If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On 7/14/2017 6:17 PM, Savageduck wrote:
snip My normal shooting workflow is to shoot RAW+JPEG, and having a camera with dual SD slots I write RAW to slot #1 and JPEG to slot#2. It is in my nature to take advantage of the RAW files to tweak and adjust for hours, but sometimes I can overthink post. Somebody here regularly accuses me of doing that. ;-) A subject for further discussion and thought. A few days ago I had in interesting discussion about when pixel manipulation of a photograph reaches a point where it is no longer a photo, but a stand alone piece of digital art. Our discussion was whether images that have crossed this threshold should be considered as photography. The particular image we discussed was this one where the original image was a picture of a Chihuly: original: https://www.dropbox.com/s/r8w53i3y3m9cv8m/Dale%20Chihuly1.jpg?dl=0 Manipulated: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t2quthg7matfxs8/Boron%20Botanical1filtered.jpg?dl=0 It was agreed that there is a line. It was agreed that the manipulation crossed the line. It was also agreed that it is almost impossible to formulate a universal rule as to where the line is. -- PeterN |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 14, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... My normal shooting workflow is to shoot RAW+JPEG, and having a camera with dual SD slots I write RAW to slot #1 and JPEG to slot#2. My camera can do that as well, but what is the point of having the JPEGs and RAWs on different memory cards? It is the way I choose to configure the slot set up. I have the RAW and JPEG files separated, and I can address them seperately. Also, doing things that way speeds up the write time, and clears the buffer faster. I still have the other twin slot options of duplicate/backup copy, or overflow available when, or if I need them. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 14, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up He is putting into words things which anybody who has been processing RAWs already knows... We all know for instance that contrast and brightness have an impact on colours. ....but sometimes it takes somebody putting his particular workflow into words to extend his experience to those who have yet to learn, and to remind those who might have forgotten the principles. I guess it is not intended for folks like you who know all of those basics. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:41:35 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think burst speeds come into play with landscape photography... Of course he does say this: "Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of course. A JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we can quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a particular image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the first time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to 98% JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly." It makes no sense. If the initial jpeg is good, then you can do some minor tweaks and be done. Or no tweaks at all. But if there is a problem beyond minor tweaking, then you've possibly lost that photo. Why take that chance? With landscape, it's not such a big deal - the subject isn't going anywhere. But with any passing subject, you've lost the photo with any serious errors in settings. Different strokes... It isn’t what either of us would do, but it is the way he works. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote
(in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:17:11 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by shooting jpeg only. I guess for some folks it brings a different challenge, and these days many in-camera SOOC JPEGs are so good it is possible to avoid post altogether. I agree, but it's not a big deal to also have a RAW just in case. I think the most important take away from all of this, he is not dictating that everybody shoot, and process his way. He is just a capable photographer demonstrating the way he does things, and that is interesting. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? My normal shooting workflow is to shoot RAW+JPEG, and having a camera with dual SD slots I write RAW to slot #1 and JPEG to slot#2. It is in my nature to take advantage of the RAW files to tweak and adjust for hours, but sometimes I can overthink post. Is he trying to save electrons? I doubt it. ;-) Or is this just something certain people do to position themselves as elite photographers? I doubt it. Having the SOOC JPEG along side the RAW does a few things for me: 1: I get a pretty good JPEG for immediate sharing. 2: Sometimes the SOOC JPEG is so good there is little need to even bother with RAW post processing. 3: These days, depending on the situation, still shooting RAW+JPEG, I will shoot a bracket of three different film emulations, and have them immediately available. 4: Finally, there have been a few examples of SOOC JPEGs which I have found difficult, if not impossible to match with an adjusted RAW file, even with all the tools I have available. And I really don't think burst speeds come into play with landscape photography... Agreed. Burst speed is the last thing I would have thought comes into play with landscape photography. However, it can come in handy for other types of photography such as wildlife, action sports, motorsport, and airshows. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On 7/14/2017 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think burst speeds come into play with landscape photography... Of course he does say this: "Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of course. A JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we can quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a particular image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the first time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to 98% JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly." You do remember that RAW images from Nikon cameras will be pretty much the same as in your viewfinder, if you use Capture for RAW processing. Thus you can have the best of both worlds. -- PeterN |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On 7/14/2017 6:52 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:41:35 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think burst speeds come into play with landscape photography... Of course he does say this: "Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of course. A JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we can quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a particular image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the first time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to 98% JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly." It makes no sense. If the initial jpeg is good, then you can do some minor tweaks and be done. Or no tweaks at all. But if there is a problem beyond minor tweaking, then you've possibly lost that photo. Why take that chance? With landscape, it's not such a big deal - the subject isn't going anywhere. Ah! but the lighting may or may not be similar. Think Hudson River School, emulation. (For those who may not be familiar with HRS, the lighting emulates the soft delicate diffusion we see after a rainstorm has cleared. But with any passing subject, you've lost the photo with any serious errors in settings. Yup! -- PeterN |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 14, 2017, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 7/14/2017 6:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by shooting jpeg only. If one wants to work with jpeg, that's fine, but why not shoot jpeg + raw, leaving all options open? Is he trying to save electrons? Or is this just something certain people do to position themselves as elite photographers? And I really don't think burst speeds come into play with landscape photography... Of course he does say this: "Would raw files have allowed for more extensive manipulations? Of course. A JPEG is a limited object. But it also contains an initial personality we can quickly build on if we’ve exposed correctly (read: correct for a particular image*). And let me say this again in case someone is visiting for the first time: yes, I do shoot raw as well. But personal work is probably close to 98% JPEG with all Fuji cameras...processed similarly." You do remember that RAW images from Nikon cameras will be pretty much the same as in your viewfinder, if you use Capture for RAW processing. To start with I don’t use Capture for RAW processing, and I still have and use my D300S. Then with all the Nikon DSLRs I am familiar with none of the RAW (NEF) files will ever be “pretty much the same as in your viewfinder”. The only way to get a WYSIWYG RAW is if you are shooting with the LCD in Live View mode. The OVF in Nikon and other DSLRs is just that, optical. It does not reflect the RAW sensor image in real time in the way the EVF in mirrorless cameras does. With a RAW file from a DSLR you are not getting WYSIWYG, regardless of the software used for PP. You still have to rely on your memory of the scene you saw through that OVF to get close to what you believe you saw. It will never be exactly that captured moment. Images are subject to the vagaries of memory, and perception warped by emotional recall of any particular scene. You might think that colors were that saturated, or not. That the sky was that tone, or not, That a shadow was that deep, or not. Ultimately your final product is going to be your interpretation of the captured scene regardless of software used. Even if you use the LCD to check your image captures in-camera, all you are viewing is the JPEG thumbnail not the actual RAW capture. ....or did you mean something else altogether? Thus you can have the best of both worlds. Which two worlds might those be? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/2017/7/13/all-the-green-we-wanted-a-technical-follow-up -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:30:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 15:17:11 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 14, 2017, Bill W wrote (in ): On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:36:38 -0700, Savageduck wrote: http://www.laroquephoto.com/blog/201...n-we-wanted-a- technical-follow-up I just don't understand why *anyone* would limit his options by shooting jpeg only. I guess for some folks it brings a different challenge, and these days many in-camera SOOC JPEGs are so good it is possible to avoid post altogether. I agree, but it's not a big deal to also have a RAW just in case. I think the most important take away from all of this, he is not dictating that everybody shoot, and process his way. He is just a capable photographer demonstrating the way he does things, and that is interesting. Well, I'm not criticizing *him*, just the choice of shooting jpeg only, even if it's not all the time. I'm saying this from personal (bad) experience. When I started out with digital, I didn't even know what RAW was, or care. So as I took an interest in learning photography, I went back over some of those old jpegs, photos I really liked, and quickly found that I couldn't do much of anything to fix the photos with problems. I learned my lesson quickly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
post processing | Nige Danton[_2_] | Digital Photography | 170 | March 19th 14 10:00 PM |
Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview? | Alien Jones | Digital SLR Cameras | 59 | October 7th 08 01:18 PM |
Filters vs Post processing | M[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | January 3rd 08 05:57 AM |
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 54 | January 30th 05 09:26 AM |
Post Processing & Printing | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 23rd 04 03:12 PM |