Thought for you guys: how much of this 'problem' with Canon being so far behind is due to the rising prevalance of Photoshop and significant amounts of post processing?
I have never been huge on all the PS work that a lot of folks do to their work. To me I like pictures that look like what you saw when you took them. But, that's me.
Still, because one can do so many kinds of things in PS, it seems like at some point we have started to measure cameras against how far they allow you to take PS. PS has become where the image is created, and not the camera. The cart is before the horse, no?
Just food for thought.
I post-process every image, and that's because I like the final result to look like it looked to me. The out-of-camera JPEG or default raw conversion rarely looks like that.
That's exactly what I was about to say. Postprocessing is usually essential (to my eye) to get an image that resembles what I saw.
I think you guys are probably in the minority. I read "I want it to look like what I saw" quite often, but then the people writing it load up their flickr streams with razor-thin DOF and desaturated images, water blurred to a fog and polarized skies. Things I have personally never seen in real life.
Haha that's an interesting point. I do also like to use cameras to capture things that the eye cannot; macro, wide aperture work, long exposures, astrophotography. I suppose what I meant was (and should have been clearer about) on average, a raw image coming out of the camera needs work if it is to have the colour balance and (dare I use the term) dynamic range that my eyes saw. I recognise that it's still an approximation, an artificial concept. But SOOC images are further from the eye (in my experience) than further processed ones.
Incidentally, on the subject of things like blurry water - well our eyes can't take single snapshots, so in that sense all
still images are unlike what we see. A short exposure freezing the water would be just as artificial.