martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

What Did I Miss.. The final results of the images taken??? You don't need to over expose your images to the point you can't even see the detail.. Millions of images that are Published were never taken in this fashion.... What am I missing???????????? P.S. I've already seen these images 1000 times already.........

Rongnongno Loc: FL

A whole world of potential.

Shameful.

Rational1

Same topic for the 4,998,760 time. Let people enjoy photography as a hobby or a profession. Whatever their choice, respect it. This debate has been going on at least once a week for years. Respectfully, can we give it a rest?

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

With the RAW format you generally have available considerably more dynamic range than is reported out in a jpeg file. JPEG compression also introduces losses, but the JPEG compression algorithm is designed to discard only information that is not very noticeable to our eyes. In sum though, there is probably no more than half of the information in the JPEG file than was available in the RAW capture, but if you just print the JPEG file you probably would not notice the loss.

Whether it is possible to post process the RAW file to get a better print will vary with the skill of who is doing the processing and what software is available to them. Sometime you can but sometime you may not. There are a lot of variables but with a skilled photo editor and good software probably more than half of the time that approach will get a better image (as judged by perhaps half or more of those looking at it).

If the original capture was done with poor exposure or poor color balance then the likelihood of improvement increases to an almost certainty, but often even a properly exposed image can often be improved. But correcting mistakes in using the camera is not the only reason for doing custom processing of RAW images; it is not even the most important reason.

With modern cameras, even in cell phones, it is not hard to get properly exposed images. It is only with the high-end cameras that photography enthusiasts favor that one can even get the exposure or color balance very much out of whack and even with them there are automatic modes that will avoid those issues.

The reason for using other than the automatic modes is to get an edge and produce better pictures than would come out of a point-and-shoot camera. But I know people with advanced cameras who only use the automatic exposure settings. That's fine, it works for them. And I know people who only shoot JPEG. That's likewise fine, it works for them.

Bill_de Loc: US

If folks still look in and leave a comment, positive or negative, the thread will never be laid to rest. Keep in mind that even your post brought the thread to the top of the heap again.

---

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

My approach probably puts me in the cross hairs of both camps. My first digital camera, a D70, seemed to me to give me flat, uninteresting jpegs, compared to the Kodachromes I had become used to after giving up B&W around 1970. Then a mentor suggested I get and learn Photoshop. It was a steep learning curve for me, but I figure I've almost mastered about 20% of it, and I'm not too keen to climb many more learning curves. Still, I shoot manual, in RAW, and post process in Photoshop. That's how I learned to do it, and that's how I do it.

However, what's really going to get me into trouble with both camps is that, in addition to putting "finishing touches" in post processing, I routinely discover the potential of the image I captured with the camera in post. {"Reality," by the way, is usually of little to no interest to me; what is reality after all but a collective, and often unappealing, hunch? ;-) } For example, I have recently been shooting grasses, and I find their relatively pale color not so interesting, so I increase the saturation and alter the color balance. (A recent example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/samyaffespix/50755484111/in/dateposted/)

And, yes, I'm a rather lazy person, so I often find a bit of cropping - on occasion, a whole lot of cropping - gives me a more appealing image than the way I framed it up originally, and I have images I've cropped a half-dozen or more different ways before I settled on the one I liked best. And I often spray and pray, another commonly cited sin in these parts, shooting the same subject many different ways, from different angles, unsure until I look on the screen which if any I like best - if at all. Sorry, Ansel, but my brain just doesn't work like yours, and I need to do these things to get the results I like.

Now, I admire Adams and how he worked, and I admire the work rmalarz posted in this thread, and I have fantasies of previsualizing and working like that. And I've tried, but, so far, it just ain't me, babe.

But I say the bottom line is that my way of doing photography is keeping me alive during the Plague, and it juiced me up before the Plague, and I predict it will keep me juiced until I'm too demented to recall how to open an image in Photoshop. I enjoy it more than I have the skill to describe, both the pre- and post-. (And, by the way, so do those who've asked to purchase prints.)

So, if you think my spraying and praying and post processing and cropping and altering "reality" is a sin, please talk to your clergyman, because I don't practice that religion, so I don't know how to ease your pain. And if you don't like post processing, go with good health, but I say you're missing a whole lotta creative opportunities, and a whole lotta fun - unless, of course, it just don't float yer boat.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

So you must be a professional. Lol. The way I have heard it is the difference between a professional and an amateur is a professional never shows anyone his bad photos. Lol. Enjoy.

1ArtPhoto Loc: Southern California

I love your analogies. They are “right on!”

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

Based on your previous post here, it seems to me you're behaving just like those you're complaining about.

With respect to your previous rant, you should PM Bob and ask him about the originals and why he did what he did. It's apparent you don't understand his 'getting it right in the camera'. You might ask him why his first unedited image appears green and and the second appears overexposed.

With respect to the lousy jpgs with blown out hightlights, the originals (if I recall correctly) were raw files. The clipping occurs as a result of the raw to jpg conversion. This is just another example of the weakness of jpgs.

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

You're out!

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Not that I did it, but back then there were those who prided themselves in what they could accomplish in the darkroom! That was processing in those days.

1ArtPhoto Loc: Southern California

You are exploring photography as an artist. Photo editing expands those proclivities. You need please only yourself. Thanks, for your contributions to this site. You are encouraging me, a neophyte, to take myself
less seriously and to be more forgiving. I hope that you will continue to enjoy yourself and to reach out to the rest of us.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

The topic is getting long in tooth and probably everything that can be said about it has by now been said, but I keep reading and sometimes commenting. I've been tempted to click on the UNWATCH button at the top of the page and I may soon do so. Maybe just after I read what has been added since I started typing.

1ArtPhoto Loc: Southern California

Dear cbtsam in MD:
Here’s my reply to your post. It may have been published elsewhere due to my inexperience in posting here. What I want to say to you is this:
“ You are exploring photography as an artist. Photo editing expands those proclivities. You need please only yourself. Thanks, for your contributions to this site. You are encouraging me, a neophyte, to take myself
less seriously and to be more forgiving. I hope that you will continue to enjoy yourself and to reach out to the rest of us.”