E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

According to my grammar check mechanism, there are 24 grammatical technicalities that require addressing-I'm working on it! I agree that better use of the English language is important for better and more concise communications. I'll do better!

What needs work on your account is your abuse of this forum. You are carrying on a protracted series of ongoing barbs and insults that are a waste of time and bandwidth. You seem to be enjoying the in-kind responses. I also do not agree with those who have attacked your nationality- that is equally as destructive and immature.

As it stands, folks will shoot in whatever mode accommodates their purposes and degrees of skill and knowledge of photography and post-processing procedures. Everyone on this thread has expressed their opinions. The folks reading on are not stupid or ill-informed and have the ability and talent to make up their own minds.

If again you will excuse my use of the vernacular- Come on y'alll- KNOCK IT OFF. Stop inciting bad behaviour by responding to useless rhetoric and stimulating more nonsense!

This is not a spelling-bee or a creative or technical writing forum. If you want to prove your point about Jpegs and SOOTC shooting, why no post a series of your IMAGES done in this manner to prove your point?

David Taylor

Yes, stop it you lot!

David Taylor

Only kidding. You're right. I apologise.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

E.L., if I might be so bold as to present a grammatical error in your post. "Come on y'alll- "

y'all is singular. Such as if I was to address merely you, Are y'all going to take photographs today?

If I was addressing a group, such as the members of this forum, it would be, Are all y'alls going to be taking pictures today? That's the plural form.

Thanks for your attention.
--Bob

pjalper Loc: San Pedro Ca.

Philosophy never pushed the shutter control. Why don't we go back to the "raisone d'etre" and take pictures.........You're all starting a possible Great Year (2021) b y sullying the hobby.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

I'm sorry but you've missed the point. Kodachrome, just like ektachrome, kodacolor, tri-x, neopan, etc... are just an intermediate step to the print.

You may consider any of the positive color films as SOOC, if like an old curmudgeon, you're boring you audience with wall displays of snapshots using an old slide projector. The print is still the final resting place for a well done image and that requires post-processing in the wet lab or digital lab.

Today, those kodachromes are of little interest to most others unless they're scanned onto digital media, which then affords one to opportunity to improve the image and print it, just as it was done in the wet labs back in the day.

edrobinsonjr Loc: Boise, Idaho

I, for one, have never taken a "RAW" image. Everything is JPEG.

I have posted a lot of these images here on UHH and received a lot of nice, encouraging comments from the membership.

I do most of my processing with Picasa but use the GIMP when I need a bit more PS like adjustments. I try to make the image look like what I saw - in my minds eye. And, yes, what I would like to see.

I read people here saying that you cannot really process a JPEG. Not so. I can draw out shadows, recover skies unless totally blown out - Not sure that can be done with any software unless you replace the sky. I can adjust the curves and channels and so on. I can create and apply layers as needed with around 35 blending modes.

I am certain that there are some instances where a raw image saves the day.

So, that's my view on this topic. Thanks for loking.

Ed

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

RAW has more detail, PERIOD!
There are more shades of gray, so detail can be drawn out of what appears black in jpg without blowing highlights.
There are more colors.

You can process the image to reduce the dynamic range needed so all the desired detail appear in the "print" or on screen.

While the camera processes RAW into jpg, it cannot keep all the detail RAW has. That is why RAW files are so much larger. Not every algorithm or camera processing settings are good for all situations.

However, not every situation needs all that detail. I mostly take photos in jpg of events where the people who were there would be happy with blurry over- or under-exposed photos. I would not be happy with that, but I don't use RAW for those occasions. I DO post process quite a bit, but not to the extent I would if I started with a RAW file. While I know they are not, those people think my photos are extraordinary.

Bill_de Loc: US

You reminded me of a horrible Thanksgiving. My uncle showed up with a new digital projector. After dinner he proceeded to show years of digitized vacation movies. It was so bad that my father handed me a tall glass of scotch. I was 14 at the time.

I realized from that experience that jpg, raw, video, all look just as good with enough scotch.

----

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Graham Smith Loc: Cambridgeshire UK

I'm much relieved to find that the art of trolling the gullible is not yet dead.

Bill_de Loc: US

Got you to comment!


---

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Oh you’ve impressed us all right, just in a very persistent, boorish way. You’ve expressed the same simplistic and poorly informed opinion about 3 dozen times now, so how about giving it a rest and let some of the more informed and interesting respondents return this thread from a mean spirited and churlish argument to more intelligent comments?

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Yea Graham, it's no different than a bunch of old guys sitting around the table at the local donut shop arguing about cars. It's keeps people occupied, it's fun and it keeps the adrenaline pumping. The trolls are the ignition and to rest of us is the fuel to keep it going.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

LMAO, now this is best observation yet. Time to tap into the old Highland Park!