dianedh

Ditto

<div></div>

<p><strong>[Well, I am not Diane, but I am using her computer, so I will let the following post stand unless the moderators want to delete it.--Landrum Kelly]</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>RAW photos do allow for a greater degree of post-processing flexibility, so based on the new policy, it appears that Reuters found that photos processed from RAWs are more likely to distort the truth. --the petapixel article</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither JPEG nor raw distorts the truth. Photographers can distort the truth using either. I shoot raw + JPEG but typically (not always) use raw so that I can <strong><em>more nearly approximate what I sa</em><em>w, rather than enhance it</em></strong>. I find JPEG images to be typically over-processed, as Fred mentioned above. I hate the over-saturated colors with too much contrast that the Nikon engineers (among others) love to build in for consumers who like to shoot expensive cameras with a minimum of thought and work. Don't even get me going on dynamic range.<br /> <br /> Is it worth the time to shoot raw + JPEG? I don't have a problem with time with the pictures that I shoot. Some photojournalistsl admittedly might. I will concede that shooting raw + JPEG does consume a lot of disk space--and I do have to change cards more often while shooting. That can be a decisive factor for many shooters, as can the time factor. But making that into a "one size fits all" solution? Give me a break.</p>

<p>I shot "JPEG's only" for years and came away with some nice photos, but I sure wish that I had the raw files for some of those early shots. I still tend to go with the JPEG if the picture looks fine without additional manipulation. I am glad to have the raw files for those cases in which I didn't nail the exposure, or the dynamic range or color balance was not adequate. (No, I don't always nail the exposure the first time, and I don't know anyone who does.) Again, however, I am as likely to "manipulate" in the direction of more conservative color and contrast treatments, not the reverse--and I shoot a lot at night. JPEG can be a nightmare for night shooters.</p>

<p>So. . . number me with the "raw + JPEG crowd." I like the options that that gives me. JPEG only? That is great for beginners and those who really don't have time to fool with raw. I will concede that the latter exist, and perhaps they are a majority of those who work through Reuters. More power to them if it works for them. It too often does not for me.<br /> I doubt that this policy change for Reuters will stand the test of time. There are alternative ways of approaching the problem of over-processing.</p>

<p><br /> --Lannie</p>

<p>(Sorry, Diane. I forgot that I was on your computer. Is dinner ready yet?)</p>

<p>I'm glad to know it's bogus... I tried to check a couple places but didn't find anything on it.</p>

<p>I just saw this on FB... it's long but has quite a bit of info that would significantly impact photographers. I was not aware of this and apparently changes have been in the works for a number of years. It's doesn't appear to be bogus, but..... <br>

<br />

<p> </p>

<p>Howard, that Monument Valley shot is a stunner! I hope that when I visit, I'll be as lucky.</p>

<p>And finally, an orchid from the greenhouse.</p><div></div>

<p>Above shot was the wisteria arbor. This shot is a railing on one of the side porches at the house.</p><div></div>

<p>Took a day trip up to the Biltmore House in Asheville with a good friend on Friday and was able to get some shots. All taken with my A65 and Sony 18-200mm lens. I am always amazed at how sharp the shots are....</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Paul! The stone wall is about a 50% crop and I was very pleased with the result. And I'll work a little on the azaleas!<br>

The lily is beautiful - had to Google it to see what it looks like opened.</p>

<p>And finally, azaleas blooming at my house.</p><div></div>

<p>And this old mill....</p><div></div>

<p>After a long, rainy week, we finally had a beautiful day! Just getting out of the house was a real treat. All of these were shot with my A65 and Sony 18-200.</p><div></div>

<p>Welcome! I have some good friends who live in Falls Church.<br>

I hope you'll post more of your photos soon. The saucer magnolia bloom shot is beautiful!</p>

<p>Joe, they are certainly cute and make me miss my old Fred even more! Hope to see more of your shots soon.</p>

<p>Too funny! NBC Nightly News featured a story tonight of people taking pics of their kids in fields of bluebonnets.</p>

<p>Randy - they are daffodils.... and Robert, all the red maples can be mulched as far as I'm concerned. I love the trees but the flowers sure set off my allergies!</p>

<p>I like the Central Park shot - but I'm really glad we're done with the snow in my neck of the woods!</p>

<p>I should say that all three of these were shot during the middle of the day.... worst time!</p>

<p>These shots weren't exactly the same but close enough. I'd love any thoughts/suggestion you all might have for me!</p><div></div>

<p>Howard, I was anxious to try the Rich Tone Mono feature we talked about a month ago. I did enjoy playing with the settings. <br>

All three of these shots were with my A67, Sigma 10-20 (shot at 15mm), F11 and ISO 400.</p><div></div>

<p>Well I made my spring visit to my brother in Vegas and got back the 19th. Spent the last week down with an awful sinus infection - one of the worst I've had in years. When I flew out, nothing here was blooming but by the time I got back, EVERYTHING was in bloom here in NC.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Jin! An update in the monthly newsletter after you see what's happening would be appreciated.</p>

<p>This was very timely information for me. I'm going out to Las Vegas to see my brother next week and, depending on the weather, will try and get back out to Red Rock Canyon or Valley of Fire Park and try out some of these settings.</p>

<p>Well live and learn! I just checked on my A65 and there it is. Guess I'll have to play with those 'picture effects' one day soon.</p>