friedeye Loc: Los Angeles

Roger, I might be crazy, but for me, it's the complications that make Sunny 16 interesting and satisfying. I'm in the TV business and was on a set where Gerry Perry Finnerman was the DP (this was way back). He was asleep in his chair and the gaffer jostled him awake for a light reading. Gerry snorted, lifted his head for a quick look, said "5.6" and went right back to sleep. The exposure was dead on.

I've alway wanted to have that eye. Not there yet, but trying.

friedeye Loc: Los Angeles

I can't tell you how many duplicate images I have of some photos - each with a different tweak. I'm amazed at how I can back to an image and see it in a completely different way.

Iowegan

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Enjoyed reading your manifesto... Just have one comment about your fouth and final point.

This forum is saturated with Raw users squeezing every last bit of data out of their camera for PP. When is it enough? There is already so much data in a compressed JPG, people kid themselves into thinking they can actually distinguish the difference between two prints: one using the camera PP and the other using Raw PP. I'm not saying there is no good use for Raw, but everytime I see a post with an underexposed photo resurrected by the "gift of Raw", it makes me laugh. If this is what Raw is good for, then no thank you.

So yes, the equipment has indeed exceeded the requirements and talent of most photographers.

friedeye Loc: Los Angeles

I think you're probably right, Merlin. At least for most people. But I appreciate the extended dynamic range of RAW. And then there are those of us who shoot with problematic cameras, like my M9, which has - in this day and age and at that price point - an utterly shameful crappy automatic white balance. My iPhone is a hundred times better. Actually, just about any camera made is a hundred times better.

RAW allows me to make perfect, and infinite, adjustments in Lightroom. JPEGs simply don't do as well.

senad55verizon.net Loc: Milford, NJ

Your words express a serious resentment of those who use Camera Raw to process their image files. Where does that come from? "This forum is saturated with Raw users squeezing every last bit of data out of their camera for PP." Really? Have you counted? What is saturation, in this forum?? Do you disdain those with less talent or experience than you?

"I'm not saying there is no good use for Raw, but everytime I see a post with an underexposed photo resurrected by the "gift of Raw", it makes me laugh." How in the world do you identify such a picture, and what's funny about it? Is nudging the Exposure slider in Camera Raw some kind of photographically reprehensible act?

I'm just asking for a little more tolerance in these pages for those who see things differently and do things differently than you might see as ideal or ethical or even moral. There is no canon here, nor should there be.

(And I don't mean Canon; there are lots of those.)

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

It was an emotional reaction to the poster's fourth point. My apologies if you felt attacked in anyway. If you are curious about how I really feel about this topic (not just by one post), you are more than welcome to sift through my other posts. On the other hand, if you are satisfied with your view of my "ethical and moral" character based on the above post, that is your choice. I won't support or contest it in this thread. Perhaps I will write my own personal manifesto someday. :-)

My "unemotional" point is that I agree with the poster, and I think it was very well written.

tlbuljac Loc: Oklahoma

Ditto

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Photography is an art, a craft, a past-time, a hobby and a profession. Each of us has our own needs and capabilities. What is good for one is not good for someone else.

Let's each of us enjoy it as we see fit and not put down the other persons styles, abilities or preferences.

There is a big difference between constructive and nasty criticism. I hope we can all learn to do the first.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Whoops! Wrong kind of manifesto. I was expecting something about revolution and bombs. I get my forums mixed up sometimes.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I think a "cannon" was mentioned, but it was misspelled. Hopefully, Roger didn't see it. :-)