Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The best picture is the one you haven't taken yet! Why is that? The Camera (pixels, ISO capabilities or what), the lens (need better or different range), the photo processing program (better or can't use) or photographer ( how to use the equipment or eye for the art). So how do we fixe it? We can buy a better camera and equipment as advised on this blog, get better software, or take a course in art or photography.
Now it's up to you to move up and non of us can do that for you. I's you that must find out what you want and need to get to that point.
All the folks on this blog have given you IDEAS not the answer it's you that has to find your way after 15+ pages of information.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I see this often. It is due to the confusion created by Adobe DNG format. This format accepts many formats, including JPG. Being DNG they are available as 'non-destructive' editable files. Folks then consider them as 'raw' files.

Adobe has never bothered clarifying what was a DNG was other than 'universal format'. That, it is but anything and the kitchen sink goes in there.

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

Not sure what a "non-destructive editable" file is. If it's editable, isn't that potentially destructive of the original file?
The dng, like other raw files, contains a preview image. If you edit the dng you can replace the preview to reflect your new edits. Also, the edits are contained in the dng. While the raw image data contained in the dng is not changed, the overall file is changed. That means it could potentially overwrite the old file.

What that means is that any time you edit a dng file you should back it up.

Saving the edits in the dng 'eliminates the need for a xmp file'. Of course, that also means that if you don't use dng and you do use a xmp sidecar file to contain your edits, any time you edit an image you should back up your xmp files.

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

I gotta admit I did not make that one up-it ain't my original. As I was typing, it showed up on my spell-check program in an ad to upgrade the app for an additional nominal fee. I plagiarized it- though it was appropriate for the thread!

These long protracted threads remind me of the "shaggy-dog stories" from my high school days. The idea was to make up a long convoluted story, drag it out and after an hour or two and come up with a very anti-climactic ending. If it was bad enough, the others could beat you up or at least, threaten you!

I managed to win one contest by making up a story about a man who gave up his workaday life, abandoned his family and set out to find the meaning of life. At the conclusion, he finds a guru who lives in an ice-crevis atop the Himalayas. At that point, the man is at the end of his days and clinging onto an icy cliff peering into the crevis. The little guru has a long white beard and huge eyes. He looks up and exclaims "LIFE IS A BALCK BUTTERLY"! The man becomes enraged and goes into a lengthy tirade screaming at the top of his lungs, "I gave up my life for this LIFE IS A BLACK BUTTERFLY CRAP"!!! The little guru looks up once again and says, "so it isn't"?

That's why I like Paul's philosophical quips- they sometimes end a long thread or enrage somebody!

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I can remember "jokes" like that being popular in the 60s. They fell out of fashion - I wonder why?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Is raw editable? No.
Is DNG editable? No - even if the thumbnail changes and the info kept in the container - Why 'No' then? The core image is unchanged.

By the way some raw files do store the information and a new thumbnail within the format. The core is image is unchanged.

Since you like more details...
A raw and DNG core file is extracted, changed then saved under a different format. You cannot save as a raw file.
The raw and DNG core file is unchanged. You cannot save as a DNG file (but you create a new one with the output)

And if you want to destroy a raw or DNG, just delete one or the other or blow up your computer for all I care.

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

I would agree that the core image data cannot be edited and are unchanged. But if you change the thumbnail and add or subtract edit information, the overall file has changed and has to be rewritten. Unless there's a way to keep the sector boundaries of the core image unchanged on the disk. Otherwise you write a whole new file to your disk.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

Bill, if you just had said "I take my jpeg(s) into ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to edit, the anthill wouldn't have been kicked. <shrug>

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

the term "getting it right in the camera" really doesn't mean anything. it's about getting it the way the photographer wants it. in the film days many pros and deep pocket amateurs used labs that knew any special methods they preferred in the prosessing of their film and the printing of their images. if "getting it right in the camera" was the end all be all, we wouldn't need hi-end editors.

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

The problem I see here is folks going to extremes, either insisting that every image MUST be straight out of the camera to be a valid to authentic "photograph" or on the other side of the argument that an unedited image will never reach its full potential. From a practical standpoint, neither of which is true.

Folks can take my advice or discard it but after over 50 years in professional photography, here's my take. As a professional photographer and studio operator, each day I have to produce a fair volume of photographs for my clients. I need to produce a high level of quality and ensure an efficient workflow in other to deliver on time and make deadlines. Even if you are not a professional photographer and do not have the same demands, you do want the best possible results in your work and want to produce it in an easy, convenient and consistent manner.

In a "nuts and bolts, approach, you needn't worry about splitting technological hairs and worry about photons, electrons and whether or not a certain degree of "processing" actually takes place in the camera. The science is nice to know but it is not always essential for consistently good work.

Back in the film era, we used to say "put it on the negative" meaning that a negative that is properly exposed, composed will yield a good print with a minimum of correctional or remedial control. Many portrait, wedding and even commercial photographers outsourced the colour photography processing, proofing and printing to professional colour labs. It was more economical to order prints made on automatic printing machines that could produce good colour and density but there was no burning, dodging or other corrective procedures available. So, photographers learned to control the exposure, composition, lighting, dynamic range in the camera. Wedding photographs, as an example, need to have fine detail in white wedding gowns and black formal attire as well as good skin tones. Even, as in my own case, I had my own in-house lab and did custom hand printing, I wanted consistency and easy and efficient workflow while maximizing quality.

It's simple enough- make the best possible image while you are shooting and minimize the amount of work that is needed in processing your images. If you have the time, facilities and skills, use the processing time to enhance a fine-tune each image and make creative decisions rather than having to waste time in tedious remedial actions.

OK, no more negatives, but I have taken my theory right into digital capture- "put it in the file" and fine-tune and maximize the quality in processing without having to waste time and sacrifice quality by sloppy shooting and tedious remedies. If you employ specialize exposure techniques such as "shooting to the right", etc, then post-processing is an essential part of the method.

Being a professional photographer does not make me or any of my contemporaries and cohorts, in the trade, necessarily better or more or less creative than amateurs or serious enthusiasts. It just that simply by necessity, we have to handle a lot of work, take on assignments under a wide variety of conditions and produce work in an efficient, profitable and timely manner. It's good to take advice from professionals and use whatever you can apply to your work- sometimes a tip or simple concept will help.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

"E.L.Sapiro" I agree with you, even though you shouldn't car what I think. I think you expressed it in simple understandable way. This is what this blog is about. Thanks

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I wouldn't say never reach its full potential, but I would say it would be very unusual to get a SOOC image that couldn't be improved in some way.

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

After all, this is a FORUM, more so than a blog. It's a place where folks SHOULD exchange ideas and should care what others think. If we can learn somethg, teach something, help someone- why not? Thanks for your comment.

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

I agree! After spending a good percentage of my life in the darkroom doing custom printing, I certainly get your meaning.

I recall training new technicians in the lab. The rookies would think I was "nutS" quickly waving my hands in the enlarger's light path- a little dodge or burn here or there or I would reject a print that just needed a little more attention.

I am not saying that every exposure I make is perfect either. Sometimes the conditions are bad and sometimes, I just mess up. I do. however, use each mess up as a learning experience and remember not to do "THAT" mistake next time around.

Modern post-processing methods offer lots more remedial applications than the analog darkroom. It's good to know that bad files can oftentimes be saved, I just don't count on it and prefer to watch my Ps & Qs when shooting whether possible.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

It would be equally rare to see a repair job that was as good as a proper capture would have been.