Posts for: David Taylor
Jan 3, 2021 13:51:51 #
tomad wrote:
And for those who should be!
Too few.
Jan 3, 2021 13:51:03 #
JFCoupe wrote:
My take on the RAW vs JPEG discussion. br 1. All ... (show quote)
Yeah, smart folk don't do raw.
Jan 3, 2021 13:49:52 #
Delderby wrote:
same as pidgin english 
Jan 3, 2021 13:49:14 #
Delderby wrote:
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. 
Yes, so often misused.
Jan 3, 2021 13:47:49 #
srt101fan wrote:
Don't you ever get tired of not saying anything? 
No. I know you look forward to reading it.
Jan 3, 2021 13:34:32 #
controversy wrote:
Yet another unsupported assertion. At long last, have you nothing of substance to say?
You're hiding your ineptitude behind post processing.
Jan 3, 2021 13:32:21 #
Canisdirus wrote:
Well, the original question sort of infers the debate.
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 13:25:45 #
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 13:24:07 #
srt101fan wrote:
He's been spying on the "majority"; that's how he knows. Maybe he works for Google? 
You would love to know.
Jan 3, 2021 13:23:23 #
controversy wrote:
Ah, love your approach of directing me to go find evidence to support your assertions: a classic technique of trolls, the uninformed, and the intellectually lazy.
Does there ever come a point in your communications where you actually read the information posted by others and then respond with actual, thoughtful, considered information of your own? Is your intent to provide trite, vapid comments or, perhaps, is it just your nature?
Does there ever come a point in your communications where you actually read the information posted by others and then respond with actual, thoughtful, considered information of your own? Is your intent to provide trite, vapid comments or, perhaps, is it just your nature?
You're scared to admit the truth.
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 13:02:27 #
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 13:01:14 #
controversy wrote:
You say "majority" but I see no support for that opinion. Tag, you're it.
Go look in the Gallery for evidence of those who should not be post processing.
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.