rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

ISO - 400
Exposure - 1/250 @ f/5.6
--Bob

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Please, I am not only into snapshots. This is the age of digital, there are very few times you cannot get it right from the beginning, you can preview the pic, the histogram etc. When you cannot, shoot both, but that is rare. I am shooting a friends daughter's wedding and will shoot some raw because it is so important. and will be moving and will not have time to check my pics. But those times are rare. It is like those guys out there with tripods when the lighting is sunny f16, not necessary. Would rather shoot a bunch than lugging around that tripod.

grit Loc: Brooksville, Fl

:-D

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

I herewith dip a toe into this too-hot water with great trepidation, as I have read and read and read countless “angels on the head of a pin” arguments about RAW vs. Jpeg. Sometimes the argument waxeth hot, as with Sunni vs. Shia, or Protestant vs. Catholic (and for centuries perfectly good folks have slaughtered one another in job lots over such differences).

You can easily look up my credentials. I am relatively new to digital. I just joined up last week because I am always looking to improve. I will never be an artist—haven’t got the DNA—but I think I have some ability to compose and expose. My very first digital, a tiny hundred-buck Nikon L12 in 2007, had no RAW option. It wasn’t until I upgraded to my third camera, a Nikon P7000, that I shot my first RAW, but I couldn’t process it. Nikon’s came-with-the-camera software was frankly incomprehensible to me and I could not find a Dummies book for it (I am waaaaay reliant on Dummies books ‘cuz I are one). My PSE 4.1 couldn’t open NRW files, so I just kept shooting everything in the highest quality Jpeg. I still do.

Exposure is another issue (I am thinking of opening that can of worms too, but not here), but I quickly grasped that overexposure was not good with digital. I’m old B&W film guy—expose for the shadow, develop for the highlight. After a very few outings I started basically exposing for the highlight and developing for the shadow. Seemed to work. I totally get that there could be advantages for me in RAW, but I also see folks who argue passionately for Jpeg only. I cannot speak to the argument since I have never yet processed a RAW file (but I got a newer computer and upgraded to PSE-11 which can handle NRW files, and I HAVE THE DUMMIES BOOK Yay!!!). But the question remains, do I really need to shoot raw if I’m (in my opinion anyway) doing okay with Jpegs? BigDaddy on another thread on the same subject wrote: “There are good reason for some to shoot raw, but most of us don't need the hassle, and for good reason. Much of the stuff you read about raw is bogus, and you will see a ton of huffing and puffing along the lines of "real men shoot raw" garbage. I've seen the T-shirt."

I wanted to show an example from my “earliest days.” I rummaged back through my 2007 files to find something that I had not previously worked over (at the time I needed a little experience to grasp that you must “save as” and never touch the original file so that, as skill level rises, you can go back and rework it, much like a negative you can reprint). Here is a shot made on a bleakly overcast day. It was by the roadside somewhere in the Great American West (I forget where *sob*). We yanked the car onto the shoulder and spilled out to take it in, bleak light or not, and I made this exposure across the fireweed. I made several others that I actually liked better, but I didn’t “save as” so I no longer have the original untouched files. A few minutes ago I spent 10 minutes in PSE-11 getting the second version, slightly cropped to remove excess plant stems. I’m an old B&W guy, as I said, so I tend to use dodging and burning tools just like my darkroom…

One thing: it's important to remember that this picture was made with a really-not-very-sharp point-and-shoot job, not a high-end full-frame DSLR… :-D

JPEG original, SOOC (I remember it looking WAAAY better, brighter on the camera screen)


Reworked this morning in PSE-11, mostly to look like I remember the original scene.

wildbil56 Loc: San Antonio, TX

Nice recovery, but aircraft is Marine Corps CH-53E Super Stallion, the only H-3's the Marines fly have white tops and transport the President. I was a Crew Chief on the older CH-53D Sea Stallions.

napabob Loc: Napa CA

now I want a t-shirt ;-)

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

5 seconds in PS

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

20 seconds in PS

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

OOOoooh-kaaay, Larry—maybe I spent only 5 minutes. I did a little level twiddling and dodging and burning and a eensy bit of saturation sponging in the fireweed, and I had to make decisions and everything. And I cropped. You didn't crop. I cropped, even. :lol: :lol: :lol:

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Not the point, point is, with today's technology, it doesn't take as long, had it been my pic would've spent at least a minute more. :)

Nightski

I don't need anymore reasons that this. :-D

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

:thumbup:

Moxie Loc: Pensacola, FL

I never shoot anything that is not in RAW... it makes no sense to shoot jpg when you have all the control in RAW.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

To each his own, it does make sense to some.
It makes no sense to shoot RAW if you can get it right in jpeg. And, most of the time, you can.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's the spirit. It's somewhat like the difference between photographing using Polaroid camera and using a film camera. One does all the work with the operator doing nothing more than pushing a button. The other allows for the creative side of the work to be done by the operator and, thus, a more personal amount of input to the final image.

The example posted was not exactly a creative moment. It was a reaction to a fleeting scene and lack of preparation on my part. However, the image was workable in post.

Thanks for looking and commenting.
--Bob