dianedh

<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>