The frequent discussions (arguments?) about shooting raw vs. jpg leave me confused.
Jan 3, 2021 12:38:54 #
David Taylor wrote:
So taking the photograph is more important than the processing. Ok.
Apparently you aren’t familiar with the K14 process for developing Kodachrome or you would understand why Bob and other amateurs haven’t developed Kodachrome in a home darkroom.
Jan 3, 2021 12:49:57 #
TriX wrote:
Apparently you aren’t familiar with the K14 process for developing Kodachrome or you would understand why Bob and other amateurs haven’t developed Kodachrome in a home darkroom.
The point was that Kodachromes were SOOC, but you missed that. Sorry it was too hard a concept for you.
Jan 3, 2021 12:56:33 #
tomad
Loc: North Carolina
David Taylor wrote:
The point was that Kodachromes were SOOC, but you missed that. Sorry it was too hard a concept for you.
Yes they were! I spent nearly all of the first 40 years of my photographic journey shooting exclusively Kodachrome because it came closest to reproducing reality (imho). I got a slide scanner in 2003 and proceeded to digitize about 10,000 of them so that now I can post process the ones I want to tweak! Isn't technology wonderful?
Jan 3, 2021 12:58:08 #
The way it was explained to me from Nat Geo Photographer, when you shot in RAW you are getting the full picture, just as the eye has seen it. In JPEG. the camera does some of the processing and what you get is what you get. With a RAW photo and have the proper Programs. Lightroom/Photoshop. you can do a lot more with the RAW image.
Jan 3, 2021 12:59:22 #
The way it was explained to me from Nat Geo Photographer, when you shot in RAW you are getting the full picture, just as the eye has seen it. In JPEG. the camera does some of the processing and what you get is what you get. With a RAW photo and have the proper Programs. Lightroom/Photoshop. you can do a lot more with the RAW image.
Jan 3, 2021 12:59:44 #
The way it was explained to me from Nat Geo Photographer, when you shot in RAW you are getting the full picture, just as the eye has seen it. In JPEG. the camera does some of the processing and what you get is what you get. With a RAW photo and have the proper Programs. Lightroom/Photoshop. you can do a lot more with the RAW image.
Jan 3, 2021 13:02:27 #
tomad wrote:
Yes they were! I spent nearly all of the first 40 years of my photographic journey shooting exclusively Kodachrome because it came closest to reproducing reality (imho). I got a slide scanner in 2003 and proceeded to digitize about 10,000 of them so that now I can post process the ones I want to tweak! Isn't technology wonderful?
Kodachromes saved you SOOC.
Jan 3, 2021 13:03:09 #
GySgt wrote:
The way it was explained to me from Nat Geo Photographer, when you shot in RAW you are getting the full picture, just as the eye has seen it. In JPEG. the camera does some of the processing and what you get is what you get. With a RAW photo and have the proper Programs. Lightroom/Photoshop. you can do a lot more with the RAW image.
You don't really need it though. Don't let them fool you.
Jan 3, 2021 13:11:21 #
David Taylor wrote:
The point was that Kodachromes were SOOC, but you missed that. Sorry it was too hard a concept for you.
There appear to be a number of concepts on this thread that are too difficult for you such as Bob’s point about the Kodachrome process vs the E6 Ektachrome process - both are slide films that are typically used SOOC with a very little latitude for under/over exposure compared to color print films, but Ektachromes can be pushed and developed with simple home equipment.
Jan 3, 2021 13:24:08 #
the image in the camera is not complete until you process it not possible to get perfect shot in camera even with studio lighting post processing was considered normal when film is all we had. Digital just sped the process up and eliminated chemicals and darkrooms. Your loss if you choose not to finish you photograph properly
Jan 3, 2021 13:25:45 #
TriX wrote:
There appear to be a number of concepts on this thread that are too difficult for you such as Bob’s point about the Kodachrome process vs the E6 Ektachrome process - both are slide films that are typically used SOOC with a very little latitude for under/over exposure compared to color print films, but Ektachromes can be pushed and developed with simple home equipment.
Never asked about Ektachrome.
Jan 3, 2021 13:26:46 #
brentrh wrote:
the image in the camera is not complete until you process it not possible to get perfect shot in camera even with studio lighting post processing was considered normal when film is all we had. Digital just sped the process up and eliminated chemicals and darkrooms. Your loss if you choose not to finish you photograph properly
Don't let yourself be fooled.
Jan 3, 2021 13:29:06 #
David Taylor wrote:
Don't let yourself be fooled.
Don't you ever get tired of not saying anything?
Jan 3, 2021 13:39:24 #
David Taylor wrote:
It's not an acronym, so its "raw". Happy to help with your language skills.
While RAW is not an acronym, it is so often used when also considering e.g., JPG or TIFF that it just fits better in a statement or passage.
Jan 3, 2021 13:41:05 #
Longshadow wrote:
Sorry, we speak American English here.
same as pidgin english
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.