RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
Denny B
you did not train and discipline yourself
to understand light metering and no matter
how you botch up taking a picture, there is
always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
you never know what you are looking at, is
what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
version.
I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
I don't mind showing my pictures to people
just the way the camera took them and ( I know
there is conversion in the camera program )
Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
is not what you see.
Every picture I take I do not want to display
in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
is only good enough after it has been doctored
using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
other doctoring software.
Your opinions are awaited.
Thanks in advance
Denny B
Raphael Bustin
>Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>is only good enough after it has been doctored
>using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>other doctoring software.
What is reality?
But hey, be a purist if it makes you happy.
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
John Bean
wrote:
>I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
>never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
Your choice. My choice differs.
>Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
>is not what you see.
So I guess you never made prints? Prints are
second-generation whether film or digital and involve
external processing of some sort.
>Every picture I take I do not want to display
>in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
>prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
So... how does your camera camera produce prints without
external processing? If processing is needed, what
difference does it make whether the original was raw or a
JPEG?
>Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>is only good enough after it has been doctored
>using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>other doctoring software.
Hm. I really don't know what you're asking here, you seem to
be suggesting that all raw images are in some way inferior.
Each to his own I suppose.
--
John Bean
frederick
And quite contrary to your understanding, using RAW gives you far better
latitude to adjust white balance and exposure to as accurately as
possible reproduce what your eyes saw.
Is it cheating? Yes it is - just like using a light meter is cheating.
All_Thumbs
"Denny B" <dmr...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
Beliefs are stronger than facts.
Andy Hewitt
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
[..]
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B
I think you are missing the point of using RAW files. These are merely
the equivalent of using negatives in film photography. Working with JPGs
and TIFFs (although not so much with TIFFs), is like working from a
print. Every time you adjust a JPG or TIFF, you will degrade the
quality, just like reproducing a print to change its attributes - of
course you can always go back to an original file, but this will always
have whatever exposure settings were applied at the time the file was
created - like getting a set of prints back from a photo developer. If
they have a colour cast, they will always have a colour cast. If they
were over exposed onto print, they will always be over exposed. You can
adjust to some extent, but it will always be destructive.
Likewise, so will JPGs and TIFFs (expect you can never recover from any
defects), if a camera applies the wrong white balance, then you can only
destructively compensate for it.
Using a RAW file is like working from your own negatives. You have the
choice to apply white balance, exposure, sharpening, or levels
adjustment etc. without being destructive to the original image. You can
control how the photo turns out, just like working in your own darkroom.
I have only used RAW myself for a few weeks, but already I can see the
advantages. You get much better dynamic range to work with, and you can
adjust levels and colours without losing any detail. In fact it is much
nearer to working with film than I thought it would be.
You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
Rod Williams
A great picture is a great picture and personally I don't care how it
was achieved. Pro Photographers had/have lab techniques, like dodging,
could control exposure, etc. to make their pictures better. We just have
many more tools now.
All_Thumbs
Wrong thinking.
An image shot in raw mode is likely to be a more accurate representation of
what the lens saw than what a jpeg image presents.
A good photograph is much more than just a technical copy of what the lens
sees. The brain is very fickle, what we think we see is not the same as what
the lens sees.
I always shoot in raw.
All_Thumbs
"Andy Hewitt" <wildrov...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1hnzuqm.dk36gw9fljpqN%wildrov...@googlemail.com...
> Denny B <dmr...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
> use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
> However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
> as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
> exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
>
> --
> Andy Hewitt
> <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
"However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW, as
you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in exposure for
the final image gives much better detail."
You might want to check on that more closely.
Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
I am no longer in the business of creating commercial images - I just
do it for the love of photography. But I still shoot RAW about 99.9% of
the time.
It's not cheating. You get about a stop more dynamic range and have
more control over the final image. It's like sending your film to some
amateur lab for processing or doing it yourself.
As when I did photography for a living, I want the best quality
possible. Can't do that shooting JPG.
just bob
"All_Thumbs" <bitb...@rudybenner.com> wrote in message
news:12kahe3...@corp.supernews.com...
Yes. I shoot about 1/3 over and let ACR recover the highlights. Under
exposing on my 1D is an invitation to noise.
Denny B
Would you say that most people who take pictures
take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.
Denny B
All_Thumbs
"just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom> wrote in message
news:45454d9e$0$88632$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Andy Hewitt
Beg your pardon (although quoting my misquote twice was rather
unnecessary). I was of course thinking of the 'expose right' technique,
and got the exposure mixed up with the actual viewing of a RAW files
(which 'appears' under exposed). You do of course use the histogram to
nudge the data to the right edge (checking carefully that you don't blow
the highlights).
just bob
Yes, only a small fraction care. But the ones that do care, care.
Jim
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
sensor to JPEG. Personally, I prefer to let my computer perform the
conversion because it has far more processing power than any digital
computer.
Jim
JohnR66
RAW gives you extra dynamic range that might represent the original subject
truer and it often allows a bit extra resolution to be obtained. It is not
cheating, but is simply a more direct representation to the camera's
capability. In a sense, it is like using a higher quality film and
developing it yourself with careful attention. It does require the extra
effort in post processing that you may or may not wish to invest time in.
Many photogs do spend time getting the shot right, and edit little. They use
RAW simply for the previously mentioned benefits.
John
Bill Hilton
>
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
in-camera ...
Bill
frederick
even on fine/large, and in-camera noise reduction is pretty poor.
bmoag
John McWilliams
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
You sort of have a skewed idea of what RAW is.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
Fine.
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
One can simply develop an image from the RAW negative. No doctoring.
Just setting appropriate color balance, and not even that if it's set in
camera.
What you do is fine. Are you feeling a need to defend what you do?
--
john mcwilliams
Denny B
After 40 years of film work and the endless
wasting of time in darkrooms. I have finally
gotten to the point of just taking pictures.
I have no foolish dreams. Many times cropping
pictures tells you nothing, it isolates reality.
I can crop with the zoom.
I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
taken by people who have no technical knowledge
of photography, who have simple point and shoot
digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
tell a story.
Denny B
Denny B
a good digital picture unless it was taken in RAW
and then processed using Photoshop. That seems to be
implied by the "Pros?" regarding digital photography.
Denny B
John McWilliams
>
> Would you say that most people who take pictures
> take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.
The majority on this NG probably do. But world wide, from tiny sensors
on up, I'd guess about 7.9584% do. Give or take a few ticks.
--
john mcwilliams
Denny B
>
> D70 / 70s users should care. In-camera jpeg rendering isn't the best
> even on fine/large, and in-camera noise reduction is pretty poor.
The above is nothing but a foolish statement.
It is excellent in all the above.
Denny B
Pete D
"Raphael Bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:j4fak2peu6uuge3so...@4ax.com...
If he was a purist he would be shooting film, probably 8x10.
Scubabix
> pictures tells you nothing, it isolates reality.
> I can crop with the zoom.
So, you manipulate the image before it's processed, is that showing reality?
> I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
> taken by people who have no technical knowledge
> of photography, who have simple point and shoot
> digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
> tell a story.
>
> Denny B
I think you miss the entire process of using Photoshop or any other image
processing software. You say you spent 40 years wasting time in darkrooms,
for what? Maybe to manipulate the "reality" by adjusting color, exposure or
cropping. I can do that in minutes in my living room now. Bottom line,
using film or digital media, there is no amount of processing that will
"fix" a lousy photo. Bad composition, out of focus, under/over exposed are
still the evil we all must deal with. But instead of spending good money
processing a bad photograph, now I just hit delete.
Rob
Colin_D
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering
That is an unwarranted slur on digital photographers everywhere. It
really needs an apology to all the experienced and knowledgeable
photographers in this NG, who by all appearances know more than you.
> and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out.
Photoshop is not magic. A 'botched' shot, whatever that is, out of focus
perhaps, grossly under or overexposed (hard to do with today's cameras)
cannot be magically rescued by photoshop or any other image-handling
software. You obviously have never seen or used Photoshop or you
wouldn't make such statements.
These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
Another ignorant statement. Photoshopped images aren't 'fake' any more
than your jpegs - which your D70 'faked' from the RAW images it captured
when you took the shots.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
Your D70 in fine jpeg mode does exactly what photoshop does with a RAW
image. P'raps you don't realize that *all* dSLR images are shot RAW;
either the camera converts to jpeg, or you do with software. Computer
software is a hell of a lot more powerful than any camera software, and
allows converting the file to tiff, dng, or other formats that arent as
lossy as jpeg, and with more accuracy.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
Yes, because the camera shot RAW first.
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
Neither is a print made from a negative with an enlarger. The inherent
tone distortion due to non-linear response of film and paper ensures
that, and when you adjust the enlarger's filter pack or dichroic head to
correct color balance, you are doing what Photoshop does to digital
images. When you use a cardboard cutout to dodge or burn areas of the
print you're making, you're doing exactly what Photoshop does.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
Irrelevant to the point.
>
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
A RAW image *has* to be converted - it cannot be used as is - which is
*not* 'doctoring' as you put it. The conversion program - and there are
many - reads the exif data and converts the image accordingly - as does
your camera in jpeg mode - and it gives the user the opportunity to
correct color balance and exposure to give a balanced image - as you do
when you do test strips in your darkroom. The extra latitude gained by
using RAW allows some exposure errors to be corrected, (like recovering
blown highlights) which can't be done to anything like the same extent
with a jpeg image - but not gross errors, more like a stop or maybe two.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
You've got them. One more point; not to be rude, but you clearly do not
have any idea of RAW digital technology, hence your mistaken stance on
this subject.
Lastly, I try to make each shot the best it can be, in terms of appeal
to the viewer, in conveying what I saw and felt when I was moved to take
the shot. Rarely does a straight unmodified image succeed in that
regard. There is no need at all, unless you are doing evidential
photography, to avoid after-processing.
An analogy: do you think that music recordings are published as they
are recorded, without afterwork on the sound tracks?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B
You're welcome
Colin D.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John Bean
wrote:
>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>> Denny B wrote:
>>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
>>> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
>>> there is conversion in the camera program )
>>
>> Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
>> always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
>> in-camera ...
>The point here is not to display my pictures.
That's got tho be the most inconsistent stance I've seen in
a while; to summarise:
DB: "I don't mind showing my pictures"
BH: "Please show them then"
DB "The point is not to show them"
So do you mind showing them or not?
--
John Bean
John Bean
<ae...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Whirr: the sound of Ansel Adams spinning in his grave.
That's a lot of momentum. I think of AA as more of a
"revolving slowly" sort of guy ;-)
--
John Bean
bongo
"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45458fbb$0$8046$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
i suppose what the picture is of.
if the picture quality is not too good and you use ps to make it better then
i cannot see what is wrong with it.
it may be a picture that is a one off, thus there will be no chance of
getting the same shot again,
so why keep it with the wrong shade/s if you can use ps to make it look
better.
like you i only use jpg instead of raw.
Denny B
> An analogy: do you think that music recordings are published as they
> are recorded, without afterwork on the sound tracks?
You dead right here, but that is only because
of striving to provide unique sounds to people.
Inputting all sorts of sound on a mixing board
and then the mixing individual or team of mixers
discussing and deciding what you should listen to.
It was not always like this. Just the music that came
from an an individuals instrument was recorded or the
music from an orchestra.
Today the music you hear different pieces could be
recorded in different countries, could have been recorded
years ago and is then mixed with some a current piece and
Joe public believes it was recorded all at the same time.
The illusion of life today.
Denny B
Raphael Bustin
>The illusion of life today.
Are photos ever anything *other* than illusions?
rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
Bill Hilton
>>>
>>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
>>> just the way the camera took them
> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>> Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
>> always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
>> in-camera ...
>>
>> Bill
-
>Denny B wrote:
>
> The point here is not to display my pictures.
But you just wrote "I don't mind showing my pictures
to people just the way the camera took them" :)
> I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
> taken by people who have no technical knowledge
> of photography, who have simple point and shoot
> digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
> tell a story.
So can you show us a few of yours to tell your story ... or are you
unable to back up your claim about being such an accomplished
photographer that you always get it right the first time and don't need
RAW to correct your off-kilter white balance or exposure problems?
Inquiring minds want to know :)
Ray Fischer
>Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>is only good enough after it has been doctored
>using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>other doctoring software.
>
You are so arrogant that you think our degree of doctoring is more
honest than other people's degree of doctoring.
I ain't impressed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Eric Miller
> recorded in different countries, could have been recorded
> years ago and is then mixed with some a current piece and
> Joe public believes it was recorded all at the same time.
>
> The illusion of life today.
>
Ah, here's the punch line. You are just so much smarter than everyone
else (i.e. Joe Public) and you feel the need to tell everyone in the
news group. YOU aren't fooled by "fake" Photoshop images, but everyone
else is and you are going to set them straight and let them know that
your images, the ones that you don't mind showing but won't show
nonetheless, aren't fake.
Everyone else is "fooled" by current sound production techniques, but
not YOU! YOU, my friend, are the only person in the world who knows
which songs are recorded in different countries and mixed together in
some sinister digital studio in some guy's basement in Canada before
being e-mailed, yes E-MAILED to Hong Kong for CD print before being
shipped to the final market in an international conspiracy to fool 16
year old high schood dropouts that they are buying a genuine goth
recoding made by vampires in the Bowery!
BTW, would you care to let us in on a few CD's we should avoid. And if
you wouldn't mind, please let us know how you can actually hear where
the songs were recorded.
Do you think that people who hear a good song really care about the
intricacies of the recording? In photography, do you think most people
when looking at a print really care if the white balance was adjusted in
Photoshop or in-camera? Do you think the equipment, software and general
photographic method is more important than the image itself? If so, then
you go girl!
And as far as the cropping comment, you know, about "isolat[ing]
reality," does a square format or 3/4 format camera suffer from the same
affliction when compared to a 2/3 format camera?
Eric Miller
JC Dill
wrote:
Ansel was a very high energy, energetic guy. He would have loved the
digital age.
jc
--
"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
Bill Hilton
>> "bmoag" wrote:
>>
>>Whirr: the sound of Ansel Adams spinning in his grave.
> JC Dill wrote:
>
> Ansel was a very high energy, energetic guy. He would have loved the
> digital age.
And he would have shot RAW, not jpeg :)
David J Taylor
[]
> Today the music you hear different pieces could be
> recorded in different countries, could have been recorded
> years ago and is then mixed with some a current piece and
> Joe public believes it was recorded all at the same time.
>
> The illusion of life today.
I was at an illusory concert once. It was while the organ at the Usher
Hall, Edinburgh was being repaired. They set up the organist in a nearby
church, and used a relay to speakers in the hall. Different places, but I
believe that concert really did take place....
(Organ now repaired, BTW, and sounding great).
David
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:26:52 GMT, Denny B <dmr...@telus.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>>> Denny B wrote:
>
>>>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
>>>> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
>>>> there is conversion in the camera program )
>>>
>>> Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
>>> always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
>>> in-camera ...
>
>>The point here is not to display my pictures.
>
>That's got tho be the most inconsistent stance I've seen in
>a while; to summarise:
Your summary is not consistent with what he said though.
He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
about his photography style.
That is a *very* consistent approach to the questions he
has actually asked.
>DB: "I don't mind showing my pictures"
>BH: "Please show them then"
>DB "The point is not to show them"
>
>So do you mind showing them or not?
Not the point. And he is asking that you stick to the point...
Of course, this is Usenet and you don't have to write about what
he asks about. How's the weather where you live?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
John Bean
L. Davidson) wrote:
>He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
>have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
>about his photography style.
[snip]
>Of course, this is Usenet and you don't have to write about what
>he asks about. How's the weather where you live?
And being usenet you would know the poster's thoughts better
than he does I guess. Or maybe you're his mother... I have
no way of knowing. Perhaps if he explained his own stance I
might reconsider whether I misinterpreted him, but your
interpretation of what he wrote while as useful as any other
is not necessarily any more valid. It's cloudy and slightly
wet.
--
John Bean
Scott W
> The point here is not to display my pictures.
> After 40 years of film work and the endless
> wasting of time in darkrooms. I have finally
> gotten to the point of just taking pictures.
> I have no foolish dreams. Many times cropping
> pictures tells you nothing, it isolates reality.
> I can crop with the zoom.
> I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
> taken by people who have no technical knowledge
> of photography, who have simple point and shoot
> digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
> tell a story.
There is no question that you can get very good photos using nothing
but the jpeg mode on your camera. But there are also times when raw
will make your life a lot easier. When shooting just JPEG I will find
shots that I feel the need to bracket. Often there is a trade off
between capturing good shadow detail and blowing out the sky or
capturing a nice blue sky but missing the shadow detail. With RAW I can
take on exposure and get both, making the decision of how best to trade
off between shadow and highlight detail on my computer. And if I want
to play around with dodging and burning to bring in the sky and the
shadow detail at the same time I have a much better chance of doing
this from a raw file then if all I had was the jpeg.
And when it gets to adjust WB raw makes like a whole lot simpler.
I get the feeling you have not used raw, perhaps you should spend some
time using raw mode before deciding that is have no value for you.
Scott
Jim
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B
Your JPEG created by the camera started as RAW. The camera did the
conversion to JPEG according to a set of rules. All photographs are
altered after they are taken. Even slides are affected by the chemistry
and age of the film. Prints are heavily processed second generation
exposures.
I shoot RAW+JPEG and use the JPG for the quickies,,, ie email, qucik
web pages etc. I use the RAW for my more permanet collection and for
printing.
The other advantage to RAW at least in the Nikon World is that if you
use Capture, the original image is never touched. All the corrections
are stored as deltas and you can go back to the original at any time.
This without storing multiple versions.
Jim
--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
Bill Hilton
>
> He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
> have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
> about his photography style.
If he's going to come on to a newsgroup and basically tell 70% of so of
the people shooting dSLRs that they are doing it the wrong way and he's
doing it a better way then it seems fair to ask to see some of his work
as an example.
Somehow I doubt he can back it up.
> That is a *very* consistent approach to the questions he
> has actually asked.
In the original post he didn't ask a single question, just made some
strong statements about his preferences.
Bill
Colin_D
RAW images and Photoshop. Did you not read my reply; or do you just not
understand? Or maybe you just don't want to know.
You are getting perilously close to being labeled a troll.
l v
> Denny B wrote:
[snip]
>
> You are getting perilously close to being labeled a troll.
>
too late. Denny's already there in my book, err, newsreader.
--
Len
mar...@iprimus.com.au
Denny B wrote:
> Would you say that most people who take pictures
> take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.
I agree, also note that only a tiny fraction of film photographers use
medium or large format cameras.
The fact that Hyundai's outsell BMW's does not mean that they are a
better car.
The vast majority of digital photographers shoot jpeg because they
don't know any better, this does not mean that jpeg is "better" it
means that there are more people unaware of the advantages of RAW
compared to the people who understand this subject
Mark
John McWilliams
Lightroom, he would......
--
john mcwilliams
Everything old is new again in the latest film about the beloved pooch
with the I.Q. of a grad student and the instincts of a boomerang.
[NY Times; Review of "Lassie".}
Steve Cutchen
McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bill Hilton wrote:
> >>> "bmoag" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Whirr: the sound of Ansel Adams spinning in his grave.
> > -
> >
> >> JC Dill wrote:
> >>
> >> Ansel was a very high energy, energetic guy. He would have loved the
> >> digital age.
> >
> > And he would have shot RAW, not jpeg :)
> >
> And he would have used Levels, not Curves! He would be beta testing
> Lightroom, he would......
Well, Ansel Adams was alive today, he'd be banging on the coffin lid.
duh.
Denny B
>
> Jim
>
It was never my initial intention when posting,
to annoy anybody, insult anybody, pretend by
stating I use only JPEG that I know more then
the Raw users, that because I use a Nikon brand
anybody else should.
Once I entered the digital slr world, I realized
how enjoyable and relatively easy picture taking
can be and that I no longer needed to drag bags
of camera bodies,lenses, spot and incident meters
around. That I can immediately see the picture I
had just taken and make adjustments as need be.
After 40 years of aiming and striving for perfection
I now just enjoy taking pictures and the result from
my Nikon D70S using fine JPEG is all I need. My 12x18
fine JPEG enlargements on my walls satisfy me and those
who care to glance.
I will always stop to glance and study pictures
taken and printed by the many who have been abundantly
more gifted then I am.
Denny B
Mark˛
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Denny B wrote:
>>>
>>> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
>>> is not what you see.
>>
>>
>>> Every picture I take I do not want to display
>>> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
>>> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
>>
>>
>>> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>>> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>>> is only good enough after it has been doctored
>>> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>>> other doctoring software.
>>
>> Just setting appropriate color balance, and not even that if it's
>> set in camera.
>>
>> What you do is fine. Are you feeling a need to defend what you do?
>>
> No I don't, it's just that you cannot produce
> a good digital picture unless it was taken in RAW
> and then processed using Photoshop. That seems to be
> implied by the "Pros?" regarding digital photography.
>
> Denny B
RAW is the only means to producing an image file whose data hasn't been
partially destroyed by compression of the file. For many, RAW is simply a
means to avoiding jpeg compression. It is also useful for correcting
color-cast problems...which is certainly not cheating any more than using a
flourescent lighting correction filter on a lens is.
RAW also allows for assigning color profiles that will print properly within
a given workflow. There are many benefits to RAW that have NOTHING to do
with changing the appearance of reality. Anyone who claims otherwise is
simply ignorant of what RAW is about/used for.
Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
bugbear
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
Doesn't seem particularly worse
than what went on in dark rooms,
with dodging, burning, "over developing",
soft developer, hard paper..., solarization.
All of these were deemed "valid" parts
of the artistic photographers's armament,
and were widely exploited.
It's easier now - if you think that's cheating,
that's purely your call.
It's just a "control".
I assume you have no qualms about using
shutter speed and aperture to control
the image, so I don't see any big deal in using
curve controls.
BugBear
Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
> Once I entered the digital slr world, I realized
> how enjoyable and relatively easy picture taking
> can be and that I no longer needed to drag bags
> of camera bodies,lenses, spot and incident meters
> around. That I can immediately see the picture I
> had just taken and make adjustments as need be.
> After 40 years of aiming and striving for perfection
> I now just enjoy taking pictures and the result from
> my Nikon D70S using fine JPEG is all I need. My 12x18
> fine JPEG enlargements on my walls satisfy me and those
> who care to glance.
That D70 should be able to produce prints much larger than that.
Denny B
That is very possible however 12x18
is all I want.
Denny B
Michael Meissner
> "Raphael Bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:j4fak2peu6uuge3so...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <dmr...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> >>do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> >>is only good enough after it has been doctored
> >>using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> >>other doctoring software.
> >
> >
> > What is reality?
> >
> > But hey, be a purist if it makes you happy.
> >
> >
> > rafe b
> > www.terrapinphoto.com
>
> If he was a purist he would be shooting film, probably 8x10.
And you think film was not modified? Most of the photoshop 'tricks' that
people complain about when they want 'pure images' had analogs in film
processing.
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrm...@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Lionel
>Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
>you did not train and discipline yourself
>to understand light metering and no matter
>how you botch up taking a picture, there is
>always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
>you never know what you are looking at, is
>what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
>version.
>I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
>never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
Good for you. It must be great to only ever need to take photos under
narrow lighting ranges & to always have the time to meter out a shot
correctly, while your subject patiently holds their/its pose. If I
ever get bored with shooting decisive moments under wildly erratic,
mixed lighting, I'll be sure to give your method a try.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel
>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>> Denny B wrote:
>>>
>>> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
>>> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>>>
>>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
>>> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
>>> there is conversion in the camera program )
>>
>> Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
>> always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
>> in-camera ...
>>
>> Bill
>>
>The point here is not to display my pictures.
Why am I not surprised that you can't produce any of your perfect JPEG
shots, Mr Troll?
>I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
>taken by people who have no technical knowledge
>of photography, who have simple point and shoot
>digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
>tell a story.
I'm not, because such shots are so fucking rare. 99.999% of shots
taken by people with no technical knowledge of photography are
complete crap.
Lionel
[...]
>He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
>have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
>about his photography style.
>
>That is a *very* consistent approach to the questions he
>has actually asked.
>
>>DB: "I don't mind showing my pictures"
>>BH: "Please show them then"
>>DB "The point is not to show them"
>>
>>So do you mind showing them or not?
>
>Not the point. And he is asking that you stick to the point...
The *point* is that he's expressing an opinion, & claiming that his
photos are proof that his opinion is actually a fact. If he won't show
us his proof, then he's just blowing hot air.
Lionel
>John McWilliams wrote:
>> What you do is fine. Are you feeling a need to defend what you do?
>>
>No I don't, it's just that you cannot produce
>a good digital picture unless it was taken in RAW
>and then processed using Photoshop. That seems to be
>implied by the "Pros?" regarding digital photography.
You need to stop taking acid. I don't recall anyone in this group
saying anything of the sort.
Not Disclosed
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
more like going into the darkroom and custom printing. You scenario is
Nikon knows best, is the same IMHO as the lab knows best. I agree with
you that many are sloppy or lazy in taking the image, and try to fix it
in Photoshop. But in my opinion, as a 36 year semi-retired pro RAW is
better. I spent decades custom printing, spending hours working on
prints. Imagine if Ansel Adams, or Karsh sent their film to Wal-Mart?
Well I have seen Karsh's work as machine prints, and I was disappointed!
When the Canadian Government held an exhibit of his work they ran it
through their photo centre and printed it all on Ilford Multigrade. I
have held original Karsh studio made prints, and believe me there is a
difference.
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
>
So why even bother having a dSLR, a P&S can do what you want?
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
RAW conversion in Photoshop (et al) is the difference between a lab
print and a custom print. I don't let someone else decide on what my
vision should be.
Not Disclosed
> "Raphael Bustin" <ra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:j4fak2peu6uuge3so...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>>> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>>> is only good enough after it has been doctored
>>> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>>> other doctoring software.
>>
>>
>> But hey, be a purist if it makes you happy.
>>
>>
>> rafe b
>> www.terrapinphoto.com
>
> If he was a purist he would be shooting film, probably 8x10.
>
>
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:28:03 -0900, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) opined:
>
>[...]
>>He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
>>have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
>>about his photography style.
>>
>>That is a *very* consistent approach to the questions he
>>has actually asked.
>>
>>>DB: "I don't mind showing my pictures"
>>>BH: "Please show them then"
>>>DB "The point is not to show them"
>>>
>>>So do you mind showing them or not?
>>
>>Not the point. And he is asking that you stick to the point...
>
>The *point* is that he's expressing an opinion, & claiming that his
>photos are proof that his opinion is actually a fact. If he won't show
>us his proof, then he's just blowing hot air.
He is a *troll*. You are a *sucker* who bit on it.
John McWilliams
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:32:51 GMT, Denny B <dmr...@telus.net> opined:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> What you do is fine. Are you feeling a need to defend what you do?
>>>
>> No I don't, it's just that you cannot produce
>> a good digital picture unless it was taken in RAW
>> and then processed using Photoshop. That seems to be
>> implied by the "Pros?" regarding digital photography.
>
> You need to stop taking acid. I don't recall anyone in this group
> saying anything of the sort.
He's triply wrong. And he dodged- surprise!- the q. as to why he needs
to be defensive. Now, it's why is he becoming offensive? Troll or Kook?
Bad week?
I will never know. Sob.
--
john mcwilliams
Lionel
Davidson) opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:28:03 -0900, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Davidson) opined:
^^^^^^^^^^^
>>[...]
>>>He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
>>>have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
>>>about his photography style.
>>>
>>>That is a *very* consistent approach to the questions he
>>>has actually asked.
>>>
>>>>DB: "I don't mind showing my pictures"
>>>>BH: "Please show them then"
>>>>DB "The point is not to show them"
>>>>
>>>>So do you mind showing them or not?
>>>
>>>Not the point. And he is asking that you stick to the point...
>>
>>The *point* is that he's expressing an opinion, & claiming that his
>>photos are proof that his opinion is actually a fact. If he won't show
>>us his proof, then he's just blowing hot air.
>
>He is a *troll*. You are a *sucker* who bit on it.
My post was a reply to *your* post, in which you were defending the
troll, dimwit. If that makes me a sucker, it makes you one as well.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:25:50 -0900, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) opined:
>>
>
>My post was a reply to *your* post, in which you were defending the
>troll, dimwit. If that makes me a sucker, it makes you one as well.
Number of followups *you* posted directly to his articles: 3.
Number of followups *I* posted directly to his articles: 0.
I did not defend the trolling.
Conclusions:
1) You are indeed a sucker who bit on it.
2) The reason you suckered up is one of,
A) You can't follow simple logic,
B) You can't count,
C) Or, both of the above.
Jim
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
So was taking film out of a camera, adjusting the development time to
the adjust the toe of the film density curve unfair manipulation?
Serious photographers did this all the time. And then the printing
process. That was a serious combination of technical skill and
artistry. Accomplished print makers were skiled artists those that
were really good created timeless photographs. The most famous of
these was Ansel Adams, but there were many, many others. Mr Adams dis
not take a photograph on a peice of film, throw through some standard
chemistry and then run it through some standard print process.
Photoshop is no different. The photographer is presented with the raw
picture just as I would have from a piece of film.. except I lost the
ability to change the dnesity by temperature or time. The rest of the
process is very similar to what I woudl have done if I were in a
darkroom with an enlarger and wet chemistry. Evaluate the color
balance either with a color analyzer or by trial and error. Determine
the proper exposure for the paper and negative density. Add color
filters to correct the color balance, reevaluate the exposure, and
expose the print. I might also dodge or burn to adjust the density of
shadows or highlights. And then onto the chemistry. Adjust
temperatures, compensate for the age of the developer, and process wor
the time that my experience determined was normal. 9 times out of
10, this process would need to be repeated. IN otherwords, the print
was lousy! Photoshop lets me do this electronically and for far less
money.
RAW does not correct for bad technigue. A badly exposed photo can be
made better, but as in film, it its bad to start with, there is only so
much you can do. A raw image with burned high lights can't be
recovered. You can't retrieve data where none exists.
BTW, your JPEG out of your camera started as RAW. The camera just made
some adjustments for you, and in the case of the D70s, it corrected the
white balance according to the current settings and an internal
algorithm built by Nikon. It applied an unsharp mask to sharpen the
photo, and it may have changed the color saturation depending on what
mode the camera was set to and what you chose as custom settings. It
adjusted the exposure levels. Your JPEG is a manipulated image. If I
new the exact compensation that Nikon programmed into the camera, I
could create exactly the same thing in Nikon Capture, Photoshop nearly
any other editing program that takes NEF RAW input.
All that being said, JPEG is fine a lot of the time and you don't need
to sit an process each photo. The camera did it for you, and yes the
D70s does a pretty good job most of the time.