Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: mrjcall
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 118 next>>
Apr 11, 2019 15:17:46   #
Fstop12 wrote:
I might be missing something here but if a highlight is blown, it's not salvageable regardless of the format it was taken in. If you blow out a highlight shooting in RAW, there is no detail captured and no amount of post processing is going to get it back.

The point I was trying to make is that if it had been shot in dng format on my phone, it would have had more dynamic range and the sun probably would not have been so blown out.
Apr 11, 2019 15:16:41   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Steady, MRJ. A sincere comment and/or question deserves more respect than shouting and five exclamation points. If you're not up to providing a thoughtful response that will aid in learning, then please move back to main discussion forum.

Perhaps you simply don't understand my kind of humor Ma'am.....😉
Apr 11, 2019 15:00:23   #
Curmudgeon wrote:
I liked it from the start. Sometimes you spend hours trying to get a desired effect in pp and never quite succeed, sometimes you get artifacts that totally ruin a picture and sometimes the artifacts add to the overall composition. Tone down the brightness a bunch and I think you have a keeper.

Unfortunately, the sun highlight is totally blown out because, wait for it, ITS A JPEG!!!!! Not salvageable so its the best its going to get.....
Apr 11, 2019 13:38:37   #
nanaval wrote:
I like the way the picture turned out after you had done HDR on it as I presumed that was the final image...

Hmm, well, I'm glad you like it...... jpeg artifacts, sometimes called banding, is normally something we try and avoid. Maybe I'll have to do more like this, eh? 😉
Apr 11, 2019 13:11:31   #
nanaval wrote:
And it turned out great...

You like the layered jpeg artifacts or am I missing something?
Apr 10, 2019 09:39:08   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
I remember a couple of jpg's from my bridge camera that showed sky artifacts - probably made worse by my processing.

When did cell phones start offering raw? I don't have a smart phone so haven't paid attention

I believe Samsung started about 3-4 years ago with dng as an option. My S8 is 2 years old and defaults to jpeg so I have to remember to switch to dng every time. Not sure about other phones.
Apr 10, 2019 09:37:23   #
davyboy wrote:
Pretty pic. When you shot that jpeg how large was your sensor?

Pretty darn small! Samsung S8....😎
Apr 10, 2019 08:19:21   #
If anyone ever wondered what jpeg artifacts really look like, here's a good example. Cellphone shot out my front door this morning and though I had set to dng (raw) format, but somehow missed it and ended up with a jpeg image. When downloaded, the sky artifacts were noticeable so for fun I through the image in Aurora HDR and pumped em up!

Mar 18, 2019 10:34:21   #
Interesting that Skylum is trying some marketing gimmicks to try and tap into the drone photography software market. Their ‘Air Magic’ is very much like their Aurora HDR, only less capable, but essential the same thing packaged for the unititiated. Probably a ton of “Dronies" out there that know little or nothing about photography software I suppose…..
Mar 17, 2019 21:27:46   #
Kuzano wrote:
I've been clear from time to time, and at length that I do not currently shoot RAW. I have in the past for a 4-5 year period and used Photoshop for some time and I do not want to revisit that decision on my part. But I think I have been clear in my reasons, over time.

Someone is not happy with my decision and choose to tag me as lazy, and more than that, intimidated by the process. Here follows:

"Raw is pretty much useless to me (my topic)

from: mrjcall (all from/all to)
received on: Mar 17, 2019 08:11:26
Greetings: I find your musings regarding your lack of desire or need for shooting in raw format to be devoid of any real facts except for one: the jpeg format is used primarily for sport/news photographers (who make money at their endeavors) because they often need to immediately transfer the images back to their base of operations.

The vast majority of hobbyists who decry raw format as useless, such as yourself, are simply too lazy or too intimidated by the effort involved in bringing their photography to the next level. Yes, of course it is an effort, but so was using the darkroom back in the day. I'll make the leap that you don't make money at sport/news photography, so I'll attribute your raw attitude to being both lazy AND intimidated, but most likely the later......

Shooting in raw format isn't necessary for many to enjoy photography as a hobby, but it IS required if one is interested in creating the highest quality images their brain, their effort and their gear can produce. Based on your somewhat lengthy treatise, you obviously don't aspire to that goal and that's fine.........few do. 😎


Well Jim, for me it all boils down to personal choice. I did use a wet darkroom in the past, but eventually also gave that up in favor of mastering the camera and film, or the camera and digital capture in favor of image capture in both media. I have been abundantly clear on that..... capture in the studio and the field is much more important to me.

While I do not decry shooting RAW or Post Processing as unnecessary, and while I have seen the benefits of both, I simply choose to shoot with a properly adjusted camera and with proper media (if film) and other "capture tools".

Your point that I have done little to prove my point, I find no evidence in your PM to me to prove your point. So we drag this old bickering point onto the table again, when it truly is simply a matter of choice.

To Each his own.
I've been clear from time to time, and at length t... (show quote)

You might want to give my full comments in that I said if you are concerned about maximizing what your brain, your effort and your equipment can produce, you'll shoot in raw format. I also said that many do not want to go through that effort and are fine with jpegs and that is fine if that is what you want to do. I will reiterate that most who do not want to shoot raw simply are not willing to learn what its about and are not interested in the effort to learn post processing software because the process is intimidating. Full context my man. Me thinks you might just be protesting a bit too much....
Mar 17, 2019 15:09:20   #
Mar 15, 2019 08:42:09   #
nospambob wrote:
what is MTF?????

Modulation Transfer Function..... Simply an optics test which allows the makers to reliably predict the quality outcome of their designs for the glass in lenses.
Mar 14, 2019 12:26:12   #
JohnSwanda wrote:
It's a f1.8, not f8. I wondered why anyone would make a 135mm f8 lens.

Yep, typo......
Mar 14, 2019 09:15:49   #
deer2ker wrote:
Assuming it is better than the 400 f/2.8 it will prob cost more than $12k so they better have it together!

P.S. I trust Roger Cicala's reviews so kudos for Sony!

Latest listing on pricing is $1898.00.......
Mar 14, 2019 08:37:56   #
Anyone that thinks Sony doesn't have it's lens act together needs to read this......
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 118 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.