Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Maybe it's about a good image, a well-processed image and not about RAW/JPG
(?)
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 next>>
May 18, 2017 16:38:23   #
via the lens (a regular here)
 
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing RAW or JPEG.

But maybe the conversation needs to be about something else. Maybe it should be about the quality of the overall image, both from a processing perspective and from an image formation perspective, i.e., what is a good photograph, both technically and aesthetically? Maybe it's not so much about file type. I see many photographs on this site that I'd call a snapshot (and snapshots, too, are ok at the right moment and are the keepers of our history at times) more than a photograph where someone is trying to form an artistic image in the endeavor of photography and then many people respond with how great the image is, which I often fail to see (maybe my shortcoming). I am aware that are various levels of photography and photographers and various goals in photography.

What I do know is that if you take a jpg and use it straight out of the camera (no human processing at all) it lacks that personal touch and the artistic perspective that you alone, as a human being and the photographer who took the shot, can give the photograph. Those of us who do take RAW photographs automatically do this as RAW requires processing. So, maybe the conversation should be about how we all, as individuals, actually form and process our images.

I've included below two images below, one is a RAW image (#1 - bottom) that I processed to meet what I saw and wanted to share, the other photo is straight out of the camera, untouched. I will say that the in-camera JPG processing (#2 - top photo) did not account for the degree of bright light, especially in the water in the forefront at the right side. It also made everything much darker than I would have chose to portray the scene. This scene, to me, was about the light shining on the boats and the lovely clouds in the sky (to which I added some drama). (A view from the deck of a motel I was staying at on the estuary in Oakland, CA.) The purple you see in the water on the RAW file only came across when imported on this site and might be because of the darkness of the water. Nikon D800, 24-120 Nikon lens, Fine Quality JPEG taken at same time as RAW, both exported at 2,000 pixels across for import here, 150 ppi, ISO 100, 120mm distance, f/11, 1/1000 of a second. I know someone will want to know this.

Click on the Download to see the photo larger to actually tell the difference between the human-processed photo (RAW version) and the machine-processed photo (JPEG version).

What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?
#2 - JPEG As Edited By Camera
#2 - JPEG As Edited By Camera...
(Download)
#1 - RAW File As Edited by Photographer
#1 - RAW File As Edited by Photographer...
(Download)
 
May 18, 2017 16:52:33   #
erinjay64 (a regular here)
 
You can make good images in RAW, or JPEG, but RAW gives you more post production editing capability. RAW saves more of the image data than JPEG, so you have more to work with. To each his / her own, though.
May 18, 2017 17:05:24   #
via the lens (a regular here)
 
erinjay64 wrote:
You can make good images in RAW, or JPEG, but RAW gives you more post production editing capability. RAW saves more of the image data than JPEG, so you have more to work with. To each his / her own, though.


I'm pretty sure most of us on this site for awhile have heard that, so I was looking to find new territory to discuss since that one has been stomped, figuratively, into the ground.
May 18, 2017 17:27:26   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
I don't know that you're going to find new territory. This will continue to be a 'beat to death' subject here, and elsewhere.

You provided an excellent example of the reason there is a photographer involved in photography. As Ansel Adams said, "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs". It also amazes me how many on this site have to post the camera, lens, and settings used to take a photograph. These are inconsequential. It's the final image that counts, regardless of what you used to take it.

I personally prefer to make a photograph. Therefore, I'll capture the initial image in RAW. There is far more data from which to work.
--Bob

via the lens wrote:
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing RAW or JPEG.

But maybe the conversation needs to be about something else. Maybe it should be about the quality of the overall image, both from a processing perspective and from an image formation perspective, i.e., what is a good photograph, both technically and aesthetically? Maybe it's not so much about file type. I see many photographs on this site that I'd call a snapshot (and snapshots, too, are ok at the right moment and are the keepers of our history at times) more than a photograph where someone is trying to form an artistic image in the endeavor of photography and then many people respond with how great the image is, which I often fail to see (maybe my shortcoming). I am aware that are various levels of photography and photographers and various goals in photography.

What I do know is that if you take a jpg and use it straight out of the camera (no human processing at all) it lacks that personal touch and the artistic perspective that you alone, as a human being and the photographer who took the shot, can give the photograph. Those of us who do take RAW photographs automatically do this as RAW requires processing. So, maybe the conversation should be about how we all, as individuals, actually form and process our images.

I've included below two images below, one is a RAW image (#1 - bottom) that I processed to meet what I saw and wanted to share, the other photo is straight out of the camera, untouched. I will say that the in-camera JPG processing (#2 - top photo) did not account for the degree of bright light, especially in the water in the forefront at the right side. It also made everything much darker than I would have chose to portray the scene. This scene, to me, was about the light shining on the boats and the lovely clouds in the sky (to which I added some drama). (A view from the deck of a motel I was staying at on the estuary in Oakland, CA.) The purple you see in the water on the RAW file only came across when imported on this site and might be because of the darkness of the water. Nikon D800, 24-120 Nikon lens, Fine Quality JPEG taken at same time as RAW, both exported at 2,000 pixels across for import here, 150 ppi, ISO 100, 120mm distance, f/11, 1/1000 of a second. I know someone will want to know this.

Click on the Download to see the photo larger to actually tell the difference between the human-processed photo (RAW version) and the machine-processed photo (JPEG version).

What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing R... (show quote)
May 18, 2017 18:02:55   #
Jim Bob (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
I'm pretty sure most of us on this site for awhile have heard that, so I was looking to find new territory to discuss since that one has been stomped, figuratively, into the ground.


This topic, regardless of configuration or catchy title, has become as boring as the brown truck threads.
May 18, 2017 18:05:31   #
via the lens (a regular here)
 
Jim Bob wrote:
This topic, regardless of configuration or catchy title, has become as boring as the brown truck threads.


The topic of processing and/or creating good images? The process of attempting to create an image that is "yours," not the camera's? I'm always interested in learning more about image creation.
 
May 18, 2017 19:31:16   #
sandiegosteve (new user)
 
via the lens wrote:
...

But maybe the conversation needs to be about something else. ...


To me, RAW is more fun. I loved learning in a dark room. RAW gets me closer to that experience. Good pictures can happen regardless of the file format.
May 18, 2017 19:34:39   #
bdk (a regular here)
 
on this topic, you can do a lot more and better processing on a RAW file than a JPG file.
May 18, 2017 20:25:43   #
Jim Bob (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
The topic of processing and/or creating good images? The process of attempting to create an image that is "yours," not the camera's? I'm always interested in learning more about image creation.


Let me hear you say that after wading through hundreds of pages on this very same topic with essentially no new information or insight.
May 18, 2017 21:08:01   #
selmslie (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing RAW or JPEG. ...

What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?

I agree that too much attention has been lavished on the process and not enough on the end product.

After all, with careful exposure and Nikon's Active-D lighting (Canon, Sony and others have their own names for it) a JPEG straight from the camera can reap some of the benefits attributed to manually processed raw files like the recovery of shadow detail.

Likewise, informed use of the blinkies can be just as effective as ETTR/EBTR with a fraction of the effort.

A proper image is not the sole domain of the raw developers. It can easily be created by the intelligent application of the available camera technology. That can save the photographer a lot of time.

If you find that hard to swallow, just look at the images captured by your smart phone with virtually no intervention from the photographer.
May 18, 2017 21:13:29   #
blackest (a regular here)
 
Jim Bob wrote:
Let me hear you say that after wading through hundreds of pages on this very same topic with essentially no new information or insight.


There may be hope yet, when was the last C v N topic?

Maybe it's fair to say RAW files can be used to create different styles of photograph using information that is often discarded when choosing to produce a Jpeg in camera.

You still need a good photograph regardless.

So the next question is whats a good photograph? What makes a photograph good?

...

Anyone ? ...
 
May 18, 2017 21:42:59   #
BlackRipleyDog (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
The topic of processing and/or creating good images? The process of attempting to create an image that is "yours," not the camera's? I'm always interested in learning more about image creation.


At the risk of becoming a pariah, I have put together a fairly vivid example of the difference between the two file types and why processing in Raw is far superior. Let me qualify that comment, in that I am a fine-art landscape photographer and that is where I derive the most satisfaction. When I went to Hawaii a couple years ago, I took all my gear with the intention capturing scenes that I would print and hang on my walls, show in a gallery or sell. I carried a 35# backpack through several airports because that was my focus. I wasn't taking snapshots but collecting images for later work when when I got back home. I took tourist shots with my phone which was satisfactory.

The following images are of a wildlife conservation area near where I live at sunset. The first is a collage of the several frames that make up the second image; the finished panoramic. I shot them on the NEF/JPG Fine Large setting. All images were shot in manual at 1/200, f10.0, ISO 800, 85MM 1.8 AF-D, D800, AF off, matrix metering.
The collage is the individual JPG's as processed by the camera on probably the Standard Picture Control setting. NEF file sizes were 40+megs and the jpgs were 16+megs.
The NEF's were opened in Adobe Bridge as a group, adjustments made in Raw and imported into Photoshop and run through Photomerge. The untitled pano was processed further and saved as a tiff which I print from.
The only questions I would ask are: At what settings in the camera for JPG's would have I achieved the same characteristics that the finished panoramic exhibits and which would you hang on your wall?


(Download)


(Download)
May 18, 2017 22:15:45   #
OddJobber (a regular here)
 
Yawn. Go back to sleep, kids. Nothing new here.
May 18, 2017 22:18:36   #
BlackRipleyDog (a regular here)
 
OddJobber wrote:
Yawn. Go back to sleep, kids. Nothing new here.


Wow Larry, why am I not surprised?
May 18, 2017 22:32:17   #
via the lens (a regular here)
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
Wow Larry, why am I not surprised?


Why can't we move forward on this...let's talk image not file...what are the components of a good image, technical as well as aesthetic? In either file format...
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 next>>
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2016 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.