Bill MN Loc: Western MN

Looks like you live in Maine. Look for a book on trees and shrubs of Maine or the North East. Trees are interesting to study especially trying to figure out if they are male or female, or both. Some species are so similar they have to use DNA to tell for sure. Take pictures when its nice outside, figure them out when the weather is not so good. At least a tree does not fly away like a bird just when your about the push the button.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

In the flora and fauna world you want the picture colors like mother nature made them. At least I do.

LennyP4868 Loc: NJ

You are correct you have to get the best pic out of the camera and not spend all day in PS or LR where did you get the book. I would be interested in purchasing one

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

It is much more efficient to get it right in camera, then you don't have to spend time in front of a computer to fix what could have been done in camera.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

I ordered a book from Barnes & Nobel. I've learned if your interested in something get the best reference book or you end up with lot of small books with not much info.

Bill MN Loc: Western MN

:thumbup: :thumbup:

a2000c Loc: ND

We called it darkroom technique back then. We burned and dodged...even created cutouts for masking...used different colored filters for warming, tinting...etc. Now we call it PP.

I no longer spend hours working on one print...

I love "darkroom technique" now.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Rant switch on

In short, hogwash. You may not be actively manipulating the photo but you make set up decisions in the camera settings that are then automatically applied by the in-camera processor (that really is a computer you have in your hands; it just happens to have a lens on the front).

In the days of film, the decisions were incorporated into the film layers and their reactions to light, just before the chemical processing was applied.

So enough of this "I don't believe in processing crap". Because that is all it is.

Rant switch off

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am surprised that a book on nature photography has been entirely shot with JPEG files and that the only manipulation done to the photographs has been cropping.
Modern cameras are very capable when it comes to JPEG files and I use JPEG files often, perhaps more than RAW. I do not get my colors always right and that is mainly the result of an improper WB. A cloudy seting in my experience has not always been right and a sunny setting has not been either, especially in the middle of summer when the high levels of UV radiation impart a cyan cast to the file. During editing I make the necessary adjustments.
When it comes to colors I favor Standard or Neutral settings in Color Control but at times I am not entirely satisfied with the colors and I know a lift is required in the way of saturation to make them more natural than they really are. At times I desaturate the colors to make them more realistic and a typical case is when the file gains in contrast.
I am old school, I shot film for more than 50 years before entering the digital era and slide film was my favorite media. We could pick a film based on its palette to give us the colors we liked. Kodachrome 64 was my favorite.
Digital is not only convenient but also it offers advantages we could not possibly have at the time while using film and one of those was manipulation after the fact. I use software to enhance my photography but I am very careful keeping reality. I do not want you to misunderstand me, we are all different and we should use what fits our taste and photographic style.
As I said, modern JPEG files are of excellent quality (Large-Fine) and I use them often and some of my best enlargements have come from those files. RAW requires especial software to edit and each RAW file uses proprietary software or periodic modifications to the RAW processing machine used by Photoshop. Those files, unless converted to TIFF or JPEG cannot be opened by other softwares.
There is an artist inside each of us with a different vision and different ways of doing things.
It is as simple as sticking to what we are used to and to what works best for us.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Duh! The gig did not pay enough to whip out the Hasselblad?

RRRoger Loc: Monterey Bay, California

Whether Film, RAW, or JPEG, nearly all photos can benefit from some Post Processing.

However, I think the point is that Nikon cameras are so good (the digital ones keep getting better) that post processing is now often unnecessary to get really stunning results.

I shoot (highest quality settings) large fine JPEGs not RAW.
Why?
I like to take thousands of photographs not spend endless hours in the Lab.
If set up right, and using the right "Glass" the percentage of "Keepers" can be quite high.
"Good Enough" is now usually better than what I got with film and I do not have to wait for Film or Post Processing to get my results.
And thanks to Nikon, I can get an instant replay on the LCD that is "Good Enough" to tell me if I need another shot now instead of coming back later. And if that is not "Good Enough" for you, you can review the shot in the field with your 4k laptop.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Don't be so harsh. It is a misconception and a learning opportunity that has presented itself. We all have questions etc. and none are bad. Just an opportunity to learn as this is the purpose of this forum.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Natural, really? What type of film? Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Agfachrome, Fujichrome, Fujicolor, Kodacolor, Vericolor II, Vericolor III, and on and on. Every single type and subtype of color film has its own look. The professional types of film even came with suggested CC filter pack for each patch of the film. I would imagine that it took him years to collect so many photographs of trees, not likely he used the same film for all of them. Like another person pointed out, photography is not reality but an abstraction of reality. Sure you can calibrate your film or digital to match the red on a Coca-cola can, but what is the standard for a specific tree? White balance can be applicable to film, but it is just that a balance to white, every film has a different response to colors curve. They all have a look. Kodachromes usually warm, Ektachromes usually cool.

When I worked at a museum we would by film by the cases of the same batch so it all would be the same for several months or years. And I should point out even Black & White films all differ (tone curves, contrast, grain, etc.); Tri-X, Plus-X, Panatomic-X, Technical Pan, T-Max 100, T-Max 400, HP5, FP4, negatives all look very different (to me anyway).

Your book is similar to a situation I had in university once ages ago. I had a really loopy ecology professor who had been photographing the same area in Chino, CA near the prison for years looking for changes in vegetation. In class he was showing us slides of an area that he had photographed in 1968 and 1978 and wanted us to note the differences in the colors of the vegetation, hue and tone. Yes, there were differences. But since I knew somethings about photography I asked him, "Did you use the same type of film, Kodachrome 25 or say Ektachrome 40, and film from the same batch?" He was completely befuddled. He had no understanding of what I was asking. He was drawing conclusions based on non-sense. Color photography in that way can rarely be used for scientific purposes unless color patches and a grey scale are included in the image. You may remember how they calibrate the cameras on the Mars Rovers -- there are US Flags and NASA emblems and color standards painted on the vehicle.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

:thumbup:

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I would have thought that most people on the UHH had used film before, perhaps I am wrong in thinking that. So many films, so many choices, so many (different) colors from them.