Photoshop expert because after all the work they have already done, they process the photo digitally so it looks its best?

Also, what makes an editor "just" an editor as if this were a lesser skill than being a photographer, and as Andy Farrell mentions, why would it be mutually exclusive? It may also surprise that many photographers of old didn't actually print their own photos, as there were highly skilled darkroom print experts then that did this for them, as there are highly skilled digital photo editors now. If anything, a photographer now will on average have more skill sets to deal with than during the days of analogue photography as they will be more likely to do their own editing.

   Personally I don't really care what people do with their SL photography. To each their own, I for one do it for my own entertainment rather than anything else. But the attitude of 'look at me, I do real photography, I only shoot raw', it's a particularly disgusting mix of ignorance and pretentiousness. 

[Fauve Aeon]

21 minutes ago, Orwar said:

I do real photography, I only shoot raw'

Then there’s no such thing in SL because it’s just capturing/screenshotting  some configuration of pixels within the screen in our fancy viewers. Even Flickr has relegated all of SL-dom to the demesne of ‘screenshotlandia’.

So..what IS ‘real’ anyway? 😉

[Nalates Urriah]

So... 

...is Orwar talking about the image or what he is wearing when he snaps the shutter? I mean that would be REAL...

[Bagnu]

55 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   And what do actual photographers answer when people with the same 'editing is cheating' attitude ask why photographers edit their shots?

   Personally I don't really care what people do with their SL photography. To each their own, I for one do it for my own entertainment rather than anything else. But the attitude of 'look at me, I do real photography, I only shoot raw', it's a particularly disgusting mix of ignorance and pretentiousness. 

Well guess what. There is no such thing as raw in RL photography. There is no way i would put up a raw image in my house or office. Matching a print to what we see on the screen is much more difficult than that. Even when the printer profile matches the screen profile. I'm not even talking about pics taken RAW format, which is a different question altogether. I mean our screens are backlit, while pics are reflective. A totally different way of perception.

And excuse me Sir. An "actual" photographer is anyone who takes it seriously and wants to continue to learn. And is SL photography any less serious? I took a shot which I'm planning to print up 13x19 and hang it in my RL home.. 

Edited November 29, 2020 by Bagnu

[Skell Dagger]

Does it really bloody matter?

If you deem the use of in-viewer processing such as vignettes and Black Dragon's various settings as 'raw' then it's raw to you. If you're a complete purist who thinks that even so much as changing Windlight from default SL settings and cropping means an image isn't raw, then that's 'raw' to you.

We're sitting here arguing over semantics instead of posting and enjoying each other's own definition of 'raw' images.

[Rowan Amore]

Real photographer as in people who probably make a living doing it.  And there is some sarcasm involved.  People gettin' a little touchy?

[Bagnu]

1 minute ago, RowanMinx said:

Real photographer as in people who probably make a living doing it.  And there is some sarcasm involved.  People gettin' a little touchy?

Lol. yes. Me first.

[Panteleeva]

😀

[NiranV Dean]

On 11/29/2020 at 11:16 PM, Skell Dagger said:

Does it really bloody matter?

If you deem the use of in-viewer processing such as vignettes and Black Dragon's various settings as 'raw' then it's raw to you. If you're a complete purist who thinks that even so much as changing Windlight from default SL settings and cropping means an image isn't raw, then that's 'raw' to you.

We're sitting here arguing over semantics instead of posting and enjoying each other's own definition of 'raw' images.

There are no varying definitions of raw. Only context. And in the context of SL a raw shot is whatever is taken by the viewer from the live rendering, regardless of how many filters or post processing the Viewer supports, raw is simply what the Viewer can actually do and produce without any help from the outside, although i wouldn't count the snapshot filters here because they are effects added on the final image and cannot be used for live SL, thus technically don't count as "live rendering". Though that could be changed. I'd prefer calling them screenshots rather than raw shots since screenshots (coming from gaming) implies that you take a picture of what you see on screen (or technically speaking what the rendering produces) with the built-in screenshot function which does not include any post-image filters like the snapshot window in SL can, which is why i wouldn't count those to something the Viewer can actually do.

For the sake of simplicity however, anything that is taken with the Viewer snapshot window is fair game for "Raw" since they are unedited.

Edited December 1, 2020 by NiranV Dean

[Panteleeva]

[Talula Shippe]

Just a couple of fun shots from summer 2019.  Our roleplay sim threw a rave and it was off the hook!

[AstraHunt]

Been playing with the Lelutka Evo head that I bought from last week's Black Friday sale and this is what I ended up with.

 

 

Photo is taken in ultra mode using one of those studio windlight settings included in the Firestorm viewer and Lumipro projector for lighting. No editing except for image cropping. This is the first time I've come up with a portrait that looked this clear and good. Is it the head, the skin or maybe I was just in the right mood for taking photos? I was super sleepy and fighting to stay awake when I did it.

[Chroma Starlight]

Playing with camera lens focal length was always a simple pleasure to find creative extra 'hidden' visual potential in any scene. Ctrl-8, Ctrl-9, Ctrl-0 are still some of our favorite hotkeys in the viewer.

[Talula Shippe]

Took a few shots for a new composition.  I liked this one because it makes my eyes sparkle.  Anyway, finished shot is in the thread "How does your avatar today?".

Edited December 15, 2020 by Talula Shippe
i got the name of the referenced thread wrong. whoops lol

[Panteleeva]

[Nalates Urriah]

The edited version is here: 

 

[Lucifer Melodious]

[Panteleeva]

[Zeta Vandyke]

Wanted to see what all the fuzz is about so trying out the blackdragon viewer finally. Have to say, I like it!