Did Ansel Adams shoot in the RAW mode?
Dec 31, 2020 12:03:07 #
His Zone System seems to me to be a little like making HDRs from a series of RAWs. When I had a medium format film camera and darkroom I tried to concur the Zone System. That was tough. And, I did not win.
The Zone System was about keeping detail in highlights and shadows in high dynamic range exposures. RAWs do that. HDRs can do it better.
The Zone System was about keeping detail in highlights and shadows in high dynamic range exposures. RAWs do that. HDRs can do it better.
Dec 31, 2020 12:14:03 #
Picture Taker wrote:
"Longshadow" I do and you enjoy you photos too.
Dec 31, 2020 12:24:17 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Ansel Adams is not a god.
Dec 31, 2020 12:26:39 #
You or we don't have to do what Adams did but yes he did shoot raw and he did shoot Polaroid too but he often shot Polaroid for the negatives rather than the print.
Dec 31, 2020 12:28:12 #
If we gave two people the same camera and lens, and after a week we learned only one had shot in JPEG, who do you think will be better?
Dec 31, 2020 12:31:38 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If we gave two people the same camera and lens, and after a week we learned only one had shot in JPEG, who do you think will be better?
Define better - plus, it happens here daily - as with processing, it comes down to personal choice, likes & dislikes, individual taste.
Dec 31, 2020 12:33:33 #
BobHartung wrote:
Oh? Ansel Adams was a master post processor in the dark room. As he was always looking for the highest quality in him images I feel it is safe to bet that he would have used RAW to give him the 14-bit rather than an 8-bit image file to manipulate.
I agree. The negative was Adams' RAW file of its day.
Dec 31, 2020 12:37:42 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
Ansel Adams was a good photographer that was a leader at his time, His work was good for his time (with the equipment they had) and in todays equipment would have done better. The stone ages had art work carved and colored on walls and may have been great works at that time but you can't compare that to todays world with the art tools we have today.
With technology brings improvements and the people of today grow with that. The growth of knowledge is building for us also.
This make comparison hard foe us (or should say me)
With technology brings improvements and the people of today grow with that. The growth of knowledge is building for us also.
This make comparison hard foe us (or should say me)
Dec 31, 2020 12:41:02 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
"CHG CANON" The shooting RAW could be the better photographers as they don't need the full crutch.
Dec 31, 2020 12:42:32 #
Imagine yourself as a successful photographer. Are you shooting in JPEG?
Dec 31, 2020 12:47:08 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Imagine yourself as a successful photographer. Are you shooting in JPEG?
Since my main camera is set to save RAW+JPEG, yes.
My other camera (a bridge) only saves JPEG, so yes.
(Successful could be relative.)
Dec 31, 2020 12:51:06 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
I do most of the time and when I mentioned it to several pro friends I found it is also used a lot by them.
In one was I was at a fire and was call to get back now as the were holding the press. PS as I walk away the front of the building blowout, I took anther 5 minus and they accepted that. We use JPG as taken.
In one was I was at a fire and was call to get back now as the were holding the press. PS as I walk away the front of the building blowout, I took anther 5 minus and they accepted that. We use JPG as taken.
Dec 31, 2020 13:08:34 #
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Two rather odd thread from the same guy...
Is there really anything wrong with a picture taken with a JPEG camera converted to TIFF?...Julian
Yeah, JPG is 8 bits and has compression artefacts so...
The conversion offers two things:
Limit the cumulative compression losses
Augments the bit depth but at the same time create huge holes in color transition, hard to overcome.
Then this question that reflects a total lack of understanding about any format is from JPG, TIF and raw.
JPG is an end
TIF (from a JPG) a soon to fail format
raw is sheer potential.
But then again you want to stick to JPG so, why advertise it? Create a silly controversy that really expose nothing but your own limitation to make a decision based on information???
Puzzled here.
Dec 31, 2020 13:09:23 #
Picture Taker wrote:
RAW is used to fix bad pictures
Shooting RAW does come in handy if you do make errors in capturing photos, but by no means is its main advantage fixing bad photos. Its best use is enhancing photos which are as good as possible out of the camera, in ways that can't be done in the camera, and then be able to go back later and change what you have done.
Dec 31, 2020 13:09:39 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
julian.gang wrote:
I don't think so, so for right now I'll stick with JPEG!...Julian
Ansel shot film. He would have loved raw and Photoshop.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.