Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: David Taylor
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 54 next>>
Jan 3, 2021 11:37:13   #
No, you just ran out of arguments.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 11:35:41   #
.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 11:08:14   #
SalvageDiver wrote:
yep


Someone else process it for you?
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 11:06:36   #
Ysarex wrote:
You're using a digital camera: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-598415-1.html#10275516

All digital photos are post processed as has already been noted. A final SOOC JPEG is heavily processed. Film images were post processed and often departed from reality: https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/pharrell-cover-controversial-magazine-covers-16328228/image-16328306
Whether the photo is faithful to reality or not is entirely a function of the operator and has little to do with how the photo is processed. Relying on SOOC JPEGs to ensure reality in a photo is foolish. Which of the two photos below depicts the reality of the scene. They are both SOOC JPEGs of the same scene at the same time taken at the same exposure. So they both show the same reality? Why are they so different if not for post processing applied in the camera? Why is the color different I didn't change the camera WB? What really is the color of that fish candle holder? How is that not post-processing done in the camera?

You seem to be objecting to the option post processing presents to add or remove items from a photo. That also has been with us since the earliest days of film: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/302289

That is entirely an operator choice and not the result of the processing method. News organizations require SOOC JPEGs because they want to protect themselves from disreputable actors and although SOOC JPEGs won't prevent something like the OJ photo from happening it will at least prevent object addition/removal. It won't however prevent staging: https://historydaily.org/alexander-gardner-civil-war-fake-news

I use post processing of raw files in order to be more faithful to reality than the camera software can creating a JPEG. That's also an option. If you really want to capture the reality of how the scene appeared, post processing a raw file allows you to do that far better than accepting the post processed SOOC JPEG.
You're using a digital camera: https://www.uglyhed... (show quote)


Shameless manipulation of innocent pixels.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 11:04:53   #
Ysarex wrote:
Meaningless trolling.


No it isn't. You're just miffed because you can't win.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 11:01:08   #
wmurnahan wrote:
I see no reason to shoot jpeg except news shooting where you are uploading right away for the press. You never want to start out limiting yourself. One can always make a jpeg, you can't go backwards and make a raw from a jpeg.


Well that's it settled then. Where were you on page 1?
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:58:45   #
williejoha wrote:
This discussion seems to be endless. Seldom did anybody take a shot where everything was perfect. Most of it was sheer luck of being at the right place at the right time, which is seldom. All the GREAT’s manipulated their shots at one way or another. What used to take place in the darkroom, is now taking place in front of the screen. I am 100% sure that this will not be the last time this exercise in futility will take place on this forum. IMHO
WJH


Only 100%?
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:57:07   #
grichie5 wrote:
I cannot agree with your comment.

First, let me state I shoot only for my own pleasure and have been shooting in raw almost since it first became available.

Using the attached image as an example, The backlighting made exposure a challenge but I was able to tweak the exposure and contrast in Lightroom. Then I lowered the highlights to get more detail in the bright areas of the feathers. There was a cleat and a metal band around the pile which seemed a distraction, so they were cloned out in PS. The pile had a slight tilt to the right which was corrected and the image sharpened. Finally, came cropping. I could not get closer to the bird for fear of causing it to fly off. Much of the background, both mangroves and water seemed irrelevant so I cropped much of it out and was able to place the bird in a position to enhance composition.

So even though I was able to get "it right in the camera," many of the enhancements were only available by processing some corrections made available by having shot in Raw.
I cannot agree with your comment. br br First, l... (show quote)


And very nice it is too. You do understand the difference between "many" and "all"?
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:54:08   #
Longshadow wrote:
I'm here, you are there.


Prove it.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:51:57   #
SalvageDiver wrote:
exactly


Ever shoot Kodachrome?
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:51:01   #
Longshadow wrote:
Duh, I'm not in the internet, I'm in America.


Not everyone "here" is in "America", whatever that imprecise location means.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:43:39   #
jlg1000 wrote:
¿What was the subject of this thread?


Intransigence.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:41:42   #
Longshadow wrote:
Sorry, we speak American English here.


Duh. The internet is not American.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:40:22   #
srt101fan wrote:
Please tell this "colonist" where it says only acronyms can be capitalized....

I watched all of Downton Abbey and that never came up...😢


So you were the one.
Go to
Jan 3, 2021 10:39:36   #
Longshadow wrote:
Blimey!
I hafta get me one of them thar things.
Get me some good book learnin'.


Lol.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 54 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.