Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Maybe it's about a good image, a well-processed image and not about RAW/JPG
Page <<first <prev 4 of 12 next> last>>
May 19, 2017 10:06:24   #
BlackRipleyDog
 
leftj wrote:
Which was responding to your erroneous comment.

How pithy of you.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:14:03   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
How pithy of you.


I'm sure you meant this as a derogatory comment but definitively it is very complimentary so thank-you.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:15:58   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
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)



You're right, all true. Do you know Michael Frye? He takes the most incredible shots of Yosemite, he is affiliated with the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite. He uses a Sony. Just thought I'd throw that out there for all landscape photographers, you don't have to have a medium format to get recognized.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 10:16:53   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
BboH wrote:
My question is: Which of the two images most replicated what you recall that your eye saw?


The RAW image actually caught the light that I saw. The dynamic range was, apparently, outside the limit of the JPEG.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:19:06   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
martinfisherphoto wrote:
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.............
Opinions on how to take and or process photos do V... (show quote)


So no one has to learn anything other than how to operate the shutter?

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:21:46   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
Bill_de wrote:
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.

---


Actually, you have that wrong. Yes, I shoot RAW and will continue to do so. But I do believe that JPEG can do a good job, too. I also believe that a lot of work must be done before simply hitting the shutter and taking a photo. I believe there is a difference between a snapshot and a good, well-taken image. Many people don't take the effort to make their JPEG the best that it can be. What I wanted to show is that the camera cannot think, it cannot process your photograph completely, even a JPEG needs the human touch.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:23:21   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
Jim Bob wrote:
You ain't never lied.


Why do people have to respond in the negative, just leave the forum and move on to something that interests you. Maybe talking about photography, OMG-this is a photography forum, does not interest you.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 10:29:44   #
Jim Bob
 
via the lens wrote:
Why do people have to respond in the negative, just leave the forum and move on to something that interests you. Maybe talking about photography, OMG-this is a photography forum, does not interest you.


Well telling someone how dumb and totally useless it is to continue posting on the same subject can only be considered "negative" by people with limited intellectual ability or those who like to be told the same thing over and over again.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:30:32   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Yet, you still click on them so you can make some non-contributory acerbic comment. To quote Randy Newman from Mr. Sheep, "Jesus what a jerk".
--Bob

Jim Bob wrote:
This topic, regardless of configuration or catchy title, has become as boring as the brown truck threads.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:31:14   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
davyboy wrote:
What exactly is the difference between a photo and a snap shot? In the end could they all be called pictures


My opinion on this, others may differ or simply disagree. Snapshots can be of family and friends having a good time and these actually represent a time for us all, a place in our personal history. But a snapshot can also be a flower that someone found and they simply walked over to it, placed their camera over it, and snapped a shot off. A snapshot is a photo that we don't take time with, that we don't ponder, that we don't labor over, that we don't consider striving to be a work of artistic value. Photographers in general, as we learn about photography, often take snapshots in the beginning. Generally photographers who want to do better work, work with more artistic merit, study, learn and move on to compositions that are more artistic in nature. Sometimes it depends on how you view your photography and what you are happy with; many photographers simply want to create snapshot images and that's ok, too. It's only if you want to move on to more artistic endeavors that you need to consider the difference. If interested you might check out the Photographic Society of America (PSA) website for information on how to create more artistic images.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:32:46   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
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!


But, with a JPEG, the processing is created by the camera, not by a human being. I was referring to an image being "yours" as an image that had "your" touch, not just pressing a shutter button.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 10:39:13   #
Jim Bob
 
rmalarz wrote:
Yet, you still click on them so you can make some non-contributory acerbic comment. To quote Randy Newman from Mr. Sheep, "Jesus what a jerk".
--Bob


True dat. Never a bad time to confront idiots.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:39:24   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
I can't do much on a computer, maybe too old. I do sell my work, so maybe I take good pictures (and have been working at it. I am never satisfied with my work but don't take bad pictures, so what am I saying? I believe and hang around good photographers and I am not impressed with a great computer guy. I still think of a photographer as the guy with a camera not a good software program. You can till me why I'm wrong.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:44:19   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
Picture Taker wrote:
I can't do much on a computer, maybe too old. I do sell my work, so maybe I take good pictures (and have been working at it. I am never satisfied with my work but don't take bad pictures, so what am I saying? I believe and hang around good photographers and I am not impressed with a great computer guy. I still think of a photographer as the guy with a camera not a good software program. You can till me why I'm wrong.


Jim Bob will till you.

Reply
May 19, 2017 10:53:11   #
Jim Bob
 
leftj wrote:
Jim Bob will till you.


This is too much for even the Guru to tackle. Appreciate your confidence.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 12 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.