Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating. (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t430174-raw-then-photoshop-is-this-not-cheating.html)

Denny B 10-29-2006 11:36 PM

RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
you did not train and discipline yourself
to understand light metering and no matter
how you botch up taking a picture, there is
always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
you never know what you are looking at, is
what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
version.
I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.

I don't mind showing my pictures to people
just the way the camera took them and ( I know
there is conversion in the camera program )

Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
is not what you see.
Every picture I take I do not want to display
in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.

Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
is only good enough after it has been doctored
using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
other doctoring software.

Your opinions are awaited.

Thanks in advance
Denny B

Raphael Bustin 10-29-2006 11:44 PM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote:


>Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>is only good enough after it has been doctored
>using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>other doctoring software.



What is reality?

But hey, be a purist if it makes you happy.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

John Bean 10-29-2006 11:52 PM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <dmrbap@telus.net>
wrote:

>I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
>never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.


Your choice. My choice differs.

>Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
>is not what you see.


So I guess you never made prints? Prints are
second-generation whether film or digital and involve
external processing of some sort.

>Every picture I take I do not want to display
>in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
>prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.


So... how does your camera camera produce prints without
external processing? If processing is needed, what
difference does it make whether the original was raw or a
JPEG?

>Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
>do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
>is only good enough after it has been doctored
>using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
>other doctoring software.


Hm. I really don't know what you're asking here, you seem to
be suggesting that all raw images are in some way inferior.
Each to his own I suppose.


--
John Bean

All_Thumbs 10-29-2006 11:53 PM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 

"Denny B" <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote in message
news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
>
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B


Beliefs are stronger than facts.



frederick 10-29-2006 11:54 PM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
Denny B wrote:
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
>
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B

You can "doctor" ex-camera jpegs with PSP or PS just the same.
And quite contrary to your understanding, using RAW gives you far better
latitude to adjust white balance and exposure to as accurately as
possible reproduce what your eyes saw.
Is it cheating? Yes it is - just like using a light meter is cheating.

Andy Hewitt 10-30-2006 12:15 AM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
Denny B <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote:

> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.

[..]

> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B


I think you are missing the point of using RAW files. These are merely
the equivalent of using negatives in film photography. Working with JPGs
and TIFFs (although not so much with TIFFs), is like working from a
print. Every time you adjust a JPG or TIFF, you will degrade the
quality, just like reproducing a print to change its attributes - of
course you can always go back to an original file, but this will always
have whatever exposure settings were applied at the time the file was
created - like getting a set of prints back from a photo developer. If
they have a colour cast, they will always have a colour cast. If they
were over exposed onto print, they will always be over exposed. You can
adjust to some extent, but it will always be destructive.

Likewise, so will JPGs and TIFFs (expect you can never recover from any
defects), if a camera applies the wrong white balance, then you can only
destructively compensate for it.

Using a RAW file is like working from your own negatives. You have the
choice to apply white balance, exposure, sharpening, or levels
adjustment etc. without being destructive to the original image. You can
control how the photo turns out, just like working in your own darkroom.

I have only used RAW myself for a few weeks, but already I can see the
advantages. You get much better dynamic range to work with, and you can
adjust levels and colours without losing any detail. In fact it is much
nearer to working with film than I thought it would be.

You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
exposure for the final image gives much better detail.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Rod Williams 10-30-2006 12:16 AM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
Denny B wrote:
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
>
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B


A great picture is a great picture and personally I don't care how it
was achieved. Pro Photographers had/have lab techniques, like dodging,
could control exposure, etc. to make their pictures better. We just have
many more tools now.

All_Thumbs 10-30-2006 12:17 AM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 

"Denny B" <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote in message
news:vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82...
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.
>
> Please I am not saying anybody should do what I
> do, the topic here is having a Raw picture that
> is only good enough after it has been doctored
> using Photoshop or Paintshop Pro or one of the
> other doctoring software.
>
> Your opinions are awaited.
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B


Wrong thinking.

An image shot in raw mode is likely to be a more accurate representation of
what the lens saw than what a jpeg image presents.

A good photograph is much more than just a technical copy of what the lens
sees. The brain is very fickle, what we think we see is not the same as what
the lens sees.

I always shoot in raw.



All_Thumbs 10-30-2006 12:21 AM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 

"Andy Hewitt" <wildrover.andy@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1hnzuqm.dk36gw9fljpqN%wildrover.andy@googlema il.com...
> Denny B <dmrbap@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
> You don't have to do any more messing around in Photoshop (I actually
> use Apple Aperture myself, which is even less destructive) than before.
> However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW,
> as you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in
> exposure for the final image gives much better detail.
>
> --
> Andy Hewitt
> <http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>


"However, it is often beneficial to shoot slightly under exposed in RAW, as
you retain much more detail in shadows, so a quick increase in exposure for
the final image gives much better detail."

You might want to check on that more closely.




Randall Ainsworth 10-30-2006 12:37 AM

Re: RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.
 
In article <vWa1h.35375$H7.11616@edtnps82>, Denny B <dmrbap@telus.net>
wrote:

> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out. These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.
> I use a Nikon D70S set to fine JPEG and have
> never yet felt I need to take Pictures in RAW.
>
> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
> just the way the camera took them and ( I know
> there is conversion in the camera program )
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.
> Every picture I take I do not want to display
> in an art gallery, nor do I want to sell it, the
> prints I have made, a photo album is all I want.


I am no longer in the business of creating commercial images - I just
do it for the love of photography. But I still shoot RAW about 99.9% of
the time.

It's not cheating. You get about a stop more dynamic range and have
more control over the final image. It's like sending your film to some
amateur lab for processing or doing it yourself.

As when I did photography for a living, I want the best quality
possible. Can't do that shooting JPG.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.