Did Ansel Adams shoot in the RAW mode? (Page 22): "Wow, are you really this ignorant about digital photography?" Not a nice reply... should have informed the person that RAW is the...

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

"Wow, are you really this ignorant about digital photography?"

Not a nice reply... should have informed the person that RAW is the actual, original data from the image processing chip... this is the best source of data that can be manipulated as required. Dik

Real Nikon Lover Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Dikdik wrote:

"Wow, are you really this ignorant about digital photography?"

Not a nice reply... should have informed the person that RAW is the actual, original data from the image processing chip... this is the best source of data that can be manipulated as required. Dik

Obviously the response you quoted is from a person who has no filters. The older they are the more sarcastic they get. But whose counting.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Dikdik wrote:

"Wow, are you really this ignorant about digital photography?"

Not a nice reply... should have informed the person that RAW is the actual, original data from the image processing chip... this is the best source of data that can be manipulated as required. Dik

After several comments in this thread where he disparaged people that shoot raw as less competent photographers I’m not wasting my time trying to educate him. There is already plenty of that information in this thread.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

Didn't realise that... I usually don't shoot RAW, either...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

David Taylor wrote:

Fujifilm X-trans beats Bayer every time.

Or not, depending upon ones preferences, experience and expectations.

rcarol

Charles 46277 wrote:

Yes, Malarz--except it was calculated for each shot, not a roll.

Many photographers that used the Zone System gravitated to medium format cameras with interchangeable backs. This allowed each back to be marked as -2, -1, 0, +1. & +2. Thus each roll of film could be exposed and processed according to the contrast range of the scene. Some photographers also used this technique with 35mm film by carrying spare bodies.

David Taylor

mwsilvers wrote:

Or not, depending upon ones preferences, experience and expectations.

Only the truly enlightened will be able to appreciate the difference. Everyone else buys Canon, Sony or Nikon.

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

Longshadow wrote:

Both those types are image makers, they simply use different editing tools.

Other than composition, predetermined (by the camera maker) scene modes, and possibly exposure, what control does the average person shooting jpegs exercise over the result? Most don't go into the menu and adjust sharpness, contrast, etc. I know I don't; I just compose and shoot.

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

Canisdirus wrote:

Not sure why this thread is so long.
JPEG...camera makes all of the processing decisions.
RAW...user makes all of the processing decisions.

JPEG is convenient...but less quality (bit depth)
RAW requires post processing...but if you shoot a real keeper...you'll be glad if it was in RAW.

anotherview Loc: California

This thread began with a reference to Ansel Adams and his shooting in RAW. He passed away in 1984, prior to the advent of consumer digital photography. Hence, AA did film photography. He did not shoot in the RAW file format. But he saw "electronic photography" coming in the future.

Now this thread has devolved to RAW versus JPEG file formats. I leave this repetitious dialog for other parts. Happy New Year!

srt101fan

w00dy4012 wrote:

Other than composition, predetermined (by the camera maker) scene modes, and possibly exposure, what control does the average person shooting jpegs exercise over the result? Most don't go into the menu and adjust sharpness, contrast, etc. I know I don't; I just compose and shoot.

Choice of subject, lens selection, depth of field, creative use of shutter speed, angle of view, waiting for the right natural light, providing additional lighting, waiting for the "decisive moment", use of filters.....

Anybody care to add?

petrochemist Loc: UK

srt101fan wrote:

Choice of subject, lens selection, depth of field, creative use of shutter speed, angle of view, waiting for the right natural light, providing additional lighting, waiting for the "decisive moment", use of filters.....

Anybody care to add?

I think you've covered the majority, but for me there's also IR or normal body & even Bayer or Foveon (which makes a big difference in IR).

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

srt101fan wrote:

Choice of subject, lens selection, depth of field, creative use of shutter speed, angle of view, waiting for the right natural light, providing additional lighting, waiting for the "decisive moment", use of filters.....

Anybody care to add?

All that's great if you are shooting in an unchanging environment. But will you be ready for the "decisive moment" (by the time you do all that) as the situation changes?

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

While I saw him many times, and I admire his original print photos, I can't claim to know him beyond his work, his quoted words and his books. But, I do know that AA was always devoted to getting the best from the latest technology. In today's world, AA would be shooting RAW and stacking to produce the highest quality images. But, I doubt he would approve of over saturated HDR images.

connievloutely Loc: Quaker State (PA)

I would consider a negative a raw image since it can be manipulated, as Ansel Adams did!