I'll pass on RAW, except for Sushi!

Dunno, Fred -- there were as many I and My statements in the original post as some politicians use. If I posted something inflammatory, or judgmental it would be one thing. Simply, I tried RAW for a sufficient period based on input from a respected photo friend. Didn't work for me. Saying I prefer red wine to white most of the time would be equally controversial. As always appreciate your input.

Sandy said: I prefer to see what it "Was" that caught my eye and capture that. Matter of choice." I just can't relate to that idea. Hardly ever is a straight shot right out of the camera "what I saw," no matter if jpg, straight raw, film, slide, etc. No film or device can ever capture what the eye/brain sees. Just in dynamic range a typical scene often far outstrips what film or sensor can capture. Perhaps our differences in how we like to shoot lie in differences in our brains and how different they are in their perception, and in our expectations of what the end result should look like. We all see differently and have different brains with different perceptions etc. As stated numerous times in this thread, each person should do what feels right for them.

Steve, some great points. Thinking of someone like Monet, I'd bet he'd say he saw nature, landscapes, and water as he painted them. And I doubt very much someone standing next to him would have seen it the same way. And I doubt a straight camera shot would have captured what he was seeing. As a matter of fact, I'd be happy to argue that, to some extent, Monet taught the rest of us a way of seeing. I wouldn't doubt that many great photographers see very differently than those around them. The most highly manipulated photo may actually be quite true to what that photographer saw. There is no generic or universal "THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS." I think, in many cases, photographers see through what was there rather than simply seeing what was there.

SJ -- I shot so many decades of film, and still do on occasion, I think what evolves is a personal set of parameters that are virtually subconscious, not all that different than knowing what shots you can make with a rifle or shotgun. The elements come together and you take / make the shot or not. Beyond that, I have little interest in pre thinking what I can transform the image into or what it might become. If my result is evocative (it speaks) to me, I have won. That others see things differently is great -- to me, all are straight shots. That's not to say, and this is different, that I won't process an image radically when the weather has been photographically bad for a while.

Happy to oblige

thanks for taking the time to present those images. do you think the image with the recovered highlights was worth the effort? do you think the processing transformed a modest image into a better one?

do you think the processing transformed a modest image into a better one?

Absolutely! Don't you?

do you think the image with the recovered highlights was worth the effort?

How much effort do you think was involved?

 

That's not to say, and this is different, that I won't process an image radically when the weather has been photographically bad for a while.

Do you shoot in RAW then?

Edited May 13, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

thanks for taking the time to present those images. do you think the image with the recovered highlights was worth the effort? do you think the processing transformed a modest image into a better one?

 

Yes. Not much effort at all.

Why do you think I posted this example.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Supriyo

Absolutely! Don't you?

not really. i think the processing has converted a modest image with a "flaw" into a modest image

Why do you think I posted this example

to demonstrate how flaws can be corrected. i don't think the adjusted image is any better.

 

i think a lot of photographers use RAW processing as a kind of artistic crutch whereby extending the dynamic range of a photo, say, is considered a "success" and therefore makes the image better.

Supriyo, Dieter, this was a setup. You couldn't have convinced the unconvincable no matter what you might have done. Those of us who know what you're talking about know what you're talking about. Those who don't . . . don't.

Beware people in photography or art forums asking for proof, unless it's a calculable or measurable question. When there's any kind of subjective assessment of result to be made, there can never be a sufficient proof. If there's not enough vision to understand the benefits of getting a sky that can be recovered in RAW that had been lost in jpg, I think you're fighting an uphill battle, and a futile one.

Supriyo, Dieter, this was a setup. You couldn't have convinced the unconvincable no matter what you might have done. Those of us who know what you're talking about know what you're talking about. Those who don't . . . don't.

that's right Fred. you and the guys keep believing …

If there's not enough vision to understand the benefits of getting a sky that can be recovered in RAW that had been lost in jpg, I think you're fighting an uphill battle, and a futile one.

a ghastly sunset with 15 stops of DR is still a ghastly sunset.

As with religion and politics, pushing hard on topics of belief never makes converts, just "enemies".

You couldn't have convinced the unconvincable no matter what you might have done.

One can lead a horse to water ...

One can lead a horse to water ...

 

 

You're not leading him to water. You're leading him to Perrier. He thinks water is just fine.

You're not leading him to water. You're leading him to Perrier. He thinks water is just fine

water is just fine, precious. perrier is just another marketing scam.

Oh boy. A new topic for debate . . . how exciting!

 

Bubbly or still?

We've now achieved maximum goofy.

to demonstrate how flaws can be corrected. i don't think the adjusted image is any better.

 

i think a lot of photographers use RAW processing as a kind of artistic crutch whereby extending the dynamic range of a photo, say, is considered a "success" and therefore makes the image better.

 

It's not about making the image better. It's making the image look in a way that communicates character and sense of place specific to that scene, a historical stone/wood building shot in bright sunlight.

 

It's not a street scene shot at night lit by one street light which should look high contrast with crushed shadows and the street light bulb highlights treated as spectral light.

 

I'm surprised you see these as flaws.

 

The only flaw when shooting Raw is not getting all of the important detail that says something about what the photographer sees. At the exposure stage it's just turning the camera into a data collector.

I agree with Tim. He expressed very nicely what was in my mind. I see so many misconceptions about digital imaging and usage of RAW in this thread. The purpose of RAW is not to make a poorly executed photo better, certainly not to correct 'flaws'. I will contend, my shooting methodology didn't have any flaw. Looking at the scene, I realized I couldn't capture it unless I used RAW. From that point onwards, it was my conscious decision to shoot at that exposure knowing I would post process the RAW to bring out the essence of the scene. It was not like I was caught with my pants down after I reviewed the photos, and somehow I fumbled to correct the blunder using RAW.

 

The only flaw IMO would be to shoot jpeg in such a situation.

Supriyo, Dieter, this was a setup. You couldn't have convinced the unconvincable no matter what you might have done. Those of us who know what you're talking about know what you're talking about. Those who don't . . . don't.

 

Fred, I suspected this is a setup, but as I do usually when replying to public forums, I don't just respond to the person, but to others who would be reading my post, and potentially benefiting from it. I now remember you telling a few pages back, not to continue with this discussion. I think that was a sound advice.

The only flaw IMO would be to shoot jpeg in such a situation.

 

Continuing with the previous discussion ...

The only flaw IMO would be to shoot jpeg in such a situation. I know very well, Norman will say, it's a bad composition, uninteresting subject matter, not worthy of shooting even under ideal lighting etc. I totally disagree with him. But even if we assume that's the case, can this particular example be extended to infer that a good photo doesn't depend on blown highlights or clipped shadows to succeed? A photo is a sum total of every aspect, not just composition. In certain cases, some of the aspects like exposure could become less important, in others they can be critical. I don't buy the sentiment that photos in one category is superior than the other.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Supriyo

No set up in the OP -- IMO nothing further to discuss on the original subject, it has run its course and beyond. One does or one doesn't!

No set up in the OP -- IMO nothing further to discuss on the original subject, it has run its course and beyond. One does or one doesn't!

 

Sandy, I didn't mean you. You asked a honest question and shared your outlook. It is when people challenge others to post examples with the pretense of an open mind and learning attitude, only to emerge later to push their own agenda -- that's when it becomes a setup.

It is when people challenge others to post examples with the pretense of an open mind and learning attitude, only to emerge later to push their own agenda -- that's when it becomes a setup.

 

get a grip Supriyo. not agreeing with you isn't the same as pushing an agenda.