Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main Photography Discussion
Maybe it's about a good image, a well-processed image and not about RAW/JPG
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 next>>
May 19, 2017 08:39:30   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
Why can't we move forward on this...let's talk image not file...what are the components of a good image, technical as well as aesthetic? In either file format...


Hmm - I thought it was about image.
 
May 19, 2017 08:42:55   #
bw79st
 
I look at this way: Let's go back to 1996 and ask the question, would you rather use Extachrome and a Kodak mailer or will Seattle Film Works do just as well for your purposes?
May 19, 2017 08:47:05   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
bw79st wrote:
I look at this way: Let's go back to 1996 and ask the question, would you rather use Extachrome and a Kodak mailer or will Seattle Film Works do just as well for your purposes?


As they say in the TV commercial. "That's not really the same."
May 19, 2017 08:53:40   #
davyboy (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing RAW or JPEG.

But maybe the conversation needs to be about something else. Maybe it should be about the quality of the overall image, both from a processing perspective and from an image formation perspective, i.e., what is a good photograph, both technically and aesthetically? Maybe it's not so much about file type. I see many photographs on this site that I'd call a snapshot (and snapshots, too, are ok at the right moment and are the keepers of our history at times) more than a photograph where someone is trying to form an artistic image in the endeavor of photography and then many people respond with how great the image is, which I often fail to see (maybe my shortcoming). I am aware that are various levels of photography and photographers and various goals in photography.

What I do know is that if you take a jpg and use it straight out of the camera (no human processing at all) it lacks that personal touch and the artistic perspective that you alone, as a human being and the photographer who took the shot, can give the photograph. Those of us who do take RAW photographs automatically do this as RAW requires processing. So, maybe the conversation should be about how we all, as individuals, actually form and process our images.

I've included below two images below, one is a RAW image (#1 - bottom) that I processed to meet what I saw and wanted to share, the other photo is straight out of the camera, untouched. I will say that the in-camera JPG processing (#2 - top photo) did not account for the degree of bright light, especially in the water in the forefront at the right side. It also made everything much darker than I would have chose to portray the scene. This scene, to me, was about the light shining on the boats and the lovely clouds in the sky (to which I added some drama). (A view from the deck of a motel I was staying at on the estuary in Oakland, CA.) The purple you see in the water on the RAW file only came across when imported on this site and might be because of the darkness of the water. Nikon D800, 24-120 Nikon lens, Fine Quality JPEG taken at same time as RAW, both exported at 2,000 pixels across for import here, 150 ppi, ISO 100, 120mm distance, f/11, 1/1000 of a second. I know someone will want to know this.

Click on the Download to see the photo larger to actually tell the difference between the human-processed photo (RAW version) and the machine-processed photo (JPEG version).

What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing R... (show quote)

What exactly is the difference between a photo and a snap shot? In the end could they all be called pictures
May 19, 2017 09:02:34   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
davyboy wrote:
What exactly is the difference between a photo and a snap shot? In the end could they all be called pictures


or images, or shots, or photographs.
May 19, 2017 09:16:21   #
Cykdelic (a regular here)
 
via the lens wrote:
The topic of processing and/or creating good images? The process of attempting to create an image that is "yours," not the camera's? I'm always interested in learning more about image creation.




The camera is inanimate........it's a dead "object".......until you aim it and at the least press the shutter button. As such, ALL images are the photographers and not the cameras!
 
May 19, 2017 09:22:35   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
Cykdelic wrote:
The camera is inanimate........it's a dead "object".......until you aim it and at the least press the shutter button. As such, ALL images are the photographers and not the cameras!


Actually, they're both.
May 19, 2017 09:34:06   #
Cykdelic (a regular here)
 
leftj wrote:
Actually, they're both.



Actually, not. We are still at the point where the camera is nothing without the human. With no camera, the human can still draw, yes?
May 19, 2017 09:35:35   #
Armadillo
 
via the lens wrote:
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing RAW or JPEG.

But maybe the conversation needs to be about something else. Maybe it should be about the quality of the overall image, both from a processing perspective and from an image formation perspective, i.e., what is a good photograph, both technically and aesthetically? Maybe it's not so much about file type. I see many photographs on this site that I'd call a snapshot (and snapshots, too, are ok at the right moment and are the keepers of our history at times) more than a photograph where someone is trying to form an artistic image in the endeavor of photography and then many people respond with how great the image is, which I often fail to see (maybe my shortcoming). I am aware that are various levels of photography and photographers and various goals in photography.

What I do know is that if you take a jpg and use it straight out of the camera (no human processing at all) it lacks that personal touch and the artistic perspective that you alone, as a human being and the photographer who took the shot, can give the photograph. Those of us who do take RAW photographs automatically do this as RAW requires processing. So, maybe the conversation should be about how we all, as individuals, actually form and process our images.

I've included below two images below, one is a RAW image (#1 - bottom) that I processed to meet what I saw and wanted to share, the other photo is straight out of the camera, untouched. I will say that the in-camera JPG processing (#2 - top photo) did not account for the degree of bright light, especially in the water in the forefront at the right side. It also made everything much darker than I would have chose to portray the scene. This scene, to me, was about the light shining on the boats and the lovely clouds in the sky (to which I added some drama). (A view from the deck of a motel I was staying at on the estuary in Oakland, CA.) The purple you see in the water on the RAW file only came across when imported on this site and might be because of the darkness of the water. Nikon D800, 24-120 Nikon lens, Fine Quality JPEG taken at same time as RAW, both exported at 2,000 pixels across for import here, 150 ppi, ISO 100, 120mm distance, f/11, 1/1000 of a second. I know someone will want to know this.

Click on the Download to see the photo larger to actually tell the difference between the human-processed photo (RAW version) and the machine-processed photo (JPEG version).

What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?
So, obviously a lot of opinions on photographing R... (show quote)


The question is not and never has been about the "file format". the question is what can you do with each type of file.

If you know your photo equipment well enough to know its limitations then the decision of RAW over camera .jpg is a matter of how much time you want to spend on post processing. If you can analyze by sight the exposure values of a given scene and can use the camera Exposure Compensation you can capture great JPG images SOOC. If you are a news gathering photographer with a daily deadline you can set your camera up to capture the best possible image and send it via wireless to the publisher.

The two images you provided for examples demonstrate the limitations of camera .jpg, and the potential to bring up details in the shadowed horizon. Both are acceptable for specific purposes.

There are times where the best and seasoned photographers, using the knowledge and tools of the old film trade, could use the extra exposure range provided by RAW capture and processing.

What all this boils down to is what you (the photographer) needs to get out of the experience of photography.
If you like what you get with SOOC .jpg captures, fine. If you are not happy with SOOC .jpg processing, you had the option to use RAW.

Michael G
May 19, 2017 09:40:20   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
Cykdelic wrote:
Actually, not. We are still at the point where the camera is nothing without the human. With no camera, the human can still draw, yes?


Drawing is not a photograph. A photograph is not a drawing. They are two distinctly different things.
May 19, 2017 09:42:18   #
BlackRipleyDog
 
selmslie wrote:
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.
I don't want to belittle your efforts. You certai... (show quote)


Ok Scotty, a lot of points so let’s take this slowly –
“I don’t want to belittle your efforts” - Nice sentiment.

“… don’t dismiss those who can provide examples where jpeg is just as good.” - That is all fine and good, but nobody has provided any concrete examples. Mostly those who prefer raw over jpg have had the stones to put definitive examples on and have been dismissed for their efforts.

“not all photography is landscape”. I guess I must have been under a rock somewhere and didn’t get the memo. Well, I never said it was. I was shooting Kodachrome 25 when I was 14. And every hour you spend on the computer puts you that much further ahead of every other photographer who doesn’t. Was Ansel Adams a loser for all the time he spent in the darkroom?

“The very best landscape photographers don’t capture on…… 24x36mm sensors.” Yes they do and every day. Galen Rowel shot 35mm. You want more examples, go to 500px. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony and very little if any Phase One. And a lot of these shooters get published. I have been published with images taken with the tiny sensor in a 1st gen Coolpix. I had a gallery showing with pieces from a 6mpx DX sensor to my 36mpx FX sensor.

“normal DR, Active-D…can recover as much shadow detail…..” I work with the camera’s normal settings and I do not use in-camera pre-sets. The journey to the image doesn’t begin and end with activating the Vivid settings or turning the left hand dial to select the scene type. Where is the fun in that?

“….use artificial lighting or reflector and the art is in the lighting, not the post processing.” The art is understanding how to use the tools you have. Artificial lighting is great for portraits and weddings. Joe McNally and Joe Farace have proved that over and over. But I do not shoot those. It is a little impractical to haul a reflector and strobes to the coast to capture a sunrise or to photograph the Milky Way overhead at 2:00am. So I have eliminated a layer of tech and I am the better for it.

“large number of images…..processing…..would be tedious”. Well, if you shoot weddings, yes that could get tedious but that is what Lightroom is good at. Or you could develop a more restrained shooting style and not go full-auto with the frame rate on your camera. On the other hand, don’t you have a fiduciary duty to your client and your reputation to provide the best possible output and therefore you DO put in the time? The result is that you learn what works and what doesn’t and you apply those lessons to the next shoot.

“If you have a hammer…….thinking everything looks like a nail”. My camera is not a hammer. It is fine-tuned machine and it has a very specific purpose in my life. You would be surprised what I pass on. I don’t shoot for the sake of shooting.

The bottom line is subject matter……” Care to define what constitutes a “well-executed boring subject” and why I would take a picture of it in the first place? I think you would get wildly divergent opinions on that subject. One photographer’s “nice capture” is another’s schlock.

I have done weddings, crowds, events, family things, editorial, museums, air shows and yes, landscapes. For images that I want the best possible results I shoot in raw and I build that image from the ground up without whatever gimmicky pre-set is currently in vogue and thinking that it couldn’t get any better. Because, how do you know until you try?

What we have been saying is do what works for you. If you are happy with the results you are getting, fine. However, if you truly want to evolve and become a better artist, then you are going to have to take the training wheels off at some point and expand your universe. What are your aspirations and how do you get there? I honestly thought UHH was about that.
 
May 19, 2017 09:52:43   #
BlackRipleyDog
 
leftj wrote:
Drawing is not a photograph. A photograph is not a drawing. They are two distinctly different things.


Drawing came before photography and were for the same purpose; to document the world. Not so different as you you think.
May 19, 2017 09:55:06   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
Drawing came before photography and were for the same purpose; to document the world. Not so different as you you think.


You are so far off the original post subject that it isn't even funny.
May 19, 2017 09:59:08   #
BlackRipleyDog
 
leftj wrote:
You are so far off the original post subject that it isn't even funny.

I was responding to your far-off comment.
May 19, 2017 10:04:06   #
leftj (a regular here)
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
I was responding to your far-off comment.


Which was responding to your erroneous comment.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12 next>>
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2018 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.