A good photo is dependent upon many factors. SOME light is one of them. Many great photographs are made in poor light. Many great *human experiences* occur in poor light. I think you have to consider the subject and the circumstances...

Good thoughts here! Even our eyes have noise in low light. We also lose color depth in a manner that is similar to a reduction in signal-to-noise ratio.

Go to www.jkost.com where Julieanne Kost hides her stash of videos. She is one of the best photo educators of all time.

Control freaks shoot in Manual mode. We like to choose appropriate settings for the exact outcome we want in a JPEG, even when using RAW as well.

Auto modes have their uses, but guarantee inconsistency. I try to use an exposure target and set both manual exposure and custom white balance before photographing a scene. It's a habit left over from the 60's that hasn't disappointed me very often.

I have Toric lenses in both eyes. I see 20/20 from six feet to infinity, and with 2X readers, can deal with close work. 1.75X readers are right for computer work.

I'd rather see clearly to drive than read (without glasses). It took six years for my vision to sharpen completely after surgery, but it was worth it.

That's like saying a PowerBook G4, a great notebook computer in 2005, was still a great computer in 2008, when the MacBook Pro came into its prime. It wasn't. The MBP smoked it. It was 3 to 5 times faster. I dumped the PB G4 as fast as I could. Also dumped my Dell L610 drive image into the MacBook Pro using Parallels, so I no longer needed to carry a PC.

Point: Technology always moves on. Greats of the past are not always great for current use. They don't change, but our needs and expectations do.

In the 1960s, NC was known as "Variety Vacationland", because there is so much here. We have lots of great places along the coast, in the mountains, and in the Piedmont region where I've spent most of my life.

This is one of the few places in the USA with as much opportunity, history, geographic variety, climate variety, and cultural variety. So many people came to Charlotte between 1964 and 2014 that it more than tripled in size.

Scenery is just one small reason to be here.

R

You missed my point entirely. Editing in 16-bit TIFF does not and cannot replace or repair what was lost when an original JPEG was saved. What it DOES do is to divide each tone into more and smaller values *when you pull curves or adjust brightness, contrast, and other characteristics.* This most definitely creates smoother transitions in the *adjusted* output!

It's a technique used in several high end lab software packages --- they up-convert to a higher bit depth, do all image adjustments at the higher bit depth, then down-convert to 8 bits and export JPEG files. There is no advantage if you *don't* adjust, but better tonal smoothness if you need to adjust.

Forget the academic arguments and just try it!

Conestee Falls (near Brevard) and Upper Whitewater Falls (in the corner of the state near GA and SC), are my favorites.

If you have time, and like wine, visit some of the NC wineries.

Actually, this is a HUGE state, about 505 miles long. We are the 9th most populous, as well. There is so much here, you might not want to leave!

My apologies! OTOH, there are many who cling to older workflow habits, even when their systems would work fine with new methods. I've seen people send CMYK files to RIPs that would translate RGB with better results, especially with proper profiling of the paper/ink in use.

There are at least 45 flavors of TIFF. And PSD files can be read by many applications besides Photoshop. Both formats are great for intermediate storage while editing, as well as long term storage. But the level of discussion here is getting way too deep for most to follow!

Yeah, I still have a working 1971 Nikon FTn and a working, special, pin-registered Nikon F3, both with long and storied careers behind them. Nikon's high end bodies are built tough.

But the D2x electronics are not in the same league as the D4s or even the D3. While great in their day, the state of the art evolved tremendously.

You miss the point, which I probably did not make clear. Converting the 8-bit data to 16-bits allows smoother tonal transitions when adjusting brightness, color, saturation, contrast... In short, if you have a lot of adjustments to make, you can retain more subtlety by editing in 16-bit mode.

This is especially important on underexposed images. Adjusting an underexposed JPEG is never any fun, but doing it in 16-bit mode avoids some of the posterization and flatness that would otherwise result.

The other point of using TIFF is that it is (can be) completely non-destructive. You can save it as often as you like, with no compression artifacts at all, reserving re-compression as JPEG for the final step.

If you're making lots of edits (masking, burning, dodging, retouching, compositing, blending, blurring, sharpening, adjusting saturation, exposure, etc., then doing so in TIFF — or as Photoshop PSD — is safer.

I would agree that minor editing (a quick brightness adjustment, minor retouching, and cropping) can be done as JPEG, simply saving one time at the end of the process. Indeed, I work that way on occasion.

Workflow options are just that — options. There is NO one best workflow for every situation — just the one that makes sense for the content.

The "decrease in f/stops" mentioned is the *equivalent depth of field*. f/2.8 is f/2.8 as far as exposure is concerned. But on smaller format sensors, it can look like f/4.5 or f/5.6. Some photographers are shallow depth of field freaks, so decreasing apparent bokeh offends them. Others appreciate the increase in depth of field when photographing certain subjects with smaller sensors and shorter focal lengths.

Comparing a D3 or D4s against a D2x is like comparing a 2014 Lexus RX350 against a 2004 Corolla Matrix. Both will go from point A to point B, but the experience is different.

Article is designed to sell accessories — a camera store's highest profit margin items.

Not that you don't need them...