Working with raw is like working with an original negative or slide. All
of the information is there that was captured at the time. Working with a
jpeg is like working with a drugstore print. The only information there is
what that particular machine chose to include when they made a print from
your precious negative or slide. To work with only jpegs is to throw away
the original and try to recover what you can from the limited information
in the drugstore print.
I would never, ever shoot jpegs only.
Tina
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:26 PM, <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Moose wrote
>
> And yet, more is possible.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/BSwale/Red_on_Grey2.htm>
>
>
> People often like things that aren't strictly properly exposed.
> Perhaps the glare/flare across the top of the rock is appealing to some
> people.
>
> In my opinion, being a person who was there at the time,
> Moose's modification is an epic fail. Why?
>
> The colours in the
> foreground and of the red rose hips are grossly exaggerated.
> The"sky"
> detail at the top ( it wasn't actually sky, but the lower side of very
> cold cloud) has been modified excessively where the mist interacts with
> the rock, AND above the rock, the cloud seems to have been replaced with
> a uniform layer of grey paint, totally obliterating some detail such as
> the power pylon on the ridge-top at the right.
>
> The flare/glare on the
> rock is largely snow on south-facing rock faces, where a frigid blast
> from the South Pole had plastered it.
>
> My intention in showing you all
> the image I originally did was to give one rare example (for me) of
> unsolicited public approval by people some of whom were familiar with
> the area. As a possible pointer to what the great unwashed public
> "might" like when it comes to sales of prints, this was valuable to me.
>
>
> Am I Stubborn? Lazy? Cheap?. Well stubborn probably Yes, Cheap; well
> that's a matter of priorities. By shooting only (mainly) jpegs I can get
> about 420 images on the main card I use. Were I to shoot RAW as well,
> I'd fit only about 100 unique images on it.
> My computer gets clogged by
> RAW images; they slow up several important programs.
> I have yet to see
> an image that I can recall where the use of RAW files has saved the day
> - with proof. So why bother?
>
> Lazy - I don't agree. I'm already accused
> at home for spending too much time on the computer. I do a lot of
> writing and corresponding (different things), as well as fiddling with
> photos.
>
> I'm not prepared to buy a new computer yet. I'd like to buy a
> top-of-the-range Olympus camera ( the OM D! or whatever) but it will
> have to wait. We've just spent $8000 on double-glazing half the house.
> Another $2500 this week on having a high barge-board replaced which
> failed through rot due to faulty workmanship. Too high for me at my age
> to risk a bad fall from a significant (2nd story) height. I have a
> dentist's appointment today which will set me back $1350; part of a
> $9500 plan - not all of which I have yet committed to yet. I'd like to
> get a Yamaha 115 outboard for my boat, but that's $14,000 ...
>
> I have
> to manage with what I have and the E-3 is the main one right
> now.
> Priorities. It was very useful for me to see public response to
> that shot.
> Brian
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley
http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com
http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|