Question about SOOC (Page 6): Another bitter old man not ready for the end. On a lighter note, feel free to prove me wrong. A picture is worth a thousand words. Or are you really that...

tdekany Loc: Oregon

WessoJPEG wrote:

You are so full of shit.

Another bitter old man not ready for the end. On a lighter note, feel free to prove me wrong. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Or are you really that ignorant about photography? For your snapshots full auto is just fine. But if I want to record my snapshots in RAW, why is that an issue for you? Try improving your composition and take some shots NOT at noon.

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

Not identifying any specific individuals in this specific response, but when you religious zealots and heretics are ready to burn each other at the stake let us know. The rest of us can come and make photographs to record the event for posterity!

We probably won't even need you to sign model releases!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

WessoJPEG wrote:

Your avatar with the crooked trees says it all. Another blowhard trying to impress someone about cameras. Never shot Auto in my life, forgot more than you'll ever know Asshole.

I'm not trying to impress anyone but I had no idea that someone could shoot for decades and never learned a thing about composition and light. Post your best shot to prove me wrong. And don't forget to drink your prune juice in the morning

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Peterff wrote:

Not identifying any specific individuals in this specific response, but when you religious zealots and heretics are ready to burn each other at the stake let us know. The rest of us can come and make photographs to record the event for posterity!

We probably won't even need you to sign model releases!

Why is it always the bs from JPEG shooters that is equated with what the raw shooters are saying? No one says that one shouldn't shoot JPEGs- but read carefully what jpegers are saying specifically imagemaister - he told a raw shooter that the problem is that he "thinks" that raw is better. Are we really serious? What is next? MP3 sounds better than CDs? And we shouldn't listen to CDs because we are not musicians? Can we get real?

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

tdekany wrote:

Why is it always the bs from JPEG shooters that is equated with what the raw shooters are saying? No one says that one shouldn't shoot JPEGs- but read carefully what jpegers are saying specifically imagemaister - he told a raw shooter that the problem is that he "thinks" that raw is better. Are we really serious? What is next? MP3 sounds better than CDs? And we shouldn't listen to CDs because we are not musicians? Can we get real?

As I said, I'm not identifying any specific contributors, but if we plant a few stakes and build up the pyres we can shoot with natural light while listening to the sizzle, snap, crackle and pop alongside a few other sounds!

Whether we use JPEG or raw will make little difference, since it will be the subjects that end up fully cooked!

Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.

par4fore wrote:

So, Straight Out Of Camera (digital only) is accepting the jpg with the post processing to the raw file done by the camera as opposed to processing the raw file in program and making those choices yourself to create the jpg?
If so, what about using the SOOC jpg and tweaking it further as opposed to starting fresh with a raw file to create a jpg. When I say tweaking that may include sharping, levels, curves, on more.

Back in the days of film, I used to do my own developing and printing. I always considered this to be a big part of the photographic process. People who took their film to the local chemist for processing, were considered "snappers". Shooting in jpg, is to my mind, like taking your film to the chemist.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

WessoJPEG wrote:

Your avatar with the crooked trees says it all. Another blowhard trying to impress someone about cameras. Never shot Auto in my life, forgot more than you'll ever know Asshole.

Ps: I live in beautiful semi rural Oregon. Trees don't always grow straight up. And when did I EVER claim that my pictures are special? Sounds like you are talking out of your lower pie hole

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Wellhiem wrote:

Back in the days of film, I used to do my own developing and printing. I always considered this to be a big part of the photographic process. People who took their film to the local chemist for processing, were considered "snappers". Shooting in jpg, is to my mind, like taking your film to the chemist.

I'm new to photography but sounds like some things have not changed

Hankwt Loc: kingsville ontario

is this just the same as how to put the Toilet Paper roll on -over the top or under the roll doesnt both ways serve a purpose ???

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Hankwt wrote:

is this just the same as how to put the Toilet Paper roll on -over the top or under the roll doesnt both ways serve a purpose ???

:thumbup: - except the jpeg shooters don't want to except it.

We all paid for our own cameras (I'd hope) so it isn't anyone's business to tell others how to use them. And as SS said earlier, None of the technical mambo jumbo counts, if the picture sucks. Which is most of us unfortunately - I'd say that is what must bother so many of the snap shooters. Which is stupid. I mean billions drive cars daily, but how many of those billions are good enough to be a pro driver? Very few people have the eye. That should be the main focus in general, not whether the camera shoots 10 or 12 FPS. Or how much DR a particular camera has.

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

Hankwt wrote:

is this just the same as how to put the Toilet Paper roll on -over the top or under the roll? Don't both ways serve a purpose ???

Like the perennial question: "How many men does it take to change a toilet roll?"

The answer being: "Nobody knows. It's never been done before!" :lol: :lol:

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

tdekany wrote:

:thumbup: - except the jpeg shooters don't want to... (show quote)

Actually I think they do want to "except" it! Maybe "accept" was the word you were looking for! :-D

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

Hankwt wrote:

is this just the same as how to put the Toilet Paper roll on -over the top or under the roll doesnt both ways serve a purpose ???

Perhaps the better question would be: "How many photographers does it take to change a toilet roll?"

The answer being: "None. They can't agree upon the format, the lighting, the angle to do it from, what tool is best, or what kind of paper to use!"

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

tdekany wrote:

So according to you, one should only use RAW if making money? But these articles are written to teach us snap shooters to improve the outcome. Not once have I read an article that suggested what you are suggesting if I understand you right.

No, you do not understand . Most of the people who want you to shoot raw are selling books, magazines, seminars, memory cards, computers, software, ect, ect .......get the idea ??? Shooting raw gives them something to talk about ect, ect. You must have bigger computers with more memory , larger memory cards - get the idea? !

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

imagemeister wrote:

No, you do not understand . Most of the people who want you to shoot raw are selling books, magazines, seminars, memory cards, computers, software, ect, ect .......get the idea ??? Shooting raw gives them something to talk about ect, ect. You must have bigger computers with more memory , larger memory cards - get the idea? !

Other than more storage, the rest of what you say is fallacious. BS in other words. You clearly do not understand enough about computers or you wouldn't continue to make such erroneous claims.

There is nothing wrong with JPEG if that meets your or anyone else's needs, but your arguments are not based upon a sound understanding of computer technology.