"Get It Right In The Camera" (Page 3): The human does not have a wide dynamic range. The human eye adapts quickly to a difference of light, THAT is the sole advantage.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

DirtFarmer wrote:

Not necessarily so. A scene with high dynamic range will show either blown highlights or clipped shadows with no detail. The human eye has a much wider dynamic range response than current cameras, so without processing an image from the camera will not look like what you can see. Also the eye has a lot of adaptability to color changes, so scenes that are lit by multiple sources with different spectra can be perceived by the eye as normal, but the camera could easily produce strange colors.

The human does not have a wide dynamic range.

The human eye adapts quickly to a difference of light, THAT is the sole advantage.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

one_eyed_pete wrote:

I rather think photographers are like bakers. Some bakers prefer to measure out the flour, sugar etc to create a cake and take pride in their result. Some prefer to open a box of ingredients someone else has formulated and a few even choose to add in something extra then bake the cake. Still others prefer to go to the bakery and buy a cake so they don't need to make any decisions. The good news is all can enjoy eating the cake in their own way.

Still, a cake can be made using different recipes. So you might well enjoy cakes from one baker, but bread from an entirely different one.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A camera sees the world differently than the human eye, so who cares what the camera saw?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Cany143 wrote:

...Years later, I balked at the thought of having a computer. What use did I have for an overpriced typewriter? None; I already had a typewriter, and adding or subtracting 50 from or to a hundred wasn't difficult, either, all on my own. But when I learned you could scan those slides or those negs, and there was this thing called 'PhotoShop,' the worm turned. Big time. And I couldn't be happier.

I had that problem with my wife. She was a Katherine Gibbs graduate and she had her typewriter. She got a job as a church secretary. The rector produced Christmas plays for the kids every year. After a few years she started to take the old plays and revise them. So my wife had to type the revised play in its entirety. That's when she finally decided to learn how to use the computer. The old play was on the disk. All she had to do was change the file name with a new date, load it in and make changes. Probably saved 90% of the work. She was completely non-computer oriented and it took me a long time to get her into it but finally she recognized the value.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

SalvageDiver wrote:

Bob, you silly guy. You're cruzing down the freeway at 70 mph while the SOOC 'only' guys have just figured out how to get out of 'park' but haven't yet discovered the gas pedal...

I'm hoping that the converted SOOC guys have discovered the brake pedal also. Lots of overworked stuff out there. But then beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

quixdraw wrote:

Well I guess that's it - us apostates from the religion of Raw will have to expect to be "cast into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth." Or maybe something less - there's more than one path to successful outcomes. I really don't care about yours, why would you begrudge me mine? That is the vexatious issue.

That's one of the problems. Raw/jpg has become a religious (or even worse, political) topic these days. The term "successful outcome" is highly subjective. If your methods work for you, I have no cause for complaint. If my methods work for me, you have no cause for complaint. The cause for complaint comes from the insistence that your/my way is the "right" way. It's been a long time since the inquisition.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

In grad school we had a tool maker that would say "Better is the enemy of good enough". When cutting metal, trying to get the precision down another decimal point could easily mean ruining the part. So although it does not fit every situation, I think the saying has some value.

So I would have called this thread "Getting It Close In The Camera"

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

DirtFarmer wrote:

I had that problem with my wife. She was a Katheri... (show quote)

Great Googly-Moogly! A person can do stuff like that with a computer? Whoduh thunkit!?!

Maybe I'll have to get me one some time.

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

rmalarz wrote:

As promised...

These are the result of knowing the capabilities of the cameras. That is arrived at by extensive testing, another thing many are reluctant to do. Zonal placement of values and knowledgeable processing.
--Bob

Gotchya, gotchya, gotchya!

Quixdraw Loc: x

DirtFarmer wrote:

That's one of the problems. Raw/jpg has become a religious (or even worse, political) topic these days. The term "successful outcome" is highly subjective. If your methods work for you, I have no cause for complaint. If my methods work for me, you have no cause for complaint. The cause for complaint comes from the insistence that your/my way is the "right" way. It's been a long time since the inquisition.

Believe I just said "I really don't care about yours, why would you begrudge me mine? That is the vexatious issue."
I have been an photography enthusiast for somewhere in the range of 65 years - first darkroom at around 13. Wonderful advances in that time, a few things missed, but generally as much fun and more convenient today. I am just not into the absolutists, and mostly not terribly impressed by the "rule makers" photos. I'll cheerfully stand on mine - then again, I would, since I took them, and except for the occasional rarity, they are representative of the best I can do in the particular genre.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Rongnongno wrote:

The human does not have a wide dynamic range.

The human eye adapts quickly to a difference of light, THAT is the sole advantage.

I’m going to have to take a little issue with that Jacque, although I take your point. Maybe the statement should be that the human visual processing system has a huge dynamic range, a function of two different sensors with different attributes, a variable aperture, and incredible image processing in the LGB. The result is an overall DR of the entire system that no current camera can approach. If you want to evaluate how good the processing is, just turn your head quickly from side to side. Notice how the image stays stationary in your visual field? Can you imagine how much processing and tracking that takes. The human visual system, like the human auditory system, is an amazing acquisition device. .

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

BebuLamar wrote:

You should get it right in the camera so that you can post process the image to your liking.

One problem here is semantics. SOOC proponents seem to feel that an image that comes straight out of the camera needs to be a usable image without further ado. Your examples are an example of a case where that does not apply. Your images are right for you. Not for someone who does not know what you are going to do with them.

rebride

Deleted

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The real secret of photography is knowing to use the (P)rofessional mode.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

--Bob

CHG_CANON wrote:

The real secret of photography is knowing to use the (P)rofessional mode.