BlackRipleyDog

I think I just illustrated that; "a well-processed image....", as you posited. Fortunately or unfortunately, file types can't be divorced from the discussion. If I only had the jpg's to work with, I doubt I could of pulled it off because of the decreased latitude the jpg's gave me and I would probably of round-filed the whole effort as I would not of seen the diamond-in-the-rough as I could not open the shadows. I will admit that I have rescued other images when I only had the jpg's but in processing those, I introduced artifacts into the image which made printing large, problematic. My tipping point for rejecting an image is on a hair-trigger.
On what constitutes a good image, that is so subjective. Are you referring to the more mundane technical aspects like the "rule-of-thirds", exposure, noise, distortion, off-camera flash and so on? We know good composition when we see it. Most of us understand how to crop. Fewer still understand histograms and how to use them.
To me a good image is the product of a lot of things coming together to grab my attention and hold it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I don't want to belittle your efforts. You certainly did a nice job on that example. If you enjoyed the effort and got satisfaction from the result, that's great.

It's easy for those who like to create an image from raw to come up with examples that cannot be done any other way. But don't dismiss those who can provide examples where JPEG is just as good.

Consider this - not all photography is landscape. There is a lot of other subject matter that in most cases can be rendered nicely with a carefully executed JPEG and it does not require you spending hours at your computer crafting the final image. Those of us who started off learning how to use Kodachrome have always known this.

Let's not kid ourselves either. The very best landscape photographers don't capture JPEG or raw on 24x36 mm sensors. They use medium format digital if they can afford it or they work with medium and large format film.

In most situations the scene's dynamic range (DR) does not exceed the capability of a carefully exposed JPEG or transparency film. This even includes most landscapes, just not the ones that are back-lit.

Even in situations with wider than normal DR, Active-D lighting (or by any other name) can recover as much shadow detail as you might want.

Many forms of photography use artificial light or reflectors and the art is in the lighting, not the post processing.

There are plenty of situations where the photographer needs a large number of images and manually processing individual images from raw would be tedious.

If all you have is a hammer (a 24x36 mm sensor) then you might be forgiven for thinking that everything looks like a nail.

The bottom line is subject matter. A well executed image of a boring subject can easily be trumped by a properly composed and exposed image of something more appealing.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

My question is: Which of the two images most replicated what you recall that your eye saw?

steve49 Loc: massachusetts

this is a shia- sunni battle.. will go on through the ages.

shoot what you like and good luck with it.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Opinions on how to take and or process photos do Very little for your portfolio. Getting up from the computer and actually going out in the field and Taking photographs adds to the portfolio. We can and do beat this subject to death but you have to put the time in. You have to have the camera in hand and be there when the light is perfect, when that perfect cloud formation drifts overhead, when that bird dives down to catch the fish. Talking about capturing photographs gives you Zero results. Apply your thoughts with action, quit talking about it.............

steve49 Loc: massachusetts

right on martin

Bill_de Loc: US

Because you are hung up on raw vs jpg. Although you say you want to get away from it, the first thing you did in this thread was compare a raw and jpg image. You could have just posted two images without mentioning file type ... except that wouldn't made this another raw vs jpg.

No reason you can't keep harping on the subject, it is an open forum. But I think you are fooling yourself more than anyone else.

---

cthahn

If you do not understand RAW and the process, and are not interested in using it, then don't. Some picture takers will spend a life time arguing that JPeg is as good as RAW. Enter your photographs in some contests being judged by professionals and see how well you do. It is all about light. With out it you will have a picture.

BlackRipleyDog

The second.

BlackRipleyDog

You mean by not talking about it like this: www.500px.com/southbranchlakegallery

Jerry G Loc: Waterford, Michigan and Florida

Comparing jpg to raw is like comparing a print from a film negative to the negative. The jpg is processed from the raw data before it is saved in the camera, you have lost some of the data and some pp options.

Jim Bob

You ain't never lied.

leftj Loc: Texas

So what if someones likes to know the camera, lens and settings for a photograph? Why are you obsessing over that?

leftj Loc: Texas

Only if you're not interested in the continuous pursuit of creating great images.

leftj Loc: Texas

There's not a subject raised on UHH that hasn't been raised before. Your derogatory worthless comments are a case in point.