Hi,
I feel bad that some members feel "shamed", and are driven into the shadows, by the comments of others.
You, IMO, have every right to share your experience! After all, you were just trying to help other members avoid a possible pothole.
I got a bigger kick out of the replies, than from the original joke.😁
Hi, new member here also.
Yes, many have mentioned manual modes, (A,S,P), because of the fact that a camera has limited dynamic range, unlike the human eye, the camera, (in auto mode), tries it's best to "guess", what you want, as far as exposure is concerned.
I think I would have spot metered and exposed for the subdued area of the back seat.
Once again, my novice opinion.
That's cool!
I will check it out!
Thanks,
never thought of taking a pic. with a digital camera.
How would one illuminate the negitive to take the shot?
I might try that method before going the scanner route.
I have been playing around with several old film cameras that I used in the past, but I never got into processing the film myself.
I sure am learning!
Hi,
Please help me understand the difference between an image, (file), produced by a digital camera, and a film negetive, scanned into a pp program with a scanner.
Does the scanner determine the resolution of the scanned negitive?
I have a grasp on how a digital sensor captures light, and that the resolution is deretmined by the size and quantity of the sensor sites, but don't know about a scanner's
ability to compete with a sensor, when it comes to resolution.
Also, what can a pp program do to a scanned negitive vs. digital file, right from the camera.
You can't fix stupid, but you can fix ignorance!
I my mind, part of the love I have of photography, is in dealing with the use of precision machinery presented in a nice camera.
Akin to a nice timepiece, or a fine double shotgun.
As mentioned many times, an entry level camera, can take, in the hands of a real shootest, photographs that rival those taken with the best gear available.
Just something about fine tools.
Might take some heat for not being a true "pureist".
This is GREAT!
Asking a relevent question, has gotten so many different views and opinions on the subject, but, it is not great to to see the discord
that comes from it.
I, and most of you have thick skin, and don't really care what is said about them, and probably won't change ones view on the subject,
BUT, COME ON GUYS AND GALS!
Beleive me. I am not trying to mediate anything, but to me, this infighting only distracts from the discussion.
It is beneath the professionalism that most show on this forum, IMHO.
WOW, great comments, one and all!
I learn something EVERY time I read posts in this forum.
Thanks everyone.
Gene, thank you for your reply.
One point you made that makes sense to me
Is thst at the software, internal to the camera, is not nearly as powerful as some stand alone image processing programs are.
Second, and the most salient point to me, is that, unlike film, a digital camera is already post processing the info. captured by the sensor system, when you view a image directly from the camera. (Can't review the shot, without software involvement). I guess, if one never saved in JPEG, no in camera processing would occur. The info. from the sensor system, that is recorded in memory, would be "pure".
The joy being that we have the ability to save both pure, and adulterated info. in the form of both RAW and JPEG.
Extremely over simplified!
And third, as an analogy to film, the camera develops the film as a JPEG (negitive in film), plus gives one the ability to use a very powerful digital darkroom, if wanted or needed.
Sorry if I over simplified, or misfired with some of my novice comments.
Bill, thank you!
I don't know if you read my comment about seeking answers to questions from knowledgeable individuals, but you sir seem not only knowledgeable, but also very experienced.
You know, It seems to me that on this and other photo sites, it is almost sacreligous to profess you only shoot JPEG, and the mention of not pp an image places you in the company of Neadrothals.
I have a copy of GIMP, Elements 13, and several other pp programs.
They are absolutely amazing pieces of software, that in the hands of an experienced user produce unbelievable results.
The main issue is the very steep learning curve
associated with them, and more time in front of the computer, less time with the camera.
I do understand that some professionals require this ability to excell in their business.
It blows me away reading posts from members that talk about using layers, brushes, and, if the black being used is really black!
Way above my pay grade!
I like the fact that you and others have mentioned images that have heavy processing applied, are not "pure", and take away from the "art of the camara".
What is great, is that like life in general is made of the choices we make, and being that photography is a part of our lives,
WE CAN MAKE THE CHOICES THAT MAKE US HAPPY!
That is the bottom line for me, being happy.
Thank you, it has.
No disrespect intended, but I, once again I, have not been shooting digital very long, so the 20 year comment, not necessary, IMHO.
Plus, how many shooters used digital 20 years ago? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think many. ( Not sure when digital became mainstream)
You have probably seen this topic discussed adnosim, but I am just starting to dip my big toe into the pp world. (plus my wife keeps asking me, now that I have all this fancy gear, why I can't make her wrinkles disapear when I photograph her.)
Please don't tell her I said that, she knows where I keep the hammer!😉
Being new to digital, and with no professional experience to boot, I am trying to get as much
"exposure" (pun intended), as I can, with the time I have left on this big spinning ball.
I really enjoy the hobby, and I learned a long time ago, that in life, and photography, asking knowledgeable people serious questions, is one of the best way to get educated on a topic, but dealing with really smart individuals can really be a pain.
Just ask my wife😃
Hi,
I am trying to better understand a post processed RAW file vs. a JPEG.
I am a real novice in this area but
as I understand, RAW files are just basically numbers, that until processed with special pp software, can not be viewed through the normal process of viewing an image on a computer.
I beleive, after the pp, the pp software has the ability to convert the said image to a GIFF, or TIFF, etc.
Question is since JPEGs are heavily compressed files, with a lot of lost info. aren't the pp converted JPEGs, lossy as well, throwing away information?
I understand that post processing an image,
gives us the ability to not only edit an image to our liking, but the great ability to save an image, that would be terrible without pp.
What happens to the quality of an image viewed in pp software, vs. a post processed JPEG?
Once again, a true beginner trying to learn.
My Sigma 70-300 stopped working after updating firmware on my Nikon 7100, to latest firmware. 103 to 104.
Reverted to previous firmware, all ok.
Would not have though that would be the cause, but thanks to the internet, it is a fact.
Probably Sigma would update the lens firmware, if you send it to Sigma, but there sees to be nothing in the 7100's latest firmware that affects me.
We will see if there are any more updates to the 7100's, that Nikon addresses this issue.