ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

I'm fairly new here. I've spent my photo career (50 years) shooting film then moving to digital in 2005. Shooting mostly landscapes, a few weddings and portaits. With digital I've stayed with Large Fine rarely touching up images, until recently doing that plus RAW.
What I decided is that most awesome images I'm seeing here must be shot RAW then processed via PS/LR or such. I've been to Yosemite, Monument Valley and my images though good (to me) aren't so crisp, detailed, and "bright" as recent published images here, mine being non RAW. I'd really love to see same images before artistic updates, to me many of these awesome images seem more Art, almost like a fine painting versus realistic actual image (I mean beyond calendar quality)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Well, here's two of mine, the first SOOC. The second processed.
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010978-d700_2015091301_012.jpg

Oh, and welcome to UHH.
--Bob

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Welcome! Many contentious threads have been posted here on the merits (and demerits, lol) of "sooc" (straight out of camera) vs. post-processing. There are also numerous spirited threads on the definition of art, as well as how much pp is "too" much. Hint: no consensus has been reached

IMO, the bottom line is:
It's your image, do what you like to it!
https://digital-photography-school.com/its-your-image-do-what-you-like-to-it/

There are dozens of photos posted every day to UHH that are not edited - or at least don't appear to be Just browse "newest pictures" at top of the page, and be sure to subscribe to all the specialty forums that interest you; click on "all sections" at bottom of this page to find the list.

You can also set up buddy lists to follow those photographers whose styles are of most interest to you. Don't use the daily email digest; that is just a sampling of all that's on this site.

toxdoc42

Bob, i don't want to seem rude, but what happened to "cause" the raw image to look so strange?

LarryFitz Loc: Beacon NY

Welcome to UHH.
95% of the time I adjust the shadows, highlights, white and black to get full range as seen on histogram. Many times I also do contrast types of adjustment. Sometime I push colors to enhance what I saw in the view finder. I want an image that is enjoyable to look at and have a sense of reality.

TheDman Loc: USA

You already have - your own shots!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You asked about landscapes, but here's one I was reworking recently from indoors in lowlight. It's not RAW in itself that is the difference. You can do excellent work with Fine / Large JPEGs from today's DSLRs in the 20MP+ range. What RAW gives you is all the original data from the sensor to push the image as far as you can desire given your vision and tools.

I remember shortly after this image, I decide I wouldn't push my camera model beyond ISO-5000 in the future if this is the best I can get from ISO-6400. Another benefit of RAW is that you can revisit an image years in the future with new techniques, or new tools or a new vision. The RAW file is the same as if you'd captured it earlier this morning. Your JPEG too can be the original if you're careful in managing the original. But, the camera's decisions are permanently baked into the JPEG where maybe your shooting technique and settings have evolved over time.

After from ISO-6400


Before from ISO-6400

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Let's say you're in Yosemite, Monument Valley, your back yard, or pretty much anywhere, and you have a dozen cameras. One camera has Fuji Velvia loaded, the next has Ektachrome, the next has Verichrome Pan, Agfachrome 400, Kodachrome, etc., etc., etc., and you shoot the exact same scene at the exact same time. Slide films get developed and projected on a screen, print films get printed on glossy or mat paper, and you look at each of these projections and prints, more or less simultaneously. Do each of those separate images duplicate each other exactly? Is one brighter, another sharper, another less contrasty, etc, etc, etc? Is one of those consequently more 'real' than the others? And are those others, being misrepresentations of what your eye/mind has determined objective reality to actually be, then consigned to being 'art' and therefore somehow false?

Do the same with a dozen digital cameras, only this time factor in a dozen different monitors, a dozen different prints, and so on. Which of those portrays 'what is real' and which others are 'art'?

Answer: None of the above is reality. Reality is not having taken any of those two dozen shots. Its standing at the scene and looking. Hopefully without any physical eye difficulties, and with a mind not clouded over by some other concern than the scene.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

No perception of being rude on your part at all. The answer to your question is contained in these two articles.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=2765
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1527
--Bob

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

Thanks all for the response! I realize photography is an art form especially to the person doing the work. I'll be using RAW more often hoping I can achieve more detail, so far not so good, but I'm determined. I'm still mostly a purist at heart so that makes it bit more difficult for me I guess.

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

How do you define 'purist'? Is it the result strictly from the camera without any modification? Is it the result of film processing and darkroom work to create a print? Is it the modern digital equivalent, an in camera processed JPEG? Is it a raw image with some post processing as Bob has demonstrated?

Or as Ansel Adams demonstrated with his music analogy, "The negative is the score, the print is the performance."?

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I will be rude.your SOOC was worse than terrible. Bad exposure, nothing done with image sharpening, white balance etc. etc. If this is the best you can do setting up your camera I can see why you shoot RAW so you can "fix" in post. Your processed example cries "Photoshop". It does jump out at you but just does not look natural. There are just too many photos that look this way. Just My Not So Humble Opinion - Dave

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

Not sure if there is a definition for purest, I'm not one, though consider what you and your skills with camera can produce an image that needs or gets no modification on the computer being close to that.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

"Art vs Real" is a false dichotomy. No photograph is "real". Photography can create an illusion that it shows exactly what the eye sees, but it is just that, an illusion. And what makes a photograph art is not how much post processing or darkroom manipulation the photographer does. Photographs which give that illusion of being "real" can be art just as much as photos manipulated to look quite differently than the eye sees.

LarryFitz Loc: Beacon NY

All Digital images start as raw, then must be developed. They can be developed in the camera, by using algorithms created by the camera manufacture or they can be transfer to a computer and have a post processing software develop them. When developed by PP software, you can used the software defaults (Adobes, GIMP, Luminar, etc) algorithms or you can use the PP tools to develop yourself. Which is best for your individual photo is best, depends on the image and your individual tastes.

With training and experience, most people can do better then the defaults.