Delderby wrote:
Does your printer do sky replacement and cloning? can it print millions of color tones? I don't think so. What calibrator do you use?
Just for you, Delderby...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
selmslie wrote:
I never said you did. For that one you claimed it was not Auto ISO, but is it.
You are thoroughly confused.
I have better things to do than to continue this discussion. You are wasting my time and everyone else's.
I am un-watching. Goodbye.
Ah, such a sweet surrender message.
selmslie wrote:
There can be no absolutely correct opinion on color in art. The expression of an opinion is just the expression of an opinion.
It's only pointless if you disagree with it. That't usually evidence of a closed mind.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All artists face that challenge.
Huh? Your response is, again, pointless, vapid, and, this time, off-topic. Pick a lane...
Photocraig wrote:
To expect to create an image that is true to a photographer's visualization (vs. vison) automagically trough the application of in camera processing modes, without actually critically evaluating an image file, to me is extraordinarily optimistic. Or, perhaps,
Controversial.
C
Your comments seem spot-on. For example, it's really comical to hear from people so proudly espousing SOOC and how they capture images perfectly -- but without giving a moment's thought to the simple fact that many things change a how that perfect JPEG is presented. Every different monitor displaying the JPEG will change the color, contrast, brightness and more -- and their very own monitor will change over time. Every printing lab from Walmart to Adorama will change at least some characteristics of the image. If you print at home, every different paper choice will change the image -- but maybe not as much as the printer profile (if they even know what a printer profile is.)
Wow...just wow.
selmslie wrote:
The difference is whether you approach digital photography as a science or as an art.
Anybody can approach it scientifically and get "accurate" images that don't show any artistic sense.
Can you make a decent accurate image of a sunset? Most photographers try to improve on nature.
...another pointless expression of opinion and generalization. As Mark Twain allegedly said about comments like yours, "All generalizations are false, including this one.”
selmslie wrote:
Why does the white mat look yellow where the sun is shining directly on it? Is is because you used Auto WB?
...and what make/model monitor are you viewing this image on and what tool was used to color calibrate it? If you're using an off-the-shelf and/or uncalibrated monitor, your color observation is meaningless.
If you don't get why this is relevant, take a look at the TVs on display next time you're in Walmart. They are all displaying the same signal from the same source yet the colors, contrast, and so on vary wildly from one TV screen to another.
Ysarex wrote:
Show me where I mentioned using the eyedropper or said that's how I set WB.
You are as usual making up BS and shoveling as fast as you can.
Ysarex, it's starting to feel like the comical arguments against the plain, straightforward elements of digital photography you present are based upon an irrational need in some folks to stay uninformed and to refuse to learn and grow. Everything you've said is present in the documents from various camera manufacturers, in photography training/schools, every photolab, and, in various forms, articulated by every successful commercial photographer.
Simply owning a camera no more makes one a photographer than putting leaves in one's hair makes one a tree.
My thinking is that some upcoming arguments against your posts will probably reference climate change and quote Dr. Fauci. Just saying...
selmslie wrote:
Just as well since you probably think that Battleship Gray is a neutral color. It's not.
You would have screwed this one up too.
Uh, Battleship Gray is neutral enough for Government work. :-)
You do know what Neutral Gray is and its significance/importance to photography and "getting it right" -- particularly when it comes to setting "correct" white balance. Right?
-------------NEUTRAL GRAY-------BATTLESHIP GRAY
Hex Color:---#898e8c---------------#848482
RGB:---------(137,142,140)---------(132,132,130)
CMYK:------- (4,0,1,44)------------- (0,0,2,48)
Retired CPO wrote:
The shadows are dark because the shadows were dark when I took the photo.
Just curious...how do the pictures you take in the dark of night or in a very poorly lit room look? Certainly, you wouldn't use flash, an artificial lighting source, an irrationally high ISO, or do any post-processing because that would alter the scene and the purity of your SOOC skills. Right? And, certainly, someone with your skills would have no trouble capturing an excellent image in darkness.
Look forward to viewing some posts of your SOOC photos taken in darkness.
kymarto wrote:
I never shoot jpg, but if I did I would set everything to neutral, giving you the most accurate rendition of the scene, then do what you will in post.
Remember that the camera's picture controls settings, including white balance, do not affect/modify the saved RAW file at all - the RAW is just that - the raw, unmodified sensor output (well, it does affect the file in a sense given that the jpeg preview file is embedded but the RAW data is unchanged). When shooting RAW, those settings only affect the image display on the camera's screen. So, choosing neutral or any other setting does not alter the RAW file.
Ysarex, you illustrate your point exactly and perfectly using the alligator picture post by Retired CPO as an example. I'd be embarrassed to share a photo like that and then present myself as a competent photographer who argues against embracing/using the fundamental principles of good photography. Folks like Retired CPO just make me shake my head and smile. As said earlier, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being unskilled and taking snapshots - but folks who do that need to accept their limited knowledge/skills and stop making uninformed arguments to defend that limited knowledge/skill.
Ysarex wrote:
The unsurmountable problem with all of the above is that most of us are not taking photos in controlled studio conditions where we can prep the subject, build the set and control the lighting. Outside the studio it is almost a guarantee that what we find that we want to photograph will present a subject characteristic or lighting contrast condition that the camera's picture controls can't address and then all of the above comes crashing down.
Thanks for your comments.
It's refreshing to hear from someone who actually gets it and understands what is truly required to create a quality photograph and "get it right."
It's amazing to read the proclamations of righteous indignity from those who *clearly* have no real understanding of how their cameras work, what is actually required to create a quality photograph, and are so outspoken in defending their ignorance -- even after the simple facts are shown to them they continue to defend the indefensible. Somehow the limitations of what an unaided camera can actually capture don't exist in their world - physics and science don't apply to their cameras.
What's most laughable is to hear them defend their ignorance of photography by pointing to the images they have posted -- simple uncorrected images reminiscent of vacations and backyard bird snapshots. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with snapshots but one should never confuse them with intelligently composed. executed, and corrected photographs. Snapshot shooters should just accept their limitations and stay out of discussions about photography.
As someone said, "the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits."
A tip of the hat to you, sir!
Retired CPO wrote:
I'm one of those "they" that you are talking about. Why don't you tell me why I don't want to shoot RAW? And you can look at some of my posts and tell me what I'm missing by shooting jpeg.
If you *really* want to know what you're missing don't bother with asking us amateurs. You should submit a few of your very best images to a stock photography site and see if they will accept them. Most of those sites are very direct in their critiques regarding the technical aspects of the image, the subject, and the composition.
Places like Fotolia, Getty Images, Alarmy, Stocksy, and many more. Just Google "stock photography site."
Seems like you made a bold challenge to BebuLamar -- can you step up to this bold challenge?
BebuLamar wrote:
Haha! I believe people who say they shoot SOOC don't want to know about this.
What?! Are you suggesting there are people who use their expensive, sophisticated, configurable photographic instruments as simple point-and-shoot cameras and consider the JPEG images they produce as SOOC photography successes?
That can't be true -- tell me it ain't so!
CHG_CANON wrote:
Page 3 of your prior post spoke to these camera options:
There's a few things you should consider for SOOC success shooting in JPEG.
Your remarks make sense to me - thanks for sharing your ideas.