BlackChow

I shoot in both formats too. You never know.... I tell myself, while realizing at my age and activity, that's a very long shot. Still sometimes you can do wonders with an underexposed image.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

You are absolutely correct. The trouble is when you see argumentation that makes no sense. It will confuse the heck out of you.

Take the already breached subject of file format. One is easy (JPG) compliant with everything and you may have no choice. The other is not difficult either but you have to relearn seeing light and how to expose. So the result is that you have at the very least two different approach to light. One is fairly standard (JPG) but limited. The other is wide open but more complex in PP. Using JPG you can approach the quality of a raw potential using different techniques that involves multiple exposures but then by shooting using these JPG techniques you open yourself to a world of pain in PP, pain that does not exist when processing raw.

The problem I am trying to expose is that too many conflicting opinions are based of faith, nothing else. Well, when it comes to God, this is fine. When it comes to photography, it is not. The real information is diluted.

We have true specialists here (I am not one of them) but these are silent (if they did not simply quit) because they are tired of seeing their effort destroyed by 'faith based' opinionated individuals.

Loose Canon Loc: Mesa, AZ

I'm going to go off on a tangent, as usual, but hang in there, I might actually get to the point.

1. Photography is NOT an art, it is a science / technical field. As the gang of Big Bang would possibly agree, it is not theoretical physics, it is experimental physics. Mother nature created the art, we just duplicate it on film or sensor as best we can.
2. There is no exposure triangle. Aperture and shutter speed is the exposure duo, ISO is a choice of the quality you choose for the results. The film or sensor is the receiver of the exposure, it has nothing to do with controlling it.
3. I take photos in the hope of having an acceptable representation of something I would enjoy re-living if only in my mind. I take photos for the enjoyment I get from catching something at just the right time, i.e. the only thing I'm competing with is my own skill at timing, focus and the dreaded exposure.
4. PP is for people who can't get it right, by their own admission. I am so sick of seeing digitally manipulated images, many times to the point of creating cartoons instead of realism. Mother nature does a damn good job of providing awesome colors and contrasts. If you think you can improve her work you are sadly mistaken. PP is the equivalent of painting by numbers.
5. I overshot the point of this response, as usual, see #2.

BartHx

This seems to work well for me, as well. I do my rough editing in the topic list and my pp when I see what direction the discussion is going and how far it goes on. I apologize if I am duplicating someone else. I just did not have the patience or interest to wade through all five pages (so far) of non-productive blather. It would be a very boring world if everyone did everything exactly the same way.

Pinenuts Loc: Genoa, NV

Great shots! You nailed perfect exposure. Think how much more perfect it would have been if you had shot in RAW and spent ten or twenty minutes in PP

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

Yes, he is kind of weird! LOL

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

[quote=Loose Canon]

Very well said.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

This can be a frustrating site to frequent. There are a lot of people who are not experienced in photography that can ask VERY basic questions. And the questions can be repeated over and over and over. But isn't that what this site is all about?? I skip by them when that happens. What bothers me are shots sent in that are VERY amateurish. Shots that I would have deleted. But I don't say anything, although I've come close. LOL But that too is part of the site. It would be nice to know in advance WHO is making the post. That way I can "weed" out some clicks. I can spend well over an hour on here every day. I'm also tired of the arguments of Nikon vs Canon. I have convinced my self to avoid those posts. It's not worth it.

DanCulleton

I want to capture what I see and what I want to see.
Sometimes I see overexposed and sometimes I see underexposed.
Sometimes I never get it quite right.
Or don't even know just what I see.
It's all OK.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Of course responsibility has a place in photography. Each of us is responsible for our own photos. My point is none of us is responsible to anyone else but ourselves for the photographs we take. If I take a photo of a sunset and you don't like it but I do then I really don't care about your opinion. My opinion is the only one that matters. Many people post pictures on UHH. Many of them are truly not good photos, not even good snapshots. Yet many people ooh and ahh over the pictures, "Great capture, Fred. You sure nailed it", while viewing a photo of an out of focus bird flying across the sky half a mile away. But to the photographer who shot the photo and posted it then it is a good picture. It may have nothing to do with exposure but more about focus or composition or not using flash if there is a need for it. Many parts make up a good picture.

Again, I don't recall arguments about exposure that would warrant your post. Maybe I just don't let other people's supposed arguments bother me. I would never have brought it up to begin with other than if someone asked a question about exposure I might offer some advice because they asked. Why you would feel frustrated over a non existent problem is not even frustrating to me.

Have a wonderful day,

Dennis

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Some are just too lazy to learn PP!

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I love your post and agree totally. I would love to see who posts the picture before opening it up. Many people post pictures that may be wonderful award winning pictures but I have no desire to waste my time on that subject. Sunrises and sunsets are one example that come to mind. Yes the photos are beautiful but I simply don't care about that type of photo. Birds are another subject I simply don't care about no matter how well done the photo is. This is no putting down of those photographers but simply not my cup of tea. I do like wildlife photos but when I see a deer or elk which is too far off or mostly blocked by foliage then I have no desire to see it.

Like you I go down through the list of subjects and if I see a question of which lens to use when visiting a certain city somewhere in the world I just skip it by. Whatever lens I might use to take photos of cities close to me already will be the perfect lens to use in any other city on the planet. Generally speaking a wide angle lens and a moderate zoom will cover any city. Actually a 35 or 50mm all by themselves will also work just fine.

I once made an unsolicited comment on a photo here on the UHH. It was something simple such as, you might consider cropping the picture so the composition would be in thirds. I got my butt chewed for a week from other members about how did I have the nerve to criticize someone else's photo. Here I thought I was being helpful but I guess I was not. Never again have I given any assistance that was unsolicited.

Dennis

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I guess I should speak for myself. I tried film for a very short time, and never even thought about photography again until digital came along. I found if I pressed the shutter button enough eventually I would get a keeper shot. But going on vacations, coming home with several thousand photos and only having a handful that were really any good at all made me realize that I took the automation for granted which in turn made Me Lazy. I mean, how can you even call yourself a photographer unless you know how to expose properly for a photo. I remember when growing up one of my friends father was a Photographer. His basement was full of hanging B&W's. The man had a Skill and a passion, it showed in the photos. Now today, all you need is a camera to consider yourself a photographer, which I believe is wrong on many different levels. Heck, I was in NYC a couple years ago and saw hundreds of cell phone and tablet photographers every where I went. You would even think the camera was a thing of the past as I saw only a handful of them being carried around. Still to this day I can't operated my DVD player, other than on or off, but for some reason I took this photography thing more seriously. To each their own I guess. As for a purist, not in the least, my point was to expose the photo properly to Start with, which only makes me a learning photographer.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Yes, I guess in a sense most all photos start out as Raw and are then transformed to JPEG. I remember listening to conversations about Raw when I first joined a camera club and fairly new at photography. The conversations were generated around saving lost data, pulling more color, and shadow and light from you photos. Not much talk about getting it right to start with. I felt at the time I Needed to concentrate on the camera only and not some software that would pull my photo from the ashes. Not a purist, just wanted to get it right. Now I shoot Raw + Jpeg and have began learning PP. And I'm finding, if shot right to start with, not much PP is needed...

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Just so happens, I shoot raw+jpeg so I can always play with that file if I need to.. Thanks.