how did i let you guys talk me into pulling the raws

[bribrius]

If I were you,I'd shoot jpeg.
Seems like a very simple solution to me.
Plus,you wouldn't be wasting even more of your time tending to a thread about it.

no chit. kinda wishing I didn't start this thread now..

 

[The_Traveler]

This shooting raw stuff is just a continuation of your method of learning by trying something without knowing why and then you come a ceopper and decide it's someone else's fault because it isn't working.

You aren't trying to learn in any organized way so you're wasting time and energy re-inventing the wheel all the time.
This was possible when you bought film and sent it off to be processed because most of the important decisions are already made outside of your hands.

You are treating digital as if it was the same and you are just plain wrong.

 

[Ysarex]

A SOOC jpeg of something good is worth an infinity of RAW files of nothing

And that same photograph of something good get's even better if the IQ is better.

There's no law that says we have to sacrifice one for the other or that an engaging image isn't improved if it's also technically well done.

I'm listening to Beethoven's violin concerto right now. I'm glad that the violinist is I. Perlman. You wouldn't prefer to listen to it performed by someone who plays poorly, right?

Joe

then you should throw away your dslr and shoot everything large format you are wasting your time too.

Have you ever taken a photo with a sheet film camera?

I listened to Beethoven's violin concerto earlier from a CD recording -- through pretty cheap speakers played on my computer. It would sound better if I were at the concert Hall listening to it live. Therefore I should never listen to another recording again. I assume you likewise never listen to recordings for the same reason. You only wear hand-tailored clothing and if you can't get where you're going in your Audi you just don't go. If you can't have your usual gourmet prepared filet mignon you just don't eat.

The world's not so black and white and I don't have a DSLR.

-------------------------------------

So if it's possible to do a better job at anything, you really shouldn't because_____________ And I'd love to know why.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Lets say I spend a couple hours editing a photo to post on here or somewhere (even 500px or something) .

A couple of hours!!! A photo!!!!!

You didn't mean a couple of minutes and you're not exaggerating? Problem diagnosed.

Joe

 

[photoguy99]

It's absolutely true that I am actively campaigning against technique as the main thing.

While Joe is technically correct that there's no reason we cannot get technique, image quality, and so on, as perfect as possible while simultaneously making interesting worthwhile photos, this assumes that we have infinite resources to apply. The average amateur has pretty limited time to spend at this.

If solving technical puzzles is what excites you, pleases you, then by all means go forth and do all that stuff. I have found that I like drafting and drafting tools rather more than I like designing boats, and that doesn't make me a bad person. It does make me Not A Naval Architect, though.

The vast majority of online resources, including this forum, tend strongly toward treating photography as a series of technical problems to be solved. The vast majority of images shared by people who style themselves Photographers online are not photographs at all, they are technical exercises. Exercises in form, color, lighting, whatever. It's not a portrait at all, it's an exercise in portrait lighting. It's not a landscape, although it has land in it, it's an exercise in.. a host of things: hyperfocal distance, tripod usage, color management, editing, etc etc.

What has this to do with the OP? RAW is a technical solution to a set of technical problems. It cannot add "salt" (to use, I think, the OP's word from another thread). "Salt", or "heart" or whatever you want to call it is put in by standing in the right place, pointing the camera properly, and pressing the button at the right moment. Whether you shoot SOOC JPEG with a p&s, or use a gigantic 50mp medium format engine of destruction hardly matters, you'll have the heart.

So, if heart, salt, or whatever you want to call it, is what matters to you -- and it need not -- then husband your resources. Spend as much time on technical details as is appropriate to leave you the time and energy necessary to make the photos you want to make. Where that line lies will vary from one person to another. I cannot tell you were your line is.

But I think it's worth spending a moment to think about it. Not everyone who is sucked into the rabbit hole of IQ etc is happy to be endlessly falling down it, the OP included. It's worth more than a huffy "well, I guess YOU should shoot JPEG, then!"

 

[Ysarex]

All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.

I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.

The artist who respects him/herself and his/her work does not shrug off the task of mastering the craft as unessential.

These two aspects of art are not in conflict. You don't give up one to have the other. They work together to enhance each other.

Joe

edit: I missed the previous post as I wrote this. Balance and moderation in all we do with our focus fixed on purpose is how we stay sane and healthy.

 

[sleist]

Interesting thread ...

JPEG or RAW matters not. So long as you are able to produce the image you saw in your mind's eye.
This image may be total crap, but that has little to do with the format of the file.

There is nothing preventing someone from configuring the camera to produce a JPEG exactly how they want the shot to look.
I think it highly suspect that a newb could perform such a feat, which means they are using the camera JPEG defaults.
Nothing wrong with defaults, but how much creative thought is going into using the manufacturers idea of what an image should look like?
I think one needs to shoot RAW before they can know how to shoot JPEG.

We do not see with our eyes. We see with our mind.
The camera mimics our eyes. Our processing reintroduces our mind's eye to the image.

Photography is about showing how you see the world. Not how your camera sees it.

 

[photoguy99]

Joe and I agree on a lot more than meets the eye.

 

[Ysarex]

Interesting thread ...

JPEG or RAW matters not. So long as you are able to produce the image you saw in your mind's eye.
This image may be total crap, but that has little to do with the format of the file.

There is nothing preventing someone from configuring the camera to produce a JPEG exactly how they want the shot to look.

Yes, there is. The limited capability of the camera's JPEG processing software regularly prevents me from getting the shot exactly as I want it to look. I'd use it if it could.

Joe

I think it highly suspect that a newb could perform such a feat, which means they are using the camera JPEG defaults.
Nothing wrong with defaults, but how much creative thought is going into using the manufacturers idea of what an image should look like?
I think one needs to shoot RAW before they can know how to shoot JPEG.

We do not see with our eyes. We see with our mind.
The camera mimics our eyes. Our processing reintroduces our mind's eye to the image.

Photography is about showing how you see the world. Not how your camera sees it.

 

[pixmedic]

All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.

I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.

The artist who respects him/herself and his/her work does not shrug off the task of mastering the craft as unessential.

These two aspects of art are not in conflict. You don't give up one to have the other. They work together to enhance each other.

Joe

edit: I missed the previous post as I wrote this. Balance and moderation in all we do with our focus fixed on purpose is how we stay sane and healthy.

that is beautiful man...it should be made a sticky somewhere.

 

[bribrius]

All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.

I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.

The artist who respects him/herself and his/her work does not shrug off the task of mastering the craft as unessential.

These two aspects of art are not in conflict. You don't give up one to have the other. They work together to enhance each other.

Joe

edit: I missed the previous post as I wrote this. Balance and moderation in all we do with our focus fixed on purpose is how we stay sane and healthy.

that is beautiful man...it should be made a sticky somewhere.

I was just thinking t.s. eliot probably wouldn't want to process raws either. If we are going to bring up art into it I think it important we come to terms with what we are comparing. I may have to listen to this on a synthesized programmable keyboard with sound effects but I wouldn't exactly jump for joy at the prospect of it nor jump for joy at the aspect of coming up with my own programmable "interpretation" of it. . Far as huggable items in music the keyboard I wouldn't find very akin to wanting to hug it.

 

[Ysarex]

All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.

I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.

The artist who respects him/herself and his/her work does not shrug off the task of mastering the craft as unessential.

These two aspects of art are not in conflict. You don't give up one to have the other. They work together to enhance each other.

Joe

edit: I missed the previous post as I wrote this. Balance and moderation in all we do with our focus fixed on purpose is how we stay sane and healthy.

that is beautiful man...it should be made a sticky somewhere.

I was just thinking t.s. eliot probably wouldn't want to process raws either.

Why not?

If we are going to bring up art into it I think it important we come to terms with what we are comparing. I may have to listen to this on a synthesized programmable keyboard with sound effects but I wouldn't exactly jump for joy at the prospect of it nor jump for joy at the aspect of coming up with my own programmable "interpretation" of it. . Far as huggable items in music the keyboard I wouldn't find very akin to wanting to hug it.

I get no point from this at all, and I've actually played an organ with a tracker keyboard.

Joe

 

[bribrius]

All art and expression is two-sided: content and craft. Without the content nothing of value remains. But if the craft is weak the content/expression is delivered with less effect.

I read T.S. Eliot because of what he has to say. And I celebrate his craft -- that he could say it so well.

The artist who respects him/herself and his/her work does not shrug off the task of mastering the craft as unessential.

These two aspects of art are not in conflict. You don't give up one to have the other. They work together to enhance each other.

Joe

edit: I missed the previous post as I wrote this. Balance and moderation in all we do with our focus fixed on purpose is how we stay sane and healthy.

that is beautiful man...it should be made a sticky somewhere.

I was just thinking t.s. eliot probably wouldn't want to process raws either.

Why not?

If we are going to bring up art into it I think it important we come to terms with what we are comparing. I may have to listen to this on a synthesized programmable keyboard with sound effects but I wouldn't exactly jump for joy at the prospect of it nor jump for joy at the aspect of coming up with my own programmable "interpretation" of it. . Far as huggable items in music the keyboard I wouldn't find very akin to wanting to hug it.

I get no point from this at all, and I've actually played an organ with a tracker keyboard.

Joe

well geesh joe, we already sold out like whores going digital much like the churches dumped most of the grand pipe organs to save a buck and got plastic synthesized keyboards. I get we should know how to use the keyboard to a extent but do we really need to pretend it is art like this and the same as the grand pipe organ? Most of us shoot digital purely to save a buck. it isn't a artistic choice. whoring with it is one thing, do we really need to jump in bed with it and stay the night? Cant we just play our song and put it back in the case and forget about it without spending all the hours learning to program the stupid thing? I don't mind taking her for a test drive or a romp with the lights out but if I study her that close in good light I may feel the need to wash my hands. I get the need for some raw files and post process and do if I totally have to. But my mother raised me better than to hang out in the red light district and I went to a church with a pipe organ and no plastic keyboards.

 

[pixmedic]

you guys arent going to make me break out the banninator-9000 and start banninating are you?

 

[Rick58]

Hold on...I got it here somewhere. Oh, there it is.......