Best JPG (Page 2): Interesting thought. What was dodging, burning, various developer compositions, various paper types, contrast filters in the enlarger, cropping blades on the easel...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ky4lc wrote:

I M H O If you process all your pictures in the co... (show quote)

Interesting thought.
What was dodging, burning, various developer compositions, various paper types, contrast filters in the enlarger, cropping blades on the easel under the enlarger head, development time changes, and the many other things that existed in the days of film? What was their purpose for?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Peterff wrote:

Interesting, so you learned after people like Ansel Adams and before people like Lisa Kristine.

Maybe it was a seventies thing! 🤓

Good photographers were doing all of those things in the 1970s. It just was not easy nor economical enough for the average photographer. The fact that now it is should not be considered a bad thing. Ludditism is alive and well, but it is the wrong thing...

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Apaflo wrote:

Good photographers were doing all of those things in the 1970s. It just was not easy nor economical enough for the average photographer. The fact that now it is should not be considered a bad thing. Ludditism is alive and well, but it is the wrong thing...

berchman Loc: South Central PA

joer wrote:

If you shoot at the factory settings which camera has the best jpg images straight from the camera?

Result are not too surprising. Of course none of this matters when shooting raw and post processing.

The most sensible comment on the video testing different cameras:

This "test" would have been valid test....IF they used ONE lens adapted to diff cameras, and used a white balance card (Xrite passport , etc) to normalize all the shots, and had the same exposure for all shots..etc etc.
None of those things were done here. Lens output, ala phase, gain, bandwidth, saturation, by itself alone can and is radically diff between lenses.

cthahn

What is the queston?

leftj Loc: Texas

ky4lc wrote:

I M H O If you process all your pictures in the co... (show quote)

OH LORD IT HARD TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YER PERFECT EEVVVVVERRRRY WAY.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

ky4lc wrote:

I M H O If you process all your pictures in the co... (show quote)

Please not again. if you always shoot in a studio or controlled light fine, take what you get from the camera. If you shooting where the light varies 4-6 stops, such as sunrise/set, there is no way to get it "right", as it is comes out a big compromise. if that is fine for you, ok, but frankly you are simply settling for what can be much better.

I have respect for the film days and how hard people worked with the limitations but let's not be so "set in our ways" not to appreciate what raw and post processing can achieve. Even Ansel spent hours, days, weeks, post processing a photo and would likely be a photoshop, etc, wizzard.

tomad Loc: North Carolina

Same here, I learned in the 70's and accepted what I got using Kodachrome. I scanned a lot of those slides into digital tiffs 15 years ago and now can make them even better with some simple post processing. I agree that a lot of photos are great right out of the camera but you can improve many others with a few of those clicks.

ky4lc Loc: Madisonville Ky.

Ansel Adams would sit for hours or days, I have read, until the conditions were just right then take a few images on his 8 x10 view camera. THEN he would go and get on his Radio Shack TRS 80 and start processing!!!

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

ky4lc wrote:

I M H O If you process all your pictures in the co... (show quote)

You don't acknowledge that part of Ansel Adam's genius was his darkroom work?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Architect1776 wrote:

Interesting thought.
What was dodging, burning, various developer compositions, various paper types, contrast filters in the enlarger, cropping blades on the easel under the enlarger head, development time changes, and the many other things that existed in the days of film? What was their purpose for?

Saycheeze Loc: Ct

The best jpg engine out there right now is in the Nikon D5

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

ab7638 wrote:

The best jpg engine out there right now is in the Nikon D5

And by one horse hair and even that changes like who has the fastest computer.. if your eye can determine such a difference then by all means wave the flag. By all means love your JPG but I'm paying the money for a raw file that has all the data and not have to settle for some brand conversion to JPG. Like buying a Maserati and never getting out of first gear. :)

Rich K

I totally agree with you. I'm from the late 60's were we learned to master camera mechanics, composition, all the various aspects of Light and its impact, and learning how to bring our emotions and feelings to fruition. A great photographer at that time said - Take pictures without a camera - which I have practiced and has made me a better photographer.
Post processing should only be used to tweak a great / good picture otherwise why bother.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Rich K wrote:

I totally agree with you. I'm from the late 60's were we learned to master camera mechanics, composition, all the various aspects of Light and its impact, and learning how to bring our emotions and feelings to fruition. A great photographer at that time said - Take pictures without a camera - which I have practiced and has made me a better photographer.
Post processing should only be used to tweak a great / good picture otherwise why bother.

Isn't it the end result that matters? Who cares how you get to that result? Is there an award for the best SOOC photograph or just the best photograph?