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 5 of 12 next> last>>
May 19, 2017 11:20:05   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
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.


You are not "wrong," if you are happy with what you do. Some people might want to create in another way and that is not wrong either. Keeping up with technology can be difficult for some people but our world is moving rapidly toward a highly technical perspective. I like what technology in photography offers me and I like to utilize every tool available to create something beautiful, sometimes I succeed and too many times I don't. But I keep on trying.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:23:41   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
via the lens wrote:
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?
What do you think? Maybe the discussion is not about the file format as much as about the formation and processing of the image?

The discussion can be about anything you want. The most discussed topics on this forum are about the formation and processing of images. They are so often discussed, there are a number of groups designed just for that purpose. For example, there is the Photo Critique Section, Photo Analysis section, For Your Consideration section, Post Procession section. For more specific subjects, there are Nude photography, Close up Photography, People photography, Long Exposure Photography, and so on. Less popular topics like Raw vs JPG do not have their own forums, and while not particularly popular, are often discussed here, in the general photography section.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:26:41   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
BigDaddy wrote:
The discussion can be about anything you want. The most discussed topics on this forum are about the formation and processing of images. They are so often discussed, there are a number of groups designed just for that purpose. For example, there is the Photo Critique Section, Photo Analysis section, For Your Consideration section, Post Procession section. For more specific subjects, there are Nude photography, Close up Photography, People photography, Long Exposure Photography, and so on. Less popular topics like Raw vs JPG do not have their own forums, and while not particularly popular, are often discussed here, in the general photography section.
The discussion can be about anything you want. Th... (show quote)


I am aware of that and thanks for your input. I do believe I can still create a forum for any type of discussion on photography, isn't that correct? It almost seems that some photographers on this forum want to control the topics but it is my belief that we are all entitled to post the forum of our choice, even if it's been discussed multiple times. Don't tune in if it does not meet your needs.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 11:28:44   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
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)


Your title is correct . . .

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:36:16   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
So, what does make a "good" photograph, a popular question since the inception of photography. To quote a science-based book "The appearance of images has traditionally been considered to be influenced by five basic image quality attributes: tone (or contrast), color, resolution, sharpness and noise." The assessment of these five attributes determines image quality, this part is not addressing viewer emotion or reaction, just the basic technical aspects of the image. It also does not address the elements of design. I recently had the experience of viewing and holding artwork from an Ansel Adams portfolio, 15 original photographs. It was incredible. Absolutely no noise, a beautiful smooth background (inspired me to do better), incredible tone across each image, deep blacks and pure whites (nothing blown out like the growing trend that seems to be happening in today's photography), razor sharp, great resolution. I know I cannot do what he did but I'm going to keep trying. I believe that technical aspects, as well as artist aspects, are required for any image that we call art.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:42:43   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
Ok Scotty, a lot of points so let’s take this slowly –
... Was Ansel Adams a loser for all the time he spent in the darkroom?
... Galen Rowel shot 35mm. You want more examples, go to 500px. ...
“If you have a hammer…….thinking everything looks like a nail”. My camera is not a hammer. ...

I will address only a couple of your comments:

1. Ansel Adams, of course, shot large and medium format film. He died in 1984. No digital images. His goal was to get a proper negative (score) from which he could craft a print (performance) that suited him. He once said, "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

2. Galen Rowell died in 2002. He transitioned from 4x5 because 35 mm film was more portable. Any digital images? Did he even do his own darkroom developing and printing? He did not have to. His goal was to get it right in the camera. Does that sound familiar? In the 2012 Outdoor Photography article Lessons Learned From Galen Rowell you will see an echo of one of my comments, "Despite the paradigm shift from film to digital and the extreme sophistication of modern equipment with its fixation on megapixels, subject always trumps quality ..."

3. The hammer I am referring to is raw processing on your computer. The camera also does raw processing to create a JPEG. It's just limited in its capabilities. Some people know how to work within those limitations.
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
...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. ...

That sounds like a put-down that is all too common here. Your implication is that people who are shooting JPEG are children compared to those of us who understand and do the raw conversion on our computer But some of us only do it on the computer when we need to, when we feel like playing or just to kill time.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:48:09   #
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)


True, but I believe that someone can do both. I shot over 5,000 photos in 2016 and still spent a lot of fun and rewarding time processing images.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 11:50:57   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
Jim Bob wrote:
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.


...you are such an unhappy individual. I'm so sorry that your life has not turned out as you thought. But making everyone else as unhappy will not make you happier, or maybe it does and that is why you do it. Do you actually take photographs and know anything about photography or do you just haunt different forums trying to insult people.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:53:04   #
erinjay64
 
If it's processing you want, it makes sense to go with the method which gives you the most processing power / capability. What else is there to say on it? Fan Boys / Fan Girls of each method can argue until The Heat Death Of The Universe, and the basic facts won't ever change. RAW gives you more to process with. JPEG gives you less processing capability. The debate over RAW vs JPEG is like that over Nikon vs Canon, Film vs Digital, etc, and will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction. It won't ever change. Some people will always ignore facts, and feel that their opinion is superior to any fact. They are welcome to their opinions, but facts remain facts. Shoot whichever you want...JPEG, RAW, or whatever, and suit yourself. Let others suit themselves.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:53:48   #
ggttc Loc: TN
 
Jim Bob wrote:
This topic, regardless of configuration or catchy title, has become as boring as the brown truck threads.


I have to agree.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:55:48   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
Only thing that matters is the image. How you did it may be interesting but it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the image.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 11:57:06   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
boberic wrote:
Only thing that matters is the image. How you did it may be interesting but it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the image.


depends on what the definition of "matters" is.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:57:31   #
Expressoman1 Loc: Jupiter, Fl. USA
 
You got the idea.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:57:38   #
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


I did answer you already, but I'm visual as, most likely, most photographers are. Three images to show my interpretation. First one is a "snapshot," (Fairy Lantern) as I stood over the subject and snapped a shot in aperture priority this morning as an example. The second and third images are where I was hoping to get a shot that showed nature in all its beauty. The Fairy Lantern (second shot) was actually taken inside. The Dogwood was taken outside along the Merced River in Yosemite. Yes, all photographs are photographs and "pictures" but all photographs are not art.

Snapshot of a Fairy Lantern
Snapshot of a Fairy Lantern...
(Download)

More artistic image of a Fairy Lantern
More artistic image of a Fairy Lantern...



Reply
May 19, 2017 11:58:43   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
Expressoman1 wrote:
You got the idea.


Who got the idea?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 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.