Photo editing or not

[table1349]

 

[pixmedic]

damn. ya got me.
I got nothing.

 

[Derrel]

I wonder what an exposed but un-developed sheet of Super-XX film looked like when it came out of Ansel Adams's camera...I bet that sheet of film looked fricking awesome! All dull-finished, and pinkish-tinged light gray in color on the emulsion side, and tantalizingly mirror-smooth shiny and anti-halation-backing purple-y in hue on the back side! Fricking awesome image quality!

 

[407370]

"The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. As I have already pointed out, the RAW image on the storage card, if you had the facility to see it, look hopeless. I put this down to the linearity of the file. I also chose not to mention, at least at that stage, that the basic RAW image has only one channel and is a one bit, greyscale image. All the rest of the image information colour, white balance, etc. is encoded as vector based data. I like to think of this as data which is sort of floating around, waiting for me to give it some body by deciding where to put my points on the various vector curves, i.e.. that the image, at this stage, is a sort of ethereal thing, floating around, waiting to be brought down to earth and reality in Adobe Camera Raw.
GHK

Here is a photo of a wheat field. Didn't get it right in the camera. Little blown out. How about fixing it for me?
View attachment 117738

Reduced the highlights a wee bit and added a bit of saturation. I think your bracketing settings need looking at. I had to do it

 

[GHK]

Didn't

"The concept of 'getting it right first time' with a digital camera is really meaningless"

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. As I have already pointed out, the RAW image on the storage card, if you had the facility to see it, look hopeless. I put this down to the linearity of the file. I also chose not to mention, at least at that stage, that the basic RAW image has only one channel and is a one bit, greyscale image. All the rest of the image information colour, white balance, etc. is encoded as vector based data. I like to think of this as data which is sort of floating around, waiting for me to give it some body by deciding where to put my points on the various vector curves, i.e.. that the image, at this stage, is a sort of ethereal thing, floating around, waiting to be brought down to earth and reality in Adobe Camera Raw.
GHK

Here is a photo of a wheat field. Didn't get it right in the camera. Little blown out. How about fixing it for me?
View attachment 117738

All I can see is a white rectangle. I assume that it is intended as a joke; I agree that it is somewhat blown out.
GHK
I've just see the post from 407370 who seems to have found a wheat field. I assume that the displayed image is his edit, not your original. Perhaps you weren't joking after all?
GHK

 

[GHK]

I wonder what an exposed but un-developed sheet of Super-XX film looked like when it came out of Ansel Adams's camera...I bet that sheet of film looked fricking awesome! All dull-finished, and pinkish-tinged light gray in color on the emulsion side, and tantalizingly mirror-smooth shiny and anti-halation-backing purple-y in hue on the back side! Fricking awesome image quality!

I wouldn't bet against your being correct, but if you had taken the trouble to check you would have burnt it out completely. What then?
GHK

 

[jake337]

Another 6 pages filled with a dead horse being pummeled.

When will it ever end.......

 

[pixmedic]

Another 6 pages filled with a dead horse being pummeled.

When will it ever end.......

now.

 

[pixmedic]