btbg

We don't have a printer. We have a 40 year old four color press. The press we have is about the same as what a lot of small papers have. Without new technologies and new software there isn't a choice. The editors aren't being brainless, they are working with the press and software that we have. 1998 would actually be an upgrade, but that's not the editors fault. Sure it would be nice to have a press that would work with sRGB, but we are still outputting our pdf files to film. It's old school, but in case you hadn't noticed newspapers aren't making the money to do expensive upgrades.

btbg

'When a camera creates an hdr image it may be fine. But it's the same argument as the jpeg vs raw. You get one choice and limited ability to change it post production versus more freedom to explore and try new things. It's not a better or worse, it's just the freedom to alter the image the way you want to after the fact.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

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.

btbg

apology accepted. You have largely been the voice of reason in this discussion. I just do what I can with what we have to work with. For my own stuff it's sRGB all the way.

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

Hello: I also shoot jpeg images, in fact I do not use the raw setting at all. I have had several encounters with other photographers asking me how I do my post processing. When I tell them I only shoot jpeg images many do not believe me. In fact shooting jpeg requires a lot more skill and talent, you have to be able to get it right the first time. If you are happy with your jpeg images it means that you are a very accomplished photographer and you do not need crutches.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I'm glad to hear that you are a very accomplished photographer. I'm not, so I shoot raw only. But even if I were more accomplished I'd probably shoot raw only. Shooting raw forces me to postprocess my photos. My processor of choice is Lightroom, primarily because of the catalog. At my age my memory isn't enough to remember what shots I took last year, let alone several years ago. The LR catalog allows me to bring up old shoots based on the keywords I add to them. I add most of the keywords at import time and refine them during processing.

Most of my shots don't require a lot of processing. But I'm not locked into a specific aspect ratio so cropping gets a lot of attention. The events I shoot are frequently fast paced so I don't have time to fiddle with camera settings. Shooting raw allows me to do a lot of that in post. If I only did static scenes, I could probably get away with shooting jpg only. I could still import them into LR and add keywords, but if I'm feeling lazy I might not do that and try to save myself some time now. That means I'd have to spend more time later to try to find those shots.

Having the raw files means I can play around with the images later. Transmogrify them into new things. Have fun during the long winter months. I'm not locked into a single interpretation of the image. And even the bad shots are useful as learning tools. They allow me to learn how to improve things in post. Practice with Photoshop. It's always fun to learn new things.

Shooting raw only is right for me. If it's not right for you, that's OK. Everyone has their own style.

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Either that or you are clueless and happy with crappy images, or don't understand how to make good images better. I guess the great majority of professional and advanced amateur photographers, who shoot raw in conjunction with post processing, don't know how to shoot and need crutches. Good for you.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

tturner,

I am glad to read you are happy with your .jpg images, I do have one question for you to consider.

When you shoot a scene with a very wide range of exposure values (bright sky, deep shadows), how do you keep the jpg file conversion in camera from over, or under exposing the scene?

We know with film a bright sky can be adjusted with Exposure Compensation to render a nicely captures sky and mid tones. But, at the expense of sending the darker element into severely under-exposed elements. We know we can perform Exposure Compensation on the darker elements at the expense of severely over-exposing the sky. We can except these shortcomings and print unacceptable images.

From the digital world we know the camera sensor has a much wider exposure range than a film camera, and we know the camera sensor captures the scene in a RAW format first. Then it can convert the captured image into a .jpg file format. We know the conversion to .jpg will compress the captured image for reducing the image file size, and this reduction (compression) reduces a lot of image data information that will be lost forever.


If a RAW file can capture 20% more toward the over-exposure, and 20% more toward the under-exposed elements of the scene, why not use the extra RAW data to blend into the final image. Then save the the adjusted image into an internationally accepted file format .jpg?

Michael G

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Do what you like - I do. JPG only shooters do understand what RAW is and how PP can sometimes do more for RAW than for JPG.
Most shooters like a challenge. Some take up the challenge where it all starts (the camera). Others at the computer.
But never make the mistake of thinking computers will make up for a lack of photography skill.

Armadillo Loc: Ventura, CA

:thumbup: :thumbup:

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I don't think some of the JPEG only shooters here, who are virtually zealots when it comes to this subject, would agree with the bolded sentence above at all. Some see raw as ONLY useful to compensate for poor skills, not to enhance an already good image.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again. Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Exactly. However, I know The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.... but I'm not telling. :)

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth" technique. it is an in camera burning and dodging technique we learned in the days of film. By so doing you can produce excellent quality images without the need for any image management programs, or expensive graduated n/d filters. So get out there, get rid of the training wheels and learn to ride on your own.