Why am I shooting in Raw?? (Page 15): Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth"...

tturner Loc: Savannah Ga

Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth" technique. it is an in camera burning and dodging technique we learned in the days of film. By so doing you can produce excellent quality images without the need for any image management programs, or expensive graduated n/d filters. So get out there, get rid of the training wheels and learn to ride on your own.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

tturner wrote:

Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth" technique. it is an in camera burning and dodging technique we learned in the days of film. By so doing you can produce excellent quality images without the need for any image management programs, or expensive graduated n/d filters. So get out there, get rid of the training wheels and learn to ride on your own.

You really haven't struck a nerve. I just disagree with your premise concerning raw and PP, and find you arrogance on this particular subject interesting. If you are claiming to be a more skilled photographer than the many thousands of professionals who regularly shoot raw and PP, your work must be incredible. As I said earlier, good for you.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Disregard.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

mwsilvers wrote:

Exactly. However, I know The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.... but I'm not telling. :)

Yes, but do you know what the ultimate question actually is? :-D

Cedge

Peterff wrote:

Yes but do you know what the ultimate question actually is? :-D

"Who's on First?"

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

tturner wrote:

Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth" technique. it is an in camera burning and dodging technique we learned in the days of film. By so doing you can produce excellent quality images without the need for any image management programs, or expensive graduated n/d filters. So get out there, get rid of the training wheels and learn to ride on your own.

I am well aware of the magic cloth technique, known by a few different names. It is primarily intended for long exposure landscapes to simulate and eliminate the need for ND grad filtering. In some situations it may even be preferable using it instead of an ND grad. However, it is not intended, nor will it work effectively, for every landscape scene. Windy conditions or fast moving clouds are just a couple of reasons that come to mind. Its an interesting technique, but believe it or not some people use their cameras for purposes other than long exposure landscapes. Since you brought up dodging and burning, just how would you suggest accomplishing in-camera dodging and burning of portraits?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

tturner wrote:

Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth" technique. it is an in camera burning and dodging technique we learned in the days of film. By so doing you can produce excellent quality images without the need for any image management programs, or expensive graduated n/d filters. So get out there, get rid of the training wheels and learn to ride on your own.

Sure, in some circumstances such techniques can add significant value, and trying to get the best possible result in camera is clearly a good idea. There are however many circumstances where such techniques cannot be used. What then? The image out of the camera is just one side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is post-processing, whether in the dark room or in-silico.

I agree with mwsilvers here that you are expressing a little unwarranted arrogance. After all, Ansel Adams was a master of post processing, and his art had nothing to do with computers.

Remember, many of the people you are talking "at" - not talking "to" - cut their teeth with film and do not rely on raw image data to fix their images, they process their own results with contemporary tools rather than going down the street to Boots the Chemist or Walgreens to get their happy snaps printed!

Jim Bob

Weddingguy wrote:

If you do not understand the advantages of RAW . . . or do not have the post processing abilities to take advantage of of the RAW files . . . then you are quite right to be shooting JPG only.

Nice condescending reply. Even if you understand the advantages of raw and have the post processing abilities to take advantage of it, if you are happy with JPEG you should not allow the RAW police to convince you not to use it.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

MT Shooter wrote:

Simply put.....If you have to ask that question, then you shouldn't be shooting RAW at all.

Well put. :thumbup:

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

Nice condescending reply. Even if you understand the advantages of raw and have the post processing abilities to take advantage of it, if you are happy with JPEG you should not allow the RAW police to convince you not to use it.

Agree. I shoot raw and I know this is can be a very contentious subject, akin to discussing religion. However we should all be able to shoot in whatever mode helps us meet our personal goals without the fear of being insulted by those who favor another approach. I have no problem if someone shoots jpeg in preference to raw. I do get frustrated when someone suggests one's photographic skills must be wanting if they shoot raw. I know you're a jpeg guy, but I hope you'll appreciate there is more than one to achieve one's goals.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Jim Bob wrote:

Nice condescending reply. Even if you understand the advantages of raw and have the post processing abilities to take advantage of it, if you are happy with JPEG you should not allow the RAW police to convince you not to use it.

While I agree with you, it seems to go both ways.

From tturner

Quote:

Hello: I also shoot jpeg images, in fact I do not use the raw setting at all. I have had several encounters with other photographers asking me how I do my post processing. When I tell them I only shoot jpeg images many do not believe me. In fact shooting jpeg requires a lot more skill and talent, you have to be able to get it right the first time. If you are happy with your jpeg images it means that you are a very accomplished photographer and you do not need crutches.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

moonhawk wrote:

There's absolutely no reason that you should as long as you're happy turning all the creative decision making processes over to your camera and the people in your local lab, and if you have no desire to expand your own knowledge and involvement with your own photography.

Who said that we have to turn all the creative decision making over to the camera and the lab? I've done a lot of simple post production in Windows Gallery that have improved the look of my jpg photos tremendously. That's not to say that I don't understand how a photo shot in RAW can be adjusted more than one shot in jpg. For those of us with limited p/p skills, jpg and a simple software program like Gallery works.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

SteveR wrote:

Who said that we have to turn all the creative decision making over to the camera and the lab? I've done a lot of simple post production in Windows Gallery that have improved the look of my jpg photos tremendously. That's not to say that I don't understand how a photo shot in RAW can be adjusted more than one shot in jpg. For those of us with limited p/p skills, jpg and a simple software program like Gallery works.

Absolutely. Whatever it takes to get you a final result you're happy with. There is no right or wrong here.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I don't think that you "struck a nerve" because they are photoshop users, instead the responses are most likely due to your lack of understanding why one would use RAW - since you are provided with more data with RAW, what you are saying is illogical.

BTW, like clockwork, each time someone makes the very same statement like yourself, you guys all forget (conveniently) that the camera does PP your images for you. If you think that you don't need ANY PP, just record in raw and convert them to JPEG in a software.

tturner wrote:

Wow!!! I must have struck a nerve among all of you photoshop users. I would encourage you to investigate a process called the "magic cloth" technique. it is an in camera burning and dodging technique we learned in the days of film. By so doing you can produce excellent quality images without the need for any image management programs, or expensive graduated n/d filters. So get out there, get rid of the training wheels and learn to ride on your own.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

tturner wrote:

In fact shooting jpeg requires a lot more skill and talent, you have to be able to get it right the first time.

Sounds like you are really clueless - I hate to use the word but couldn't come up with anything else more appropriate.

Every photographer tries to get it IN CAMERA. That is why talented shooters produce superior images. How do so many of you drink the same cool aid?

Just based on your few pictures posted on this site, what happened to your skills? Your examples are way below average.

tturner wrote:

If you are happy with your jpeg images it means that you are a very accomplished photographer and you do not need crutches.

Can I have the honors to present you with the stupidest statement award?

Obviously there are exceptions, like certain genres, but most people who are happy with their snapshots 1 -have low standards 2 - never compared their images to the best.

PS: I realize that my 2 posts to you will no doubt hurt your feelings and I apologize for that but come on?