Did Ansel Adams shoot in the RAW mode?
Jan 2, 2021 13:07:21 #
Picture Taker wrote:
RAW is used to fix bad pictures
I think you are badly mistaken that is not true and I am not even going to go there .......
Jan 2, 2021 13:18:58 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
With a RAW, because it's the orignal data... you can fix/adjust more.... Dik
Jan 2, 2021 13:20:46 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
"that is not true"
I think it's partially true... if a photo is a total junker... not much you can do with it, but if you want to bring out some features, you can with a RAW.
I think it's partially true... if a photo is a total junker... not much you can do with it, but if you want to bring out some features, you can with a RAW.
Jan 2, 2021 13:21:40 #
Powergroove75 wrote:
100% this.
If having more control over the editing of your photos isn't something you want, nothing wrong with jpegs.
I can guarantee he spent countless hours in a darkroom perfecting his final prints though.
Id say yes he'd definitely shoot RAW if he were around today humbling all of us.
If having more control over the editing of your photos isn't something you want, nothing wrong with jpegs.
I can guarantee he spent countless hours in a darkroom perfecting his final prints though.
Id say yes he'd definitely shoot RAW if he were around today humbling all of us.
Good point - My first reaction was "NAAH" But after your points - I'll bet he did spend a lot of time in the dark room. So RAW it - that's my vote.
Jan 2, 2021 13:24:57 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If Ansel Adams was the photographer worthy of that name, he'd do a better job Straight Out Of Camera like a Real Photographer.
Really?
Photographers cannot out smart the laws of physics by “doing a better job Straight Out of Camera ...”
Ansel Adams knew that film could not record the full dynamic range of most scenes he was recording. He decided to dodge and burn to accommodate that limitation. And sell some photographs, but what is wrong with that?
“Real photographers” accept that many images cannot represent what the human eye sees and rely on darkroom or digital tweaking. That is what AA did.
How much tweaking is acceptable? That is a personal value judgment each of us must make.
This discussion can be extended to anyone who uses a strobe or reflector, or removes a few twigs or leaves to “improve” an image.
Is manipulating the scene something “real photographers” do?
Real photographers create memorable images.
It is a personal value judgement if the quality of the image is decreased by “excessive” manipulation.
Jan 2, 2021 13:25:41 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
Picture Taker wrote:
If or when I need to FIX my pictures, usually HDR (JPG) i will run my pictures on batch feed to Photomatix and usually open a few seconds (may be 10 Sec.) to sharpen and/or touch up some thing. I don't shoot in batch shots and expect 100% of my pictures to be good. This is not always the case but it make you be a better photographer and it might some of us to be a better person by not expecting to be perfect but still trying
That's heavy processing combining multiple images into an HDR. I have Photomatix and I know what's involved to use it. You're doing more processing work than I typically do. And even with your involved post processing to "fix" your photos you still couldn't take the photo I took as an example in this post: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-679971-18.html#11872849
You shoot JPEGs and "fix" them as you say.
I shoot raw because I take photos you can't take at all even with your post process "fixing."
Note that the photo I provided as an example in the linked post is backlit and the kind of lighting that would require you to use HDR -- and you still wouldn't be able to take the photo as I did.
Jan 2, 2021 14:46:19 #
Jan 2, 2021 15:12:43 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
"Ysarex" I take my pictures as does most of us the way WE WANT(some may be following some ones advice) I process them (in JP) the way I want (as most of us do) and print them and sell them, or have the paper print them if they want them or use the as the picture on my computer.
What I am saying, what I put in the blog is my feelings as to I do it and don't care what any one else does but when some one asks a question I WILL give them food for thought and, as I said earlier they as I will do what they want.
I will make note if and when some of us POINT OUT that this is how to do something as it's that or your pictures are no good.
Live a good life and enjoy the way you like to take pictures.
What I am saying, what I put in the blog is my feelings as to I do it and don't care what any one else does but when some one asks a question I WILL give them food for thought and, as I said earlier they as I will do what they want.
I will make note if and when some of us POINT OUT that this is how to do something as it's that or your pictures are no good.
Live a good life and enjoy the way you like to take pictures.
Jan 2, 2021 15:55:10 #
w00dy4012
Loc: Thalia, East Virginia
Longshadow wrote:
Some people will used an editor on JPEGs, some will simply leave the shot as it exists.
What do you mean by "control"?
Control via the camera?
Control via an editor?
"Control" (or the amount of) would be their choice.
My point was whether they use MUCH control or Little control, JPEG or RAW, they are both still image makers.
What do you mean by "control"?
Control via the camera?
Control via an editor?
"Control" (or the amount of) would be their choice.
My point was whether they use MUCH control or Little control, JPEG or RAW, they are both still image makers.
All right. I give up. You win.
Jan 2, 2021 16:11:57 #
Jan 2, 2021 16:53:11 #
srt101fan wrote:
May the RAW people happily continue to chase every photon landing on their sensor. May the JPEG folks continue their blissful in-camera photography oblivious to the masterpieces hidden in their RAW data. May the darkroom dwellers' exhaust fans always work....
And as Tiny Tim said, "God bless us, every one!"
And as Tiny Tim said, "God bless us, every one!"
I thought Tiny Tim sang.. Tip toe,, through the tulips,,,.
Jan 2, 2021 17:06:18 #
Jan 2, 2021 17:07:29 #
Dean37
Loc: Fresno, CA
Besperus wrote:
I’m sure Ansel always wore clothes while doing photography.
Are we really sure? He was alone a lot! Lol
Jan 2, 2021 17:09:51 #
A man's character is not measured by how he handles his wins, but how he processes his RAW files.
Jan 2, 2021 17:11:06 #
Someone once said - there is no dumb question.
We Might have an exception here - but certainly Not for me to say, as I've asked plenty of those.
-
The OP asked if Ansel took his photos in RAW mode.
The answer would be NO - because there was no such thing as digital photography during Ansel's time.
Although for arguments sake, one might opine that ALL his images were essentially in RAW mode with 100% uncompressed data down to the resolution of the silver emulsion on his negatives.
-
Do forgive if this point has been previously made - as I did NOT peruse all 25 pages of this thread.
We Might have an exception here - but certainly Not for me to say, as I've asked plenty of those.
-
The OP asked if Ansel took his photos in RAW mode.
The answer would be NO - because there was no such thing as digital photography during Ansel's time.
Although for arguments sake, one might opine that ALL his images were essentially in RAW mode with 100% uncompressed data down to the resolution of the silver emulsion on his negatives.
-
Do forgive if this point has been previously made - as I did NOT peruse all 25 pages of this thread.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.