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 6 of 12 next> last>>
May 19, 2017 11:59:18   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
Like the TV. When two different opinions are debated (talk over) I never seen any one say your wright and I changed my mind. Maybe we should say I would agree with you but I won't because then we would both be wrong.

Reply
May 19, 2017 11:59:31   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
via the lens wrote:
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.

Both file formats are created by the camera. I add my "touch" before touching the capture button on the camera, and again when editing the result in my jpg or raw editor. The weak point in my photo's are completely and totally unrelated to if I shot in RAW or JPG. I might add if you peruse any of the many forums that discuss 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", you will almost never see RAW vs JPG mentioned.

The reason of course, is file format is not a factor. Can it be a factor when editing, yes, but far less often than people seem to think, and often for reasons other than they think, and at no time will there photography skills improve because they shot raw. I might as well add their editing skills won't improve either.

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:00:32   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
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.


But that image can vary greatly in how you take it and will make a great difference in how it is ultimately viewed. How one does "it" is what creates the end result.

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 12:00:51   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
Picture Taker wrote:
Like the TV. When two different opinions are debated (talk over) I never seen any one say your wright and I changed my mind. Maybe we should say I would agree with you but I won't because then we would both be wrong.


define "wright".

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:05:47   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Both file formats are created by the camera. I add my "touch" before touching the capture button on the camera, and again when editing the result in my jpg or raw editor. The weak point in my photo's are completely and totally unrelated to if I shot in RAW or JPG. I might add if you peruse any of the many forums that discuss 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", you will almost never see RAW vs JPG mentioned.

The reason of course, is file format is not a factor. Can it be a factor when editing, yes, but far less often than people seem to think, and often for reasons other than they think, and at no time will there photography skills improve because they shot raw. I might as well add their editing skills won't improve either.
Both file formats are created by the camera. I ad... (show quote)


If you shoot in JPEG and then don't touch that image with any other processing then you have let a machine finish your image. Sometimes that works and sometimes it may not. So, yes, it's not about file format as much as about what the photographer does in the overall process, from beginning to end, that creates a work of art. But, file format can matter greatly in some cases, but certainly not in all cases. Why are people so darn negative and insulting on this forum? Maybe some photographer's skills will improve and other photographer's skills won't improve in many cases and ways, but a lot of people are able to learn and improve their photography, isn't that one of the things this forum is supposed to be about? Helping others to learn?

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:09:16   #
leftj Loc: Texas
 
via the lens wrote:
If you shoot in JPEG and then don't touch that image with any other processing then you have let a machine finish your image. Sometimes that works and sometimes it may not. So, yes, it's not about file format as much as about what the photographer does in the overall process, from beginning to end, that creates a work of art. But, file format can matter greatly in some cases, but certainly not in all cases. Why are people so darn negative and insulting on this forum? Maybe some photographer's skills will improve and other photographer's skills won't improve in many cases and ways, but a lot of people are able to learn and improve their photography, isn't that one of the things this forum is supposed to be about? Helping others to learn?
If you shoot in JPEG and then don't touch that ima... (show quote)


Not people in general. Just some people. Because that's how the real world is. Why should this or any other forum be different?

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:10:02   #
chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
BlackRipleyDog wrote:
At the risk of becoming a pariah, I have put together a fairly vivid example of the difference between the two file types and why processing in Raw is far superior. Let me qualify that comment, in that I am a fine-art landscape photographer and that is where I derive the most satisfaction. When I went to Hawaii a couple years ago, I took all my gear with the intention capturing scenes that I would print and hang on my walls, show in a gallery or sell. I carried a 35# backpack through several airports because that was my focus. I wasn't taking snapshots but collecting images for later work when when I got back home. I took tourist shots with my phone which was satisfactory.

The following images are of a wildlife conservation area near where I live at sunset. The first is a collage of the several frames that make up the second image; the finished panoramic. I shot them on the NEF/JPG Fine Large setting. All images were shot in manual at 1/200, f10.0, ISO 800, 85MM 1.8 AF-D, D800, AF off, matrix metering.
The collage is the individual JPG's as processed by the camera on probably the Standard Picture Control setting. NEF file sizes were 40+megs and the jpgs were 16+megs.
The NEF's were opened in Adobe Bridge as a group, adjustments made in Raw and imported into Photoshop and run through Photomerge. The untitled pano was processed further and saved as a tiff which I print from.
The only questions I would ask are: At what settings in the camera for JPG's would have I achieved the same characteristics that the finished panoramic exhibits and which would you hang on your wall?
At the risk of becoming a pariah, I have put toget... (show quote)


...very nice! However, have you ran the same sequence processed from the jpeg files? That would be a fine comparison for us to peruse. I shoot both RAW and jpeg, depending on the job (my pageantry stuff is jpeg 'cuz there are so many! But I've had one of these images used as a successful print magazine cover, too, which tells a bit of a tale, eh?). Anyhow, would love to see that sequence done out of the jpeg files!

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 12:13:11   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
chasgroh wrote:
...very nice! However, have you ran the same sequence processed from the jpeg files? That would be a fine comparison for us to peruse. I shoot both RAW and jpeg, depending on the job (my pageantry stuff is jpeg 'cuz there are so many! But I've had one of these images used as a successful print magazine cover, too, which tells a bit of a tale, eh?). Anyhow, would love to see that sequence done out of the jpeg files!


Hi, Sorry, no JPEGS, I like shooting in RAW and love processing. Besides, it was to show the difference in intent when taking a photograph, one intent being a snapshot and the other intent being a shot where the photographer is trying (hopefully successfully!) to get a more artistic shot. So, about a "good" photograph if someone is trying to get beyond the world of snapshots.

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:22:51   #
Kfallsfotoman
 
Your points are very good!
Raw is a tool - nothing more.
If I KNOW I'm shooting an event, or subject that I won't be doing any post processing on, or very little. Why force myself to go through the process?
But what IF there'S that one image that could be a KILLER image? Now I would shoot myself for not shooting raw to get the MOST out of that image!

SO I do CYA - Shoot with camera set to record both RAW & fine jpeg.
Storage is cheap!

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:23:34   #
chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
via the lens wrote:
Hi, Sorry, no JPEGS, I like shooting in RAW and love processing. Besides, it was to show the difference in intent when taking a photograph, one intent being a snapshot and the other intent being a shot where the photographer is trying (hopefully successfully!) to get a more artistic shot. So, about a "good" photograph if someone is trying to get beyond the world of snapshots.


OK...I thought you said you had shot RAW/jpeg...that would be a worthy experiment. I'm of the opinion when processing is done and saved, it's pretty dang hard to tell the difference in *original* modes...haha, my jpegs make good prints, no complaints, and certainly not of the "snapshot" realm.

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:38:21   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
selmslie wrote:
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.


Are you aware that Ansel was also a representative for Polaroid and, at times, used a Polaroid camera to produce prints?

Reply
 
 
May 19, 2017 12:40:33   #
treadwl Loc: South Florida
 
First and foremost it is about the image. you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It the image is bad, no amount of post work will make it great. I good skilled editor can make it better, but if the image is not interesting originally, it will never be interesting. Jpegs can be great images is the image is something of a WOW to start with. I always look for the WOW factor. When I first see it does it speak to me. If not, on I go and look at something else. Jpegs can be made to look better with good editing skills.. Still, and I don't care what anyone says, If I get a great image in jpeg and get the same image in RAW I can make the raw into a better final product just because it carries more information.

For me---it will always be to each their own. Photography is supposed to be fun. If you are happy with jpeg----have a ball. Enjoy your images and brag to the world how great they are. I will never "publically" disagree. If I like someone's image I'll happily say so no mater how they process or don't process it. If they ask for opinions, that is something completely different.

as a photographer I know listing all my camera settings for someone else probably offers no real value to anyone. However, I get asked for the tech data sooooo often that I usually just give up and include it in the original. It is easier. There are times where shutter speed i nfo might be of interest, but usually not. Again it comes down to the image and is it great or not.


OK, enough ranting. I'll go back and crawl under my rock and be quiet.


Larry

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:48:22   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
leftj wrote:
depends on what the definition of "matters" is.


Are you asking what the definition of is, is ?

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:57:29   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
via the lens wrote:
Are you aware that Ansel was also a representative for Polaroid and, at times, used a Polaroid camera to produce prints?

He sure was. But there was not a lot of post processing opportunity there.

Reply
May 19, 2017 12:58:37   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
boberic wrote:
Are you asking what the definition of is, is ?

Uh oh.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 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.