Who's the boss?

[boojum]

Oh, so similar to the audio file debates. Could the Fraunhofer MP3 at any compression rate sound as good as a WAV file? A board friend on an audio board got in a debate with a "Golden Ears" who said he could easily distinguish MP3 from WAV. OK, the doubter sent the "Golden Ears" 12 or 14 files to sort out. About a week later the "Golden Ears" announced he had sorted them out and submitted his list of selections. He was quite proud and quite assured in separating the wheat from the chaff. They were all MP3's. "Golden Ears" never spoke to the other fellow again. It is easy to let passions carry us past reality.

The idea of creating from a RAW file the exact scene as the photographer saw it is interesting. Do we have that ability? Has it ever been tested anywhere? Or is this a ready assumption? Maybe it can be done. Some people have amazing mental abilities and working in the photography field for a length of time will sharpen color and image skills for sure. So, can it be done or will the photographer be creating from the RAW file the scene as he wishes it were?

Moot point. The effort is to improve the scene to the extent of one's abilities. One paints with the photo editor. Do JPG's suffer more from editing? I have read they do. But some editors make no change to the original file until that file is saved. What you are looking at in edit is what will overlay the actual file at the save. All the changes are made to the file in memory. I think it is LightZone in Linux which does this. I believe there are others.

And are we really better at this than the engineers who designed the camera, wrote the software, built the lenses and designed the sensor? Speaking only for myself, I must improve what I capture before I devote time to manipulating what I have captured. As usual, YMMV.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

The only boss is the content. If content is present, it is picture which will stand out by been taken in jpeg1 and mobile phone.

That's my way of thinking too!

All the best,
Mike

 

[sojournerphoto]

Oh, so similar to the audio file debates. Could the Fraunhofer MP3 at any compression rate sound as good as a WAV file? A board friend on an audio board got in a debate with a "Golden Ears" who said he could easily distinguish MP3 from WAV. OK, the doubter sent the "Golden Ears" 12 or 14 files to sort out. About a week later the "Golden Ears" announced he had sorted them out and submitted his list of selections. He was quite proud and quite assured in separating the wheat from the chaff. They were all MP3's. "Golden Ears" never spoke to the other fellow again. It is easy to let passions carry us past reality.

Made me smile. I remember the wars over digital vs analogue back in the day and test where a number of golden eared turntable manufacturers were subjected to a system that switched an A2D and D2A converter in and out of the signal path and they were unable to tell the difference.

not suggesting that a 24x16 print from Portra 400 will look the same as print from. 24+Mp digital capture.

I agree with KoFe - content is key. I use raw almost all the time, but Lightroom makes this very similar to shooting jpeg in practice.

 

[boojum]

Made me smile. I remember the wars over digital vs analogue back in the day and test where a number of golden eared turntable manufacturers were subjected to a system that switched an A2D and D2A converter in and out of the signal path and they were unable to tell the difference.

not suggesting that a 24x16 print from Portra 400 will look the same as print from. 24+Mp digital capture.

I agree with KoFe - content is key. I use raw almost all the time, but Lightroom makes this very similar to shooting jpeg in practice.

I've been through the supposed greatness of one thing against another similar thing, like digital vs analog. When digital came in audiophiles swooned over a comparison of Turnstiles on LP and the same on CD. CD won hands down. About five or ten years later the same stereo high end shop ran the test again, same gear and the LP won. Go figure.

Amps are another area where the snake oil salesmen grow fat. Which is why I love this article: https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

And while I have a few Leicas, all used, I have great success with the SONY. Those guys in marketing are a pack of liars. Remember when standing on a Leica was supposed to demonstrate, uh, what was it supposed to demonstrate other than you can stand on a Leica, should the need arise to get something off a shelf?? Marketing. Comes the revolution MBA's, cost accounts and marketing types are all "up against the wall." LOL

Look at the price of an M11: $9,000. You're putting me on, right? Look at the small CCD sensor thread and see what can be done for less than $100. It's the author not the pen.

The rest of you folks are way ahead of me. I have to get the content to where it is worth post editing. Right now JPG's are working fine.

 

[ptpdprinter]

And are we really better at this than the engineers who designed the camera, wrote the software, built the lenses and designed the sensor?

Yes. My edited RAW files look better than my SOOC JPGs. It is the same with film. In the darkroom, I make prints that look better than straight prints.

Speaking only for myself, I must improve what I capture before I devote time to manipulating what I have captured. As usual, YMMV.

You don't edit your files? You are waiting until you improve as a photographer before you begin editing?

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around someone making a good image which is half a stop overexposed and discarding it, rather than moving the exposure slider a smidge in an editing program to correct it. You can still learn from the experience and be more careful with your exposure going forward. Improving as a photographer and improving as a darkroom technician or digital image editor are not mutually exclusive activities; they are symbiotic activities. Give it a try; you might like it. If not, that's okay. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

 

[Rob-F]

My habit has been to put the camera on RAW and leave it there, as long as my computers can use the RAW file. My iMac and my older macbook are from 2009 running Snow Leopard. They can't use the RAW files from my newer cameras, but they can still read them from my most important ones, the D700, M9, M9M, original Fuji X100. By using RAW I feel more confident that I can make any necessary adjustments to a photo that isn't quite right out of camera.

The JPEG engines of some of my cameras, like the Fuji X20, X100, or Leica D-Lux 6, are better than others, like the M9. JPEGs from my Fuji, Panasonic, or Nikon D700 can be already pretty darn good. They do a good job of protecting the highlights, for one thing. I've tried shooting JPEG plus RAW. It's not unusual that the JPEG will already look just about the way I want it to. They can turn out great, be less work, and take up less storage space. And a JPEG can still be adjusted in post, albeit with greater limitations. I'm still experimenting, but it seems a shame not to take advantage of the JPEG option with cameras that have really good JPEG engines.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Let's not forget that many of us shoot film. Many of us film shooters shoot color reversal or instant film. Those media are entirely "the boss". It's a question of accepting the creative parameters of those particular media. and working within them, since there's virtually no room for manipulation after the exposure. For most digital shooters, that approach might be unthinkable. but I personally enjoy that discipline, and take pleasure in knowing my materials well enough to get the results I want despite (or perhaps because of) those narrow parameters. Perhaps it's a bit like a poet choosing to write within the highly disciplined and restricting form of the sestina, versus free verse. This works for me; I won't advocate my approach to others, since I realize it's a bit extreme. Nevertheless, a rough comparison can be made between a straight OOC JPEG versus a RAW file. Working within the parameters of the JPEG format might be exactly what some shooters need and want.
Of course, the RAW file promises virtually unlimited freedom to manipulate the image. But some folks might be more concerned with the immediacy of seeing, and the direct correlation of the JPEG to the thing seen. Sometimes unlimited freedom, at least in the arts, can feel more like the curse of too many choices.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Of course, the RAW file promises virtually unlimited freedom to manipulate the image. But some folks might be more concerned with the immediacy of seeing, and the direct correlation of the JPEG to the thing seen. Sometimes unlimited freedom, at least in the arts, can feel more like the curse of too many choices.

By "immediacy of seeing" do you mean looking at the image on the screen on the back of your camera immediately after you take it? What is the "direct correlation" of the JPEG to the thing seen?

 

[Retro-Grouch]

By "immediacy of seeing" do you mean looking at it on the screen on the back of your camera? What is the "direct correlation" of the JPEG to the thing seen?

By "direct correlation" I mean that the appearance of the capture has not been altered by the imposition of post-exposure controls such as contrast, overall brightness, cropping, etc. Of course, a JPEG has been processed through the algorithms of the camera's software; in the same way, one can say that a color transparency has been "processed" by the film manufacturer's decision regarding the color balance and "look" of a film (Velvia vs. Provia, for example). Of course, whether digital or film, the image is a transposition of reality that is in large part a product of decisions that are not in the photographer's hands. The point I'm trying to make is that one should be aware of one's technology, and, more broadly, the long history of lens-based depiction. Then one can make an informed decision about the selection of parameters one chooses to work within, or to accept as given. There is no "correct" way to approach the medium, only conventions. Those conventions may help us communicate, but can also be a creative dead weight.

 

[ranger9]

A potentially controversial key point here is that the “authoritative original” — the thing we're always trying to get our various sorts of reproductions to match as closely as possible — is not in the numerical values of your raw files, or in RGB pixels on your monitor, or in the tones of the slide on your lightbox, or even in the scene that was in front of your camera. The original is in your head.

In other words, what we want or hope or intend for the final picture to look like is the sole standard. My ongoing frustration with photography is that I see images in my mind that I can never quite transfer to screen or paper, no matter what type of camera and lens I use or what type of file I make or what processing techniques I employ. But sometimes I get a result of which I can say, “Yeah, I like that. That's close enough,” and that's as good as it ever gets.

I like to save raw files because often my wants and hopes vary over time, and having more saved data gives me more latitude to change my mind later. But if another photographer bangs out a straight-out-of-camera JPEG, loads the file into the presentation medium of his/her choice, and thinks, “That's it! That's exactly what I hoped this image would look like!” then I'm in no position to argue. I might not like the image myself, I might think I would have treated the situation differently, but I can't say that the photographer wasn't 100% successful in fulfilling his or her intentions.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

Ranger9 sums it up perfectly: The original is in your head. I think the most fundamental skill for all photographers is the ability to look at what's "out there" and envision it as it will appear after it is filtered through the technology that they hold in their hands. My failed photographs are usually the ones where I didn't fully account for the specific tools I was using.

 

[boojum]

Yes. My edited RAW files look better than my SOOC JPGs. It is the same with film. In the darkroom, I make prints that look better than straight prints.


You don't edit your files? You are waiting until you improve as a photographer before you begin editing?

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around someone making a good image which is half a stop overexposed and discarding it, rather than moving the exposure slider a smidge in an editing program to correct it. You can still learn from the experience and be more careful with your exposure going forward. Improving as a photographer and improving as a darkroom technician or digital image editor are not mutually exclusive activities; they are symbiotic activities. Give it a try; you might like it. If not, that's okay. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

I understand completely what you are saying. I use aperture priority on the Leicas and usually go full auto on the Sony. I have fiddled extensively with LR in Windows and fiddled less in Linux and just do not see the effort as worthwhile. I look at what I get SOOC and if I like it I may put it up on Flicker or here. It may be that I am truly not the brightest bear in the woods but I fail to see what difference half an f-stop can make. The editing I do for here is to reduce the size and sharpen, in Photopea. I am disappointed in the image degradation on the board but that is a given we must all live with.

Maybe if editing starts to look like fun I will give it a whirl.

 

[CMur12]

I see film transparencies/slides compared to SOOC jpgs here. I think that is true to the extent that both images were created entirely in-camera. As an old slide shooter, I can relate to this.

On the other hand, a major difference between a SOOC jpg and a slide is the fact that the slide contains ALL the data, while the jpg doesn't.


My question, from my lack of digital experience: Can one make as large a print from a SOOC jpg as from a post-processed file of RAW origin? Thanks.

- Murray

 

[boojum]

I see film transparencies/slides compared to SOOC jpgs here. I think that is true to the extent that both images were created entirely in-camera. As an old slide shooter, I can relate to this.

On the other hand, a major difference between a SOOC jpg and a slide is the fact that the slide contains ALL the data, while the jpg doesn't.


My question, from my lack of digital experience: Can one make as large a print from a SOOC jpg as from a post-processed file of RAW origin? Thanks.

- Murray

Yes, you can. It just won't be as detailed. Quality will depend upon how large a print you are making. As the RAW file is denser in data describing the image itself you have more to work with. Pixel peepers will whine about image quality but if it is good content that will override objections to the point that complaining about pixels can be discounted. What is the impact of the picture?

An extreme example would be combat photography. With today's autofocus and autoexposure the hit rate is higher. Older fully manual cameras produced dodgy images at times which would still stop your heart. Look back to Vietnam. Street shots not quite in focus or with blurred motion can still grab you. Sometimes they heighten the mood. These are examples of why I say that JPG's are fine. Today's JPG's are not the same as what was first devised. They have improved. Good content overrides a lot of flaws and shortcomings, RAW or JPG.

Back to your question, to my way of thinking if you have a great image only a few pixel peepers will be displeased with JPG's writ large. All the rest will like them. The main question is how do you feel about it? Does it make you happy? Are you proud of it? Believe in yourself and your work, don't take the critics too much to heart if you are pleased, and to quote Joseph Campbell, "Follow your bliss."

 

[CMur12]

Thanks for the explanation, boojum!

- Murray

 

[ptpdprinter]

Notwithstanding previous posts to the contrary, the Vietnam era was not a knowledge, skill, and technology wasteland for photographers. Many were able to select the proper shutter speed to eliminate motion blur and, on a good day, could focus their lenses. Sure, some iconic images have technical shortcomings. Hardly seems like an excuse not to buckle down and learn your craft, and strive to make your images the best that they can be given the constraints under which you are operating.

 

[580/Q]

Notwithstanding previous posts to the contrary, the Vietnam era was not a knowledge, skill, and technology wasteland for photographers. Many were able to select the proper shutter speed to eliminate motion blur and, on a good day, could focus their lenses. Sure, some iconic images have technical shortcomings. Hardly seems like an excuse not to buckle down and learn your craft, and strive to make your images the best that they can be given the constraints under which you are operating.

^^^^^^^^ Yes. This 100 percent. I sure miss Nikon and Olympus's big finders, though.

Best,
Shane

 

[ptpdprinter]

I sure miss Nikon and Olympus's big finders, though.

I don't miss my big Olympus viewfinders. I still use them! Even the slightly smaller OM4Ti viewfinder really lights up with a 2-4 focusing screen.

 

[boojum]

Notwithstanding previous posts to the contrary, the Vietnam era was not a knowledge, skill, and technology wasteland for photographers. Many were able to select the proper shutter speed to eliminate motion blur and, on a good day, could focus their lenses. Sure, some iconic images have technical shortcomings. Hardly seems like an excuse not to buckle down and learn your craft, and strive to make your images the best that they can be given the constraints under which you are operating.

Nor have I used it as "an excuse not to buckle down and learn your craft, and strive to make your images the best that they can be given the constraints under which you are operating." I was pointing out and maintain still that a good image can be out of focus, blurred, under or over exposed. It is not necessary but it is possible. The difference of opinion here is the value of post editing. And with that is whether anyone besides the editor is convinced that there is an improvement. This is an area of a blend of opinion and technical skill. I believe that if it is a good image it will not be so much improved with post editing. And with the editing comes the alteration of the real image into an altered, fanciful image, different, perhaps greatly so, from the original.

So it seems that I try to do more of the effort before I press the shutter button and you after. Please understand that I am not telling anyone how to photograph. I know I am not qualified to do that. What I am saying is what works for me. And again, I photograph to please myself, period. If it pleases others, so much the better. You are certainly free to do as you desire and I wish you well with it.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

I think most of us here have learned our craft to a pretty good degree, but how well would we implement it if dodging bullets at the same time we were shooting? Give those combat photographers the credit they deserve!