Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.

Reply
Thread Tools

RAW...then Photoshop is this not Cheating.

 
 
bongo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006

"Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45458fbb$0$8046$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:36:59 GMT, Denny B <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 suppose what the picture is of.
if the picture quality is not too good and you use ps to make it better then
i cannot see what is wrong with it.
it may be a picture that is a one off, thus there will be no chance of
getting the same shot again,
so why keep it with the wrong shade/s if you can use ps to make it look
better.

like you i only use jpg instead of raw.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Denny B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
Colin_D wrote:



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


You dead right here, but that is only because
of striving to provide unique sounds to people.
Inputting all sorts of sound on a mixing board
and then the mixing individual or team of mixers
discussing and deciding what you should listen to.

It was not always like this. Just the music that came
from an an individuals instrument was recorded or the
music from an orchestra.

Today the music you hear different pieces could be
recorded in different countries, could have been recorded
years ago and is then mixed with some a current piece and
Joe public believes it was recorded all at the same time.

The illusion of life today.

Denny B












>>
>> Thanks in advance
>> Denny B

>
> You're welcome
>
> Colin D.
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:12:19 GMT, Denny B <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>The illusion of life today.



Are photos ever anything *other* than illusions?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
>>> Denny B wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't mind showing my pictures to people
>>> just the way the camera took them

-

> Bill Hilton wrote:
>
>> 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

-

>Denny B wrote:
>
> The point here is not to display my pictures.


But you just wrote "I don't mind showing my pictures
to people just the way the camera took them"

> 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.


So can you show us a few of yours to tell your story ... or are you
unable to back up your claim about being such an accomplished
photographer that you always get it right the first time and don't need
RAW to correct your off-kilter white balance or exposure problems?

Inquiring minds want to know

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
Denny B <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>
>Your opinions are awaited.


You are so arrogant that you think our degree of doctoring is more
honest than other people's degree of doctoring.

I ain't impressed.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
> Today the music you hear different pieces could be
> recorded in different countries, could have been recorded
> years ago and is then mixed with some a current piece and
> Joe public believes it was recorded all at the same time.
>
> The illusion of life today.
>


Ah, here's the punch line. You are just so much smarter than everyone
else (i.e. Joe Public) and you feel the need to tell everyone in the
news group. YOU aren't fooled by "fake" Photoshop images, but everyone
else is and you are going to set them straight and let them know that
your images, the ones that you don't mind showing but won't show
nonetheless, aren't fake.

Everyone else is "fooled" by current sound production techniques, but
not YOU! YOU, my friend, are the only person in the world who knows
which songs are recorded in different countries and mixed together in
some sinister digital studio in some guy's basement in Canada before
being e-mailed, yes E-MAILED to Hong Kong for CD print before being
shipped to the final market in an international conspiracy to fool 16
year old high schood dropouts that they are buying a genuine goth
recoding made by vampires in the Bowery!

BTW, would you care to let us in on a few CD's we should avoid. And if
you wouldn't mind, please let us know how you can actually hear where
the songs were recorded.

Do you think that people who hear a good song really care about the
intricacies of the recording? In photography, do you think most people
when looking at a print really care if the white balance was adjusted in
Photoshop or in-camera? Do you think the equipment, software and general
photographic method is more important than the image itself? If so, then
you go girl!

And as far as the cropping comment, you know, about "isolat[ing]
reality," does a square format or 3/4 format camera suffer from the same
affliction when compared to a 2/3 format camera?

Eric Miller
 
Reply With Quote
 
JC Dill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:59:41 +0000, John Bean <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:45:06 GMT, "bmoag"
><(E-Mail Removed)> 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


Ansel was a very high energy, energetic guy. He would have loved the
digital age.

jc

--

"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
of different horses without having to own that many."
~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006

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

-

> JC Dill wrote:
>
> Ansel was a very high energy, energetic guy. He would have loved the
> digital age.


And he would have shot RAW, not jpeg

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
Denny B wrote:
[]
> Today the music you hear different pieces could be
> recorded in different countries, could have been recorded
> years ago and is then mixed with some a current piece and
> Joe public believes it was recorded all at the same time.
>
> The illusion of life today.


I was at an illusory concert once. It was while the organ at the Usher
Hall, Edinburgh was being repaired. They set up the organist in a nearby
church, and used a relay to speakers in the hall. Different places, but I
believe that concert really did take place....

(Organ now repaired, BTW, and sounding great).

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-30-2006
John Bean <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:26:52 GMT, Denny B <(E-Mail Removed)>
>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:


Your summary is not consistent with what he said though.

He wants to discuss RAW vs. JPEG as a shooting mode, and *not*
have it sidetracked into a (probably even sillier) argument
about his photography style.

That is a *very* consistent approach to the questions he
has actually asked.

>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?


Not the point. And he is asking that you stick to the point...

Of course, this is Usenet and you don't have to write about what
he asks about. How's the weather where you live?

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
adobe photoshop 7.0 vs photoshop cs Fuzzy Logic Computer Support 3 12-24-2004 04:51 AM
Re: Sources on the web for learning Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? Dana Laffit Digital Photography 0 08-22-2003 12:55 AM
Re: Sources on the web for learning Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? wes Digital Photography 0 08-21-2003 11:10 PM
Re: Sources on the web for learning Photoshop or Photoshop Elements? Bryce Digital Photography 0 08-21-2003 10:31 PM



Advertisments