Shooting JPEG is like shooting Chrome film. NOT a bad thing to become a great photographer.

Mavry said:

People saying that the real deal is "to get it right in camera" are not saying that are happy with what you can do with the JPGs in lightroom (or whatever). They do put it as a let the camera do it or do your own PP binary decision.

Click to expand...

Jerry-astro said:

Pan50 said:

Agree, and I shoot RAW and JPEGs both. Look, I’m not against post processing sometimes. You can’t always get exposure right in camera because of contrast issues, even with graduated filters, and on reviewing my shots sometimes I’ll crop them for composition.

All I’m saying is that there is this movement in digital photpgraphy, the Ken Wheeler types, who love to yak about gear but don’t know how to use it. They’re very proficient at using post processing systems but can’t shoot a JPEG to save their lives. They’re the digital snobs who turn their noses up to getting it right the first time because the camera is just a data gathering instrument and that data is gatghered for processing must later. And before ya’ll start making comparisons to Ansel Adams, shooting 8x10 film and processing negatives and dodging and burning in a darkened room is not the same as sitting at a laptop with a coffee and using LR!

And I guess there’s the rest of us camera snobs who look down our noses at the laptop crowd and ask where’s the art anymore?

Click to expand...

Ugh. I'm by all definitions a bit of a geezer myself, yet this whole discussion has my eyes rolling bigtime. Photography is a broad hobby that's defined by each individual who partakes in it. Like any hobby, there are the purists who believe that any form of post processing manipulation somehow cheapens the art. Others, like myself, see a wonderful palette of tools available, both within the camera and in post processing, all of which contribute to the creation of a [hopefully] beautiful end product.

There is no right and wrong way here, and everyone is free to define this amazing hobby as he/she sees fit. I have a clinical interest in how an image is created and the techniques that got it there. However, I refuse to sit on my high horse and look down on any aspect of modern photography, any more than I feel that modern automobile electronics are somehow ruining the driving experience. If you don't want to use these capabilities, then turn them off, and mold your photography to your own definition what the hobby should be... whatever makes you happy.

From my perspective, the only thing worthy of judging here is the end product. Having an interest in the "how you got there" is natural. However, suggesting that any of this goes beyond some definition one has of what "photography" is.. well... simply one's own opinion, nothing more. Photography is simply whatever you make of it. You are free to employ whatever limitations you wish... please just don't judge mine.

Click to expand...

stevo23 said:

57even said:

chaimav said:

Raw + jpg here. I have neither the time nor the energy to PP all of shots, but want the abiltity to edit a select few. Either for 'snapshots' I like with poor exposure, lighting, etc. or those few of my better shots that I think have potential and I feel are worth the effort. And being somewhat new to this, sometimes I just see how much is possible.

Here is my latest PP effort. I would have been hard pressed to get the image this bold in-camera. I added some vignetting after cropping and I added a gradient filter to darken the foreground and tree stump. Yes, I could have used a gradient ND filter, but I don't own one.

I'm sure that with more practice, I could have done a better job, but it is, IMHO, way better than I could do SOOC.

Click to expand...

Nice. You clearly 'get it' with respect to PP. Once you are past that hurdle (and some folks are so averse to technology they refuse to make that jump) the rest is just practice and experience.

Click to expand...

The only issue is that shooting for proper jpeg leaves a bit of latitude on the table with respect for the raw. One is still better off retaining a companion raw of course.

Click to expand...

Greg7579 said:

Shooting JPEG has nothing to do with becoming a great photographer. In fact, if your are not a great photographer (like me), you should be shooting RAW for far better results 100% of the time. There are no exceptions to this rule. Processed RAW beats OOC JPEG 100% of the time.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

57even said:

stevo23 said:

57even said:

chaimav said:

Raw + jpg here. I have neither the time nor the energy to PP all of shots, but want the abiltity to edit a select few. Either for 'snapshots' I like with poor exposure, lighting, etc. or those few of my better shots that I think have potential and I feel are worth the effort. And being somewhat new to this, sometimes I just see how much is possible.

Here is my latest PP effort. I would have been hard pressed to get the image this bold in-camera. I added some vignetting after cropping and I added a gradient filter to darken the foreground and tree stump. Yes, I could have used a gradient ND filter, but I don't own one.

I'm sure that with more practice, I could have done a better job, but it is, IMHO, way better than I could do SOOC.

Click to expand...

Nice. You clearly 'get it' with respect to PP. Once you are past that hurdle (and some folks are so averse to technology they refuse to make that jump) the rest is just practice and experience.

Click to expand...

The only issue is that shooting for proper jpeg leaves a bit of latitude on the table with respect for the raw. One is still better off retaining a companion raw of course.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I always shoot for maximum raw latitude. For instance, I will underexpose if I need to so I can maintain highlights, but I sometimes overexpose (compared to the meter) when a scene has limited contrast, because it reduces noise in the midtones. In both cases, I will adjust the mid-point afterwards.

The camera meter in most cameras is a crude throwback to the film era. You can do much more with an image if you have the full dynamic range of the sensor at your disposal, but meters are not set up for that.

I guess you could call it ETTR, but I generally leave a little leeway as I don't quite trust the histogram.

Most phone cameras now do this automatically, including the tone-curve adjustment. They generally do a much better job of 'getting it right' in camera. I'm very impressed with the GFs new Samsung.

Click to expand...

57even said:

Greg7579 said:

Shooting JPEG has nothing to do with becoming a great photographer. In fact, if your are not a great photographer (like me), you should be shooting RAW for far better results 100% of the time. There are no exceptions to this rule. Processed RAW beats OOC JPEG 100% of the time.

Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Click to expand...

Unless you own a smart-phone, definitely ;-)

Dunno what they do with those smart phone processors, but I can't get anything like that from the raw images they provide. Quite impressed really - lots of image enhancement stuff going on in there.

Click to expand...