Bro got a new camera

MacCool · 06-02-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmike2780

I think your logic is beyond the point of this thread. Geez it's just a file type. No need to get all worked up about it. I'm not arguing, in fact I completely agree. This isn't a jpeg vs RAW thread, so lets not turn it into one. Of course shooting RAW has it's benefits, but for someone who's just starting out like the OP's brother, it's more of a burden than an advantage.

Having a wealth of knowledge & experience with photography, You of all people should know $$$ equip doesn't always equal better pictures. I'm not a pro by any means, but the notion that every shot must be post processed to be any good mean is a bit of a reach. It's obviously more difficult to get it right in the field, but it's not some unicorn you'll never catch. Artistic vision aside, everyone I know does some sort of post processing, including myself. I guess my point is that people tend to rely on post as a crutch. Artistic vision starts in the field, not in front of the computer screen.

Of course. Artistic vision starts in the field but it doesn't end there for images that are important to the shooter. And if one is going to post-process in order to make the picture reflect what the shooter wants it to reflect, better to do it in RAW. Post-processing images shot in JPEG requires that you undo what the camera has decided about color, sharpness, white balance, and exposure, or even worse, try to overlay your own processing concepts on the decisions the camera has already made about those aspects.

Certainly I don't advocate post-processing every image one shoots. The majority of mine don't even get past the thumbnail stage. When I find an image that I like in my camera, I want to be the one who decides how it's going to print up, not my camera, or worse, KodakGallery (now Shutterfly, I guess) or Whitehouse Color.

Cmike2780 · 06-02-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

Of course. Artistic vision starts in the field but it doesn't end there for images that are important to the shooter. And if one is going to post-process in order to make the picture reflect what the shooter wants it to reflect, better to do it in RAW. Post-processing images shot in JPEG requires that you undo what the camera has decided about color, sharpness, white balance, and exposure, or even worse, try to overlay your own processing concepts on the decisions the camera has already made about those aspects.

Certainly I don't advocate post-processing every image one shoots. The majority of mine don't even get past the thumbnail stage. When I find an image that I like in my camera, I want to be the one who decides how it's going to print up, not my camera, or worse, KodakGallery (now Shutterfly, I guess) or Whitehouse Color.

I never said it ended in the field. I just don't agree with the whole "l'll fix it in post" attitude.....and let me make it perfectly clear since you are under the impression that I have something against shooting in RAW, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST IT! I just find it overkill in this thread about a guy just starting out. 9 times out of 10, someone who's just starting out in photography won't be able to use the extra data in a RAW file to their benefit. They'll spend hours adjusting every aspect and come up with an image that looks just as good as the jpeg. It would be like letting someone drive an F-1 car and expecting him to know what he's doing and achieve the results of a pro.

For a professional fotog, it really depends on what you're shooting. Some sports photographers for example, need the speed without slowing down the buffer. In a setting like fashion or portraits, shooting RAW is the obvious choice. It's a controlled setting and large file sizes isn't as much of an issue.

I shoot mostly in jpeg because for me, it's good enough. I'm not a pro, an artist, a seasoned vet, nor claim to know everything about this field. I wasn't even alive in the 70's. This is just a hobby to me. The closest my images will ever come to a gallery is my hallway... and I'm fine with that.

MacCool · 06-03-2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmike2780

I never said it ended in the field. I just don't agree with the whole "l'll fix it in post" attitude.....and let me make it perfectly clear since you are under the impression that I have something against shooting in RAW, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST IT! I just find it overkill in this thread about a guy just starting out. 9 times out of 10, someone who's just starting out in photography won't be able to use the extra data in a RAW file to their benefit. They'll spend hours adjusting every aspect and come up with an image that looks just as good as the jpeg. It would be like letting someone drive an F-1 car and expecting him to know what he's doing and achieve the results of a pro.

Yeah, that's where we disconnect. My belief is that editing one's images is every bit as valuable a photographic skill as shot composition and camera settings for anyone who is serious about their photography. The ability to do that easily and cheaply is one of the true advantages of digital photography and makes $180 for Nikon Capture or $100 for Photoshop Elements a worthwhile expenditure. Certainly one can tweak JPEGs, but if you're going to tweak, might as well do it in RAW where the data is more amenable. Post processing has been a key component of photography for over 100 years.

I simply don't share your view that it's some kind of crutch used as a means of correcting poor shooting technique. I don't buy the concept of turning over the final image quality to some Nikon engineer's algorithm that reflects his concept of what my images should look like. I understand your point of view...I just don't agree with it.

Cmike2780 · 06-03-2012, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

Yeah, that's where we disconnect. My belief is that editing one's images is every bit as valuable a photographic skill as shot composition and camera settings for anyone who is serious about their photography. The ability to do that easily and cheaply is one of the true advantages of digital photography and makes $180 for Nikon Capture or $100 for Photoshop Elements a worthwhile expenditure. Certainly one can tweak JPEGs, but if you're going to tweak, might as well do it in RAW where the data is more amenable. Post processing has been a key component of photography for over 100 years.

I simply don't share your view that it's some kind of crutch used as a means of correcting poor shooting technique. I don't buy the concept of turning over the final image quality to some Nikon engineer's algorithm that reflects his concept of what my images should look like. I understand your point of view...I just don't agree with it.

Then what's the point of spending $5,000 on a camera if you don't trust the engineering? Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

MacCool · 06-03-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmike2780

Then what's the point of spending $5,000 on a camera if you don't trust the engineering? Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

You speak as if in-camera image processing to get JPEGs is the major component of a quality camera. Yikes! There's a huge difference between trusting the construction, the sensor (the major expense component), metering, autofocus, and trusting the JPEG image processing firmware. Surely you must see that.

Cmike2780 · 06-03-2012, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacCool

You speak as if in-camera image processing to get JPEGs is the major component of a quality camera. Yikes! There's a huge difference between trusting the construction, the sensor (the major expense component), metering, autofocus, and trusting the JPEG image processing firmware. Surely you must see that.

That's not what I meant

MacCool · 06-03-2012, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cmike2780

That's not what I meant

One buys a $5000 camera for the engineering execution I mentioned above (construction, sensor, metering, autofocus), not the JPEG image processing firmware.

Perhaps we can put this to rest by just saying that this is all just my opinion. Yours may be different. I have no problem with that...in the end, the OP will have to draw his own conclusions from the discussions.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone has a car camera?	zmyride	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	2	04-26-2011 06:44 PM
Need a camera	phelan	Southern California Region	4	03-23-2010 10:21 AM