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

[pixmedic]

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

we get too many complaints when we lock or delete threads.
its better just to drop some temp bans and let the thread continue with more civilized persons.

 

[beachrat]

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..

Well,you really answered your own question in your original post
If you really didn't want to waste time,this would have never happened.
Maybe dig a little deeper and find some real answers because you aren't making a ton of sense.
I've been there.

 

[Ysarex]

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?

Here in the midwest we still have real pipe organs in lots of the churches. Brabara Harbach plays the Aeolian-Skinner organ here at Christ Church and it has real pipes. The air is supplied by an electric motor however and the keyboard action is electronic. Those are both technological advantages. Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Small churches that can't afford a pipe organ can however afford other instruments. It is beneficial for them that they have those rather than not.

Just as it was beneficial when my son was in high school and wanted to study keyboard that I was able to buy him a full 88 key electronic keyboard. I could not have bought him a piano. I did manage to scrape enough together and pop for a keyboard with a real piano action as it was important to help him develop appropriate technique. He is overall much better off for the experience of having that keyboard than not. If not for advances in tecnology he wouldn't have had it.

Most of us shoot digital purely to save a buck.

Speak for yourself -- I don't.

it isn't a artistic choice.

Again speak for yourself. If you're not happy then change. Why whine about something you have the choice to change. What's your problem? Go put some film in a camera and get out of here. Or actually learn to use a digital camera.

NOTE: I switched from film to digital when it was obvious to me that I could get better photographs using digital cameras and digital processing. I didn't do it because it was cheaper. I didn't do it because it was easier. I did it because I could improve my work and get the results I wanted. The advances in technology permit me to do better work -- good reason to adopt those advances. You can't get good results from a digital camera -- your problem. I get excellent results from a digital camera; better than was possible using film. You don't want to learn -- again your problem.

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.

You're talking about what I do for a living. That could sound pretty offense if I didn't already know you were confused. Maybe you could move to someplace like southern Uzbekistan where life is still kinda like the late Middle Ages -- live in a tent -- burn camel dung.

Joe

 

[bribrius]

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?

Here in the midwest we still have real pipe organs in lots of the churches. Brabara Harbach plays the Aeolian-Skinner organ here at Christ Church and it has real pipes. The air is supplied by an electric motor however and the keyboard action is electronic. Those are both technological advantages. Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Small churches that can't afford a pipe organ can however afford other instruments. It is beneficial for them that they have those rather than not.

Just as it was beneficial when my son was in high school and wanted to study keyboard that I was able to buy him a full 88 key electronic keyboard. I could not have bought him a piano. I did manage to scrape enough together and pop for a keyboard with a real piano action as it was important to help him develop appropriate technique. He is overall much better off for the experience of having that keyboard than not. If not for advances in tecnology he wouldn't have had it.

Most of us shoot digital purely to save a buck.

Speak for yourself -- I don't.

it isn't a artistic choice.

Again speak for yourself. If you're not happy then change. Why whine about something you have the choice to change. What's your problem? Go put some film in a camera and get out of here. Or actually learn to use a digital camera.

NOTE: I switched from film to digital when it was obvious to me that I could get better photographs using digital cameras and digital processing. I didn't do it because it was cheaper. I didn't do it because it was easier. I did it because I could improve my work and get the results I wanted. The advances in technology permit me to do better work -- good reason to adopt those advances. You can't get good results from a digital camera -- your problem. I get excellent results from a digital camera; better than was possible using film. You don't want to learn -- again your problem.

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.

You're talking about what I do for a living. That could sound pretty offense if I didn't already know you were confused. Maybe you could move to someplace like southern Uzbekistan where life is still kinda like the late Middle Ages -- live in a tent -- burn camel dung.

Joe

Looking back I did phrase that fairly untactful. I Apologize. it wasn't meant to be personal. Not confused. I know what I am doing. I am weeding things out and deciding what I don't want my photography to be.

 

[photoguy99]

bribrius, I think you're blaming digital technology for something it is not guilty of.

Digital has attracted and enabled a lot of people to start doing photography. It's also encouraged the attitude that photography is a set of technical problems to be solved. This had always been with us, but digital has opened this world up to a whole lot more people.

If you think of photography as primarily the pursuit of technical excellence, you're going to make a certain kind of image. The kind you and I hate.

These people have always been with us, digital seems to have made them the overwhelming majority. Especially online, where everything is already digital.

And more power to them, to be fair. They're having a great time.

 

[robbins.photo]

Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Lol.. now there's a mental image I'll be carrying with me for a while.

NOTE: I switched from film to digital when it was obvious to me that I could get better photographs using digital cameras and digital processing.

I didn't do it because it was cheaper. I didn't do it because it was easier. I did it because I could improve my work and get the results I wanted. The advances in technology permit me to do better work -- good reason to adopt those advances. You can't get good results from a digital camera -- your problem. I get excellent results from a digital camera; better than was possible using film. You don't want to learn -- again your problem.

For me the best part of digital is the ability to see the end results in a timely fashion - back in the old days with film since I didn't do my own developing it was pretty standard that I'd end up shooting a roll of film and by the time I got it developed it might be weeks or even as much as a month or two after the fact. With digital I see the results that night, and it's timely enough that I have a much better recollection of the situation I was in when the picture was taken and how to adjust so I get better results

But unlike Bach, it was not enough to cause me to wet myself.. lol

 

[KenC]

But unlike Bach, it was not enough to cause me to wet myself.. lol

Well, you'll just have to try harder, won't you?

 

[Ysarex]

Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Lol.. now there's a mental image I'll be carrying with me for a while.

About 40 odd years ago when I was still an undergrad I had a chance to play an old tracker organ. If you think about the size of a pipe organ and realize that pressing a key has to open a value that will sound the pipe you can understand the problem. Back centuries ago before electricity (you know, film era ;-)) it had to be mechanical. The instrument builders were brilliant mechanical engineers but there's no way they could rig the whole thing up to get an immediate key press-sound response. So you'd press the keys and nothing would happen and then a moment later you hear the sound. A very bizarre experience to try and move your hands over the keys playing music that came out of the pipes on a constant delay. Makes listening to a Bach toccata all the more amazing when you realize they had to play it out of physical/audio sync.

Joe

 

[robbins.photo]

But unlike Bach, it was not enough to cause me to wet myself.. lol

Well, you'll just have to try harder, won't you?

Drinking much more water, even as we speak.. lol

 

[robbins.photo]

Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Lol.. now there's a mental image I'll be carrying with me for a while.

About 40 odd years ago when I was still an undergrad I had a chance to play an old tracker organ. If you think about the size of a pipe organ and realize that pressing a key has to open a value that will sound the pipe you can understand the problem. Back centuries ago before electricity (you know, film era ;-)) it had to be mechanical. The instrument builders were brilliant mechanical engineers but there's no way they could rig the whole thing up to get an immediate key press-sound response. So you'd press the keys and nothing would happen and then a moment later you hear the sound. A very bizarre experience to try and move your hands over the keys playing music that came out of the pipes on a constant delay. Makes listening to a Bach toccata all the more amazing when you realize they had to play it out of physical/audio sync.

Joe

It is pretty amazing to think of the skill it takes to overcome some of the technological challenges of the day. But admittedly I'm still trying to get past the image of Bach running around with visible trouser shower.

 

[bribrius]

bribrius, I think you're blaming digital technology for something it is not guilty of.

Digital has attracted and enabled a lot of people to start doing photography. It's also encouraged the attitude that photography is a set of technical problems to be solved. This had always been with us, but digital has opened this world up to a whole lot more people.

If you think of photography as primarily the pursuit of technical excellence, you're going to make a certain kind of image. The kind you and I hate.

These people have always been with us, digital seems to have made them the overwhelming majority. Especially online, where everything is already digital.

And more power to them, to be fair. They're having a great time.

yeah well, we can all still parlay and be friendly despite our style or photographic "beliefs" i would think.

This shooting raw stuff is just a continuation of your method of learning by trying something without knowing why i know why to shoot raw, and if i needed to i was doing it. and then you come a ceopper and decide it's someone else's fault because it isn't working well this is true, i mad. And didn't have to take that advice it was my own fault.

You aren't trying to learn in any organized way so you're wasting time and energy re-inventing the wheel all the time. you keep saying this, and i will admit in some things i am not organizing very well but you lost me on the learning and reinventing the wheel thing.
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 mean as in shooting jpeg? could be why i like jpeg so much.

You are treating digital as if it was the same not really obviously it is different, but if you mean again in shooting jpegs then yeah i am. I don't see anything wrong with that. and you are just plain wrong.

well geez lew. i am not shooting jpegs for everything, lot of stuff, but not everything..how am i wrong? If you could explain the wasting time reinventing the wheel thing that could be interesting. If you really think i am wasting too much time on something i sure want to know it what it is and how to stream line. Quick and easy is my friend that is why i like these jpegs so much..

 

[sashbar]

Some say that shooting film makes you think, because you need to be more economical with your film. This might be beneficial, providing, of course, that you are capable of it. I mean - thinking. I am not a big fan of this theory, but there certainly is some truth in it.

My point is - you may treat JPEGs in the same way. Shooting JPEGs makes you more disciplined and aware of your exposures, because you know that your margin of error is much smaller compared to RAW.

With growing dynamic range and flexibility of RAW files more and more photographers buy top cameras for one reason: they have adopted the Shoot and Pray style. (Similar to Spray and Pray). They see a difficult, wide dynamic range exposure and do not care about the key tones and other things, that were important for photographers in the film/early digital era. They know they can boost their exposure by two or three stops in pp, adjust tones, do some local adjustments and in the end make it look "better" than reality.

Some may say that modern cameras liberate you from technical problems and allow you to concentrate on the creative, artistic side. But the experience shows much more intrinsic relations between technical aspects of a photo and creativity of the photographer. Very often technical awareness leads to creative prowess. A need for a correct exposure makes you analyse the scene and it's dynamics and light in a way that opens your creative potential. That is pretty obvious to me.

Top modern cameras often allow you to bypass this process, and lots and lots of new photogs adopt this "RAW Style" - see something interesting, set your shutter speed and aperture, point, shoot and then work on it in pp. Paradoxically top DSLRs are quickly turning into point and shoot cameras for enthusiasts with more and more emphasis being shifted to post processing.

I actually do not think it is all that bad, because it attracts a lot of people to photography which is a good thing. But it certainly has it's negatives, and the worst - it limits your creativity.

So you may shoot JPEGs because you are just lazy, or you may shoot JPEGs because you want to nail it in the camera. A lot of photogs find it more exiting to get it perfect in the first place. In a way it is akin of film photography these days. Let me put it this way: JPEG is XXI century film.

One of the reasons why I switched from Nikon to FUJI recently was FUJI's JPEG files. In my view FUJI nails JPEGs as no other camera on the market. The white balance, the colours, tone gradation, details - when the exposure is correct, there is simply no reason to mess with the RAW file. I shoot JPEG much more than I used to, and switch to JPEG + RAW as soon as I see a wide dynamic range or when the light gets difficult and I am not certain what to expose for

I just find this strategy make my life easier, saves a lot of time and to help me to improve at the same time.

We all care about the results, and some even claim that the end product is all and everything and it does not matter how did we get to it. Probably it is correct for pros who treat it as a job that they do not really like. But if it is your hobby, the process must be fun. A perfect exposure is fun for some. For other turning a bad exposure into a good image is more fun.

But I still think that photography should stay as it is - the process of capturing an image, not constructing it on you 'puter screen. Otherwise we can lose the very essence of it.

So long live JPEGs.

 

[gsgary]

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?

Here in the midwest we still have real pipe organs in lots of the churches. Brabara Harbach plays the Aeolian-Skinner organ here at Christ Church and it has real pipes. The air is supplied by an electric motor however and the keyboard action is electronic. Those are both technological advantages. Bach would have peed his pants in delight to see a pipe organ that made a sound when you pressed the key and not a half second later.

Small churches that can't afford a pipe organ can however afford other instruments. It is beneficial for them that they have those rather than not.

Just as it was beneficial when my son was in high school and wanted to study keyboard that I was able to buy him a full 88 key electronic keyboard. I could not have bought him a piano. I did manage to scrape enough together and pop for a keyboard with a real piano action as it was important to help him develop appropriate technique. He is overall much better off for the experience of having that keyboard than not. If not for advances in tecnology he wouldn't have had it.

Most of us shoot digital purely to save a buck.

Speak for yourself -- I don't.

it isn't a artistic choice.

Again speak for yourself. If you're not happy then change. Why whine about something you have the choice to change. What's your problem? Go put some film in a camera and get out of here. Or actually learn to use a digital camera.

NOTE: I switched from film to digital when it was obvious to me that I could get better photographs using digital cameras and digital processing. I didn't do it because it was cheaper. I didn't do it because it was easier. I did it because I could improve my work and get the results I wanted. The advances in technology permit me to do better work -- good reason to adopt those advances. You can't get good results from a digital camera -- your problem. I get excellent results from a digital camera; better than was possible using film. You don't want to learn -- again your problem.

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.

You're talking about what I do for a living. That could sound pretty offense if I didn't already know you were confused. Maybe you could move to someplace like southern Uzbekistan where life is still kinda like the late Middle Ages -- live in a tent -- burn camel dung.

Joe

If you like churches with real pipe organs you need to live in the UK

 

[Gary A.]

...

Some may say that modern cameras liberate you from technical problems and allow you to concentrate on the creative, artistic side. But the experience shows much more intrinsic relations between technical aspects of a photo and creativity of the photographer. Very often technical awareness leads to creative prowess. A need for a correct exposure makes you analyse the scene and it's dynamics and light in a way that opens your creative potential. That is pretty obvious to me.

... Let me put it this way: JPEG is XXI century film.

... But I still think that photography should stay as it is - the process of capturing an image, not constructing it on you 'puter screen. ...

Damn Sashbar, my thoughts but in a much more logical and clear fashion than what I could ever pen. Looking hard at the technical end of the image helps me compose and expose on the creative end and vice versa.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

I always shoot in RAW, and use the free program "Instant jpeg from raw" to extract the embedded jpeg if friends or family need a quick copy, and with Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution other brands may have low resolution, and it only takes a few seconds to extract a directory full, it`s really fast.

John.