«

On Jun 26, 5:15*am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
> that distresses me. *It comes out in the discussions about glass,
> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
> management, and workflow. *The idea seems to be that if you have
> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
> to take or process the images.

To a degree you have a point - but I try to get it right before I
press the shutter and *still* shoot RAW and work on it afterwards.
But at the end of the day, glass is what is the ultimate constraint in
image quality (and most of us can't afford the best glass), camera
bodies are a matter of choice and what fits your hands, and however
one manages post-processing images have a method one always uses (a
workflow) will reduce the time it takes and increase the reliability
of the outcome.

Does any of this matter? It depends what your aspirations are. If
you want to get an FRPS then a lot of it matters. If you want to
capture family moments for posterity then a nice little P&S camera
taking JPGS is probably all you need, and of course there are all
shades inbetween. There are also the people who are simply gear
freaks - they exist in all tchnical hobbies. My own aspirations are
to take images I can print on A3+ paper for camera club entries, and
to get an LRPS, so a lot of this stuff starts to matter. And for the
record, in some groups I belong to where images are put up for
critique, my comment is often that a better initial shot would have
been a much better starting point. I don't have the patience to make
a good job of blurring the background because I forgot to do it when
pressing the shutter - notr do I have the skill to make a good job of
that. But, there are 'critical moment' photos where one only has one
chance or a very few changes of taking the shot, and good post-
processing can make a lot of difference to the quality of the final
image.

On Jun 27, 11:05*pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> And one last time for you: *I'm truly interested in the opinions,
> experience, and comparative results of others.

<snip>

A lot of people are telling you that their experience, opinions and
comparative results all point towards using RAW images, but you keep
saying 'show me'.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT), Cats <>
wrote:

>On Jun 26, 1:25*am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><snip>
>> >There is no such thing as a before-and-after image for the effect of raw
>> >processing as any raw image, due to its high dynamic range can yield any
>> >number of correct JPG or other images.
>>
>> There isn't? *It would seem easy to me shooting RAW+.jpg. *Post a link
>> to the .jpg right out of the camera, and then post a link to the RAW
>> version that has been adjusted to improve the image and saved-as a
>> .jpg. *Sounds dead simple to me.
><snip>
>
>That is *not* a correct comparison, as the camera has produced the JPG
>in whatever way it is programmed to do. When a human processes a RAW
>image they will be aiming to produce something they consider better
>than the camera's default processing does. It goves you complete
>choice about setting white & black points, curves, and so on, choices
>which are made for you when the camera produces a JPG/

This is a reiteration of what is written elsewhere about the
advantages of RAW. I'm sure you are absolutely correct and have
offered a neat precis of the features of processing in RAW.

This information, like the information that RAW processing programs
are available for trial downloads, was available to me before I made
my original post and I had already read about all of this.

What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.

I honestly don't understand why this request has created such a fuss.
I would think that the reception would be that people like you who use
and value RAW processing would jump on the chance to show what they
have been able to accomplish.

Every day there are links to finished images in this group, so it's
quite clear that the regulars in this group like to show off their
work. As they should.

You spoke of submitting image for club competitions in another post.
These competitions are often themed...submit an image in black and
white, submit a macro, submit an image of a flower, etc. What if the
competition was "Submit two images - before and after - where you have
improved the original in your RAW processing"? Would this offend you?
Would you be willing to submit an image of a nature study image, but
decline to submit the RAW process image project and say, instead, that
if the competition committee wanted to see examples of what RAW can
do, then the competition committee should do their own
experimentation?

My post was not about what RAW can do and how to obtain the ability to
process in RAW. I had already read up on that. My post was an
invitation to show how RAW has benefited *you*. By example.

If you don't choose to do this, that's quite all right. I would
understand if you are not interested in going to this trouble. What I
don't understand is why you (generic "you") are offended by the
request, though. What I don't understand is why you are willing to
take the time to reiterate what is already known about what RAW
is/does and the "Why?" of RAW, but unwilling to do a one line post
that is a link to an example of how its worked for you.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:14:18 -0700 (PDT), Cats <>
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 11:05*pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> And one last time for you: *I'm truly interested in the opinions,
>> experience, and comparative results of others.
>
><snip>
>
>A lot of people are telling you that their experience, opinions and
>comparative results all point towards using RAW images, but you keep
>saying 'show me'.

Yes. "Show me" an example of how it has worked for you. I'm not
asking for you to "convince me" or to "educate me" or to "train me".


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:08:37 -0700 (PDT), Cats <>
wrote:

>On Jun 26, 5:15*am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> There's a certain arrogance expressed in the photography newsgroups
>> that distresses me. *It comes out in the discussions about glass,
>> camera bodies and their integral parts, post-processing schemes, color
>> management, and workflow. *The idea seems to be that if you have
>> mediocre photographs that what you are lacking is the mechanical means
>> to take or process the images.
>
>To a degree you have a point - but I try to get it right before I
>press the shutter and *still* shoot RAW and work on it afterwards.

My point in this is that too often photographs are criticized by
people who lay the criticism at the door of the taker having an
inferior lens, the wrong brand of equipment, or not using the right
software to manipulate the image when - in fact - the subject and the
composition itself is unworthy.

Take, for example, a photograph of a sparrow. The image is of a
sparrow sitting on a branch. Unless there's something about the bird
and the pose that is of interest, it's just another bird picture.
Yet, someone will say that the feathers aren't sharply detailed
because the lens is inferior or the image needs selective sharpening
or is over-sharpened. Someone will say the blacks aren't black enough
or there's not enough or too much saturation in the sky background.

I look at those pictures, and those comments, and wonder why these
comments are made and why the person critiquing has even considered
these points. The composition is a sow's ear and there's nothing that
could have been done differently to make it a silk purse.

While I've used a sparrow as an example, it's actually scenic shots
that make me think this way the most. A field, a mountain, or
whatever vista we're talking about may be beautiful to the
photographer when he sees it, but the image result may be completely
without interest, and no change in equipment or post-processing will
make it interesting.

That is not to say, of course, that a scenic shot cannot be
interesting if the photographer has captured some aspect that does
result in a good composition.

I won't snip the rest of your comments because they are interesting
even though they don't relate to what I had in mind when I made my
original comment.

>But at the end of the day, glass is what is the ultimate constraint in
>image quality (and most of us can't afford the best glass), camera
>bodies are a matter of choice and what fits your hands, and however
>one manages post-processing images have a method one always uses (a
>workflow) will reduce the time it takes and increase the reliability
>of the outcome.
>
>Does any of this matter? It depends what your aspirations are. If
>you want to get an FRPS then a lot of it matters. If you want to
>capture family moments for posterity then a nice little P&S camera
>taking JPGS is probably all you need, and of course there are all
>shades inbetween. There are also the people who are simply gear
>freaks - they exist in all tchnical hobbies. My own aspirations are
>to take images I can print on A3+ paper for camera club entries, and
>to get an LRPS, so a lot of this stuff starts to matter. And for the
>record, in some groups I belong to where images are put up for
>critique, my comment is often that a better initial shot would have
>been a much better starting point. I don't have the patience to make
>a good job of blurring the background because I forgot to do it when
>pressing the shutter - notr do I have the skill to make a good job of
>that. But, there are 'critical moment' photos where one only has one
>chance or a very few changes of taking the shot, and good post-
>processing can make a lot of difference to the quality of the final
>image.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Jun 28, 5:46*am, "Wilson" <w...@dixiedancekings.com> wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:59:25 -0700 (PDT), Cats <ramwa...@uk2.net>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
> > before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them.
>
> Type "raw vs. jpg" in the Google search box, click search, *and you'll have
> plenty of comparisons to look over. *Takes about 15 seconds to find links to
> what you seem to be looking for.

What you will find with such a search are threads much like this one,
a lot of words but not much in the way of photos of jpeg vs. raw, I
really don't know why.
> In another thread you wrote:
>
> >>> I do quite a bit of table-top photography under external
> >>> lighting. *Because I do several shots of several objects, I want
> >>> consistent results. *So, I set my white balance with a gray card and
> >>> use the Manual settings.
>
> If you are doing table top photography for say eBay or something similar and
> you are getting your white balance and exposure set correctly then you don't
> necessarily need to be shooting in RAW. *You should get consistent results
> from what you are doing now. *So I say JPG away, but in the end you are the
> one making the photograph.

I find raw easier to work with then jpg, it reduces the time I spend
adjusting photos. I much prefer a raw workflow.

Scott

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:46:16 -0500, "Wilson" <>
wrote:

>>>> I do quite a bit of table-top photography under external
>>>> lighting. Because I do several shots of several objects, I want
>>>> consistent results. So, I set my white balance with a gray card and
>>>> use the Manual settings.
>
>If you are doing table top photography for say eBay or something similar and
>you are getting your white balance and exposure set correctly then you don't
>necessarily need to be shooting in RAW. You should get consistent results
>from what you are doing now. So I say JPG away, but in the end you are the
>one making the photograph.

My current project in this area is shooting some antique sterling
silver flatware. I'm thinning down the stuff I've collected over the
years and will be selling it on eBay. I sold quite a few pieces a
couple of years ago, and I'll be selling a few more now.

I don't think there's anything more difficult to photograph than a
silver spoon. The bowl is like a mirror. If I use a soft box, the
silver looks flat and dull. If I don't use a soft box, managing the
lighting and glare is tricky. The lights, the photographer, and the
whole area around the set-up is reflected in the bowl. Since the bowl
is round, the spoon can't be positioned so nothing reflects. The best
angle is to shoot straight down on the spoon, so the camera is
reflected in the bowl. I've shot through cloth with a slit in it,
white foam board with a lens opening cut in it, and with the camera
from an angle, and I still can't eliminate the reflection.

I've tried various types of lighting and bulbs, but the spoon wins.
When the bowl is well lighted, the handle is often not well enough
lighted. Since sterling flatware has a pattern on the handle that
makes a difference, this area has to be sharp and clear.

Here's a couple of experiments with lighting:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tony213/ Both will be re-shot because
I'm not yet happy with the results. One's with a Nikon P2 and one's
with a Nikon D40.

Some post-processing improvements can be made in Photoshop, but I
don't want the image to look faked.

When I look at ads for sterling spoons on eBay, my worst efforts are
far better than most of what I see. Still, I want to do it right.


I'm glad I don't do this for a living. When I consider the time I
have in experimenting compared to what I'll get for the item, it's a
losing proposition. But, I'm retired and my time is "free" and I
actually enjoy the process.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Jun 28, 2:52*pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> What I asked in that post was if someone would link to a
> before-and-after image that shows how this has worked for them. *

<snip>

Since my camera takes RAW or JGP but not both at the same time I can't
provide that for you. And I'm not about to go out taking photos for
your benefit only.

On Jun 28, 5:08*pm, Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 5:46*am, "Wilson" <w...@dixiedancekings.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Type "raw vs. jpg" in the Google search box, click search, *and you'll have
> > plenty of comparisons to look over. *Takes about 15 seconds to find links to
> > what you seem to be looking for.
>
> What you will find with such a search are threads much like this one,
> a lot of words but not much in the way of photos of jpeg vs. raw, I
> really don't know why.
<snip>

There is a separate Google Images search that might provide what the
OP wants.

tony cooper wrote:
> ...willing to do a one line post
> that is a link to an example of how its worked for you.

Here's an example from yesterday (comparing crops):
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-A...8/full-set/raw
full image:
http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-A...ll-set/pg2pc11
NIKON D200 85.0mm f/3.2 1/500s ISO:400 EC:+1
lens:85mm f/2.8 D No Flash

The result of correcting overexposure in a case like this is a very low
noise ISO 400 shot. If I'd bothered to stop down as in other shots in
the series, it would have made sense but anyways this demonstrates how
raw can help better than the other shots. I should have turned down the
ISO for this particular one, instead I just opened the aperture to
soften the background & forgot. I did intentionally overexpose though
because I could see from the histogram that there weren't any harsh
highlights (cloudy skies) and you get a cleaner image pushing the
histogram to the right. Shooting raw lets you push for the best and
gives leeway for a little over. I shoot raw plus jpeg & usually use the
in-camera jpegs (about half of this set).

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam