«

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

You sort of have a skewed idea of what RAW is.

> 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.

Fine.

> 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.

One can simply develop an image from the RAW negative. No doctoring.
Just setting appropriate color balance, and not even that if it's set in
camera.

What you do is fine. Are you feeling a need to defend what you do?

--
john mcwilliams

Bill Hilton wrote:
>> Denny B wrote:
>>
>> 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 )
>
> Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
> always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
> in-camera ...
>
> Bill
>
The point here is not to display my pictures.
After 40 years of film work and the endless
wasting of time in darkrooms. I have finally
gotten to the point of just taking pictures.
I have no foolish dreams. Many times cropping
pictures tells you nothing, it isolates reality.
I can crop with the zoom.
I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
taken by people who have no technical knowledge
of photography, who have simple point and shoot
digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
tell a story.

Denny B

John McWilliams wrote:
> Denny B wrote:
>>
>> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
>> is not what you see.
>
> You sort of have a skewed idea of what RAW is.
>
>> 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.
>
> Fine.
>
>> 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.
>
> One can simply develop an image from the RAW negative. No doctoring.
> Just setting appropriate color balance, and not even that if it's set in
> camera.
>
> What you do is fine. Are you feeling a need to defend what you do?
>
No I don't, it's just that you cannot produce
a good digital picture unless it was taken in RAW
and then processed using Photoshop. That seems to be
implied by the "Pros?" regarding digital photography.

Denny B

Denny B wrote:
>
> Would you say that most people who take pictures
> take them in RAW? I think only a small fraction do.

The majority on this NG probably do. But world wide, from tiny sensors
on up, I'd guess about 7.9584% do. Give or take a few ticks.

--
john mcwilliams

frederick wrote:
>
> D70 / 70s users should care. In-camera jpeg rendering isn't the best
> even on fine/large, and in-camera noise reduction is pretty poor.

The above is nothing but a foolish statement.
It is excellent in all the above.

Denny B

"Raphael Bustin" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <> 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

If he was a purist he would be shooting film, probably 8x10.

> I have no foolish dreams. Many times cropping
> pictures tells you nothing, it isolates reality.
> I can crop with the zoom.

So, you manipulate the image before it's processed, is that showing reality?

> I am amazed at the wonderful pictures I see
> taken by people who have no technical knowledge
> of photography, who have simple point and shoot
> digital cameras. Excellent pictures that vividly
> tell a story.
>
> Denny B

I think you miss the entire process of using Photoshop or any other image
processing software. You say you spent 40 years wasting time in darkrooms,
for what? Maybe to manipulate the "reality" by adjusting color, exposure or
cropping. I can do that in minutes in my living room now. Bottom line,
using film or digital media, there is no amount of processing that will
"fix" a lousy photo. Bad composition, out of focus, under/over exposed are
still the evil we all must deal with. But instead of spending good money
processing a bad photograph, now I just hit delete.

Rob

Denny B wrote:
> Taking pictures in RAW and then knowing
> you did not train and discipline yourself
> to understand light metering

That is an unwarranted slur on digital photographers everywhere. It
really needs an apology to all the experienced and knowledgeable
photographers in this NG, who by all appearances know more than you.

> and no matter
> how you botch up taking a picture, there is
> always Photoshop to bail you out.

Photoshop is not magic. A 'botched' shot, whatever that is, out of focus
perhaps, grossly under or overexposed (hard to do with today's cameras)
cannot be magically rescued by photoshop or any other image-handling
software. You obviously have never seen or used Photoshop or you
wouldn't make such statements.

These days
> you never know what you are looking at, is
> what you see genuine or is it a fake Photoshop
> version.

Another ignorant statement. Photoshopped images aren't 'fake' any more
than your jpegs - which your D70 'faked' from the RAW images it captured
when you took the shots.

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

Your D70 in fine jpeg mode does exactly what photoshop does with a RAW
image. P'raps you don't realize that *all* dSLR images are shot RAW;
either the camera converts to jpeg, or you do with software. Computer
software is a hell of a lot more powerful than any camera software, and
allows converting the file to tiff, dng, or other formats that arent as
lossy as jpeg, and with more accuracy.
>
> 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 )

Yes, because the camera shot RAW first.
>
> Raw seems to be like cosmetic surgery. The real
> is not what you see.

Neither is a print made from a negative with an enlarger. The inherent
tone distortion due to non-linear response of film and paper ensures
that, and when you adjust the enlarger's filter pack or dichroic head to
correct color balance, you are doing what Photoshop does to digital
images. When you use a cardboard cutout to dodge or burn areas of the
print you're making, you're doing exactly what Photoshop does.

> 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.

Irrelevant to the point.
>
> 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.

A RAW image *has* to be converted - it cannot be used as is - which is
*not* 'doctoring' as you put it. The conversion program - and there are
many - reads the exif data and converts the image accordingly - as does
your camera in jpeg mode - and it gives the user the opportunity to
correct color balance and exposure to give a balanced image - as you do
when you do test strips in your darkroom. The extra latitude gained by
using RAW allows some exposure errors to be corrected, (like recovering
blown highlights) which can't be done to anything like the same extent
with a jpeg image - but not gross errors, more like a stop or maybe two.

>
> Your opinions are awaited.

You've got them. One more point; not to be rude, but you clearly do not
have any idea of RAW digital technology, hence your mistaken stance on
this subject.

Lastly, I try to make each shot the best it can be, in terms of appeal
to the viewer, in conveying what I saw and felt when I was moved to take
the shot. Rarely does a straight unmodified image succeed in that
regard. There is no need at all, unless you are doing evidential
photography, to avoid after-processing.

An analogy: do you think that music recordings are published as they
are recorded, without afterwork on the sound tracks?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Denny B

You're welcome

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:26:52 GMT, Denny B <>
wrote:

>Bill Hilton wrote:
>>> Denny B wrote:

>>> 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 )
>>
>> Denny, could you provide a link to some of your untouched photos ...
>> always a treat to see photos from people who get everything right
>> in-camera ...

>The point here is not to display my pictures.

That's got tho be the most inconsistent stance I've seen in
a while; to summarise:

DB: "I don't mind showing my pictures"
BH: "Please show them then"
DB "The point is not to show them"

So do you mind showing them or not?

--
John Bean

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:45:06 GMT, "bmoag"
<> wrote:

>Whirr: the sound of Ansel Adams spinning in his grave.

That's a lot of momentum. I think of AA as more of a
"revolving slowly" sort of guy

--
John Bean