«

Pete D wrote:
> "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.
>
>
He be shooting film, and having Wal-Mart process and print it.

Lionel <> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:28:03 -0900, (Floyd L.
>Davidson) opined:
>
>[...]
>>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...
>
>The *point* is that he's expressing an opinion, & claiming that his
>photos are proof that his opinion is actually a fact. If he won't show
>us his proof, then he's just blowing hot air.

He is a *troll*. You are a *sucker* who bit on it.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Lionel wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:32:51 GMT, Denny B <> opined:
>
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> You need to stop taking acid. I don't recall anyone in this group
> saying anything of the sort.

He's triply wrong. And he dodged- surprise!- the q. as to why he needs
to be defensive. Now, it's why is he becoming offensive? Troll or Kook?
Bad week?

I will never know. Sob.

--
john mcwilliams

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:25:50 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) opined:

>Lionel <> wrote:
>>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:28:03 -0900, (Floyd L.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Davidson) opined:
^^^^^^^^^^^
>>[...]
>>>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...
>>
>>The *point* is that he's expressing an opinion, & claiming that his
>>photos are proof that his opinion is actually a fact. If he won't show
>>us his proof, then he's just blowing hot air.
>
>He is a *troll*. You are a *sucker* who bit on it.

My post was a reply to *your* post, in which you were defending the
troll, dimwit. If that makes me a sucker, it makes you one as well.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Lionel <> wrote:
>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 04:25:50 -0900, (Floyd L.
>Davidson) opined:
>>
>>He is a *troll*. You are a *sucker* who bit on it.
>
>My post was a reply to *your* post, in which you were defending the
>troll, dimwit. If that makes me a sucker, it makes you one as well.

Number of followups *you* posted directly to his articles: 3.
Number of followups *I* posted directly to his articles: 0.

I did not defend the trolling.

Conclusions:

1) You are indeed a sucker who bit on it.

2) The reason you suckered up is one of,
A) You can't follow simple logic,
B) You can't count,
C) Or, both of the above.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 2006-10-29 18:36:59 -0500, Denny B <> said:

> 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



So was taking film out of a camera, adjusting the development time to
the adjust the toe of the film density curve unfair manipulation?
Serious photographers did this all the time. And then the printing
process. That was a serious combination of technical skill and
artistry. Accomplished print makers were skiled artists those that
were really good created timeless photographs. The most famous of
these was Ansel Adams, but there were many, many others. Mr Adams dis
not take a photograph on a peice of film, throw through some standard
chemistry and then run it through some standard print process.
Photoshop is no different. The photographer is presented with the raw
picture just as I would have from a piece of film.. except I lost the
ability to change the dnesity by temperature or time. The rest of the
process is very similar to what I woudl have done if I were in a
darkroom with an enlarger and wet chemistry. Evaluate the color
balance either with a color analyzer or by trial and error. Determine
the proper exposure for the paper and negative density. Add color
filters to correct the color balance, reevaluate the exposure, and
expose the print. I might also dodge or burn to adjust the density of
shadows or highlights. And then onto the chemistry. Adjust
temperatures, compensate for the age of the developer, and process wor
the time that my experience determined was normal. 9 times out of
10, this process would need to be repeated. IN otherwords, the print
was lousy! Photoshop lets me do this electronically and for far less
money.

RAW does not correct for bad technigue. A badly exposed photo can be
made better, but as in film, it its bad to start with, there is only so
much you can do. A raw image with burned high lights can't be
recovered. You can't retrieve data where none exists.

BTW, your JPEG out of your camera started as RAW. The camera just made
some adjustments for you, and in the case of the D70s, it corrected the
white balance according to the current settings and an internal
algorithm built by Nikon. It applied an unsharp mask to sharpen the
photo, and it may have changed the color saturation depending on what
mode the camera was set to and what you chose as custom settings. It
adjusted the exposure levels. Your JPEG is a manipulated image. If I
new the exact compensation that Nikon programmed into the camera, I
could create exactly the same thing in Nikon Capture, Photoshop nearly
any other editing program that takes NEF RAW input.

All that being said, JPEG is fine a lot of the time and you don't need
to sit an process each photo. The camera did it for you, and yes the
D70s does a pretty good job most of the time.