[normhead]

Only if it is labeled as "artists pov"

Only if you label yours "technician working to an arbitrary standards meant to optimize data transmission and speed in post processing" point of view. Yours is not strictly technical point of view, infact it isn't at all.The guy who sits with an image and the subject and processes so the image looks the same as the subject would be a technical point of view. Jpeg may not allow you to do that. I also trained in technical photgraphy with 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras. Technical photography without the time element of and transmission elements of journalists is very demanding in terms of accuracy. A level of accuracy that isn't required by news organization. Your adopted standard is neither technical nor artistic, it's "cheap and dirty." You already said, it is journalism standards, so why not say that? I'm just protecting the reputation of some excellent technical photographers who are absolutely meticulous in their raw processing and wouldn't dream of using jpeg.. I'd hate to have people think they'd sunk to the level of journalistic standards.
"

---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 12:38 PM ----------

Cool I can see the trees through the forest.

Now that the tree is famous the Instagram zombies will come destroy it so we need some documentary photos for historical accuracy and we can use this one at the memorial.

It took every trick in the Aperture book to get the tree that good, short of saving, reloading, and starting with a TIFF from my previous start to sort of "reload" the adjutments possible.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-22-2018 at 10:43 AM.

[PDL]

I would never claim that JPEG is pure, but it is a consistent interpretation, which is what I want.

In the days of film, a professional photographer would show his railroad photos via a slide show, not prints hung on a wall; the organizers of the show would ask for assurance that he would use original slides only (*), so they could assure attendees that nothing had been modified .... in other words, they essentially followed the same standards followed by news and sports photographers. Today, for the Olympics at least {I've lost track of the article} they shoot JPEG and then potentially make certain limited edits, such as making photo plumb, cropping, and adjusting global levels. I choose to follow the same standards.

In the days of film, I would take several different shots of a steam loco, seeing which exposure gave me the best overall view. With slides, I might be "stuck" with a shot in which the boiler is too light; today, I read that best shot into gimp and use the "Curves" tool to darken the boiler some. You are welcome to use your artist's approach.


(*) Here is a longer version of my interest in photography:
In December 1966, I and a fellow member of the Purdue University RR Club were in downtown Lafayette IN when we noticed a really snazzy model locomotive "for the Burlington RR" in the hobby store window. I had been raised along the CB&Q {actual name of the RR}, and had never seen a locomotive like that; he was quite sure "Tyco wouldn't make it up". A few months later we had a slide show by professional Jim Boyd, and he showed several things we would have never believed if he hadn't shown us the photos; putting the two events together, I decided to start taking my own photos to record the things I saw, because they are much better evidence than memory is. Over the years I have majored on recording reality as it is - I would defeat my whole purpose if I removed a telephone pole regardless of how much it would "improve" the scene. Incidentally, I later understood the Tyco model: they had combined the silver color from the CB&Q's passenger units {which went with understated markings} with the bright markings from the CB&Q's freight units {which went with dull gray color}.

Sports photography is not necessarily the model to be used for "reality". The guys with the cameras are sending images to a pool of editors who do the edits. They send JPEG's because they are smaller than RAW and transmit faster. The required image quality is not really all that high since if it is to be published in a magazine it will be downsized anyway.

If you want reality, then send RAW images to whomever you want for them to see the "real" image without post processing. That is what RAW means. Now if you are going to go to the extent that removing poles is modifying beyond what your "standards" are, you don't have to shoot RAW since you can do that using JPEG's. File format is irrelevant in manipulation.

So in your world Ansel Adams is a non-starter for capturing "reality". That is just plain sad perhaps you should look at the video(s) about Moonrise over Hernandez, the print is heavily post processed and in your version of reality that image would never exist. Then again a 8x10 sheet of Kodachrome would have been interesting to see, let alone process and to own a projector that would shoot it up against a really big wall.

[iheiramo]

Previously, I claimed I could pretty much match the jpeg. Not exactly, but I've completely reworked the image with emphasis on the now famous tree, as opposed to the sunset and left off those adjustments that emphasized the blue spectrum. Maybe more to the liking of the 90%

I think the trees and 3D feeling is now better than in jpeg, as it should be with more accurate information to work with. Thought due to more edits in the sky there are at least 4 dust spots visible now

As this has turned into conversation about picture editing... For me, a common problem in lifting the shadows strongly is that halo of light that can be seen around the trees. Sky is lighter near the brances. It's something that easily catches my attention and I find it unnatural. I try to avoid it when ever I can. I don't know the software Norm works with, but I have found that in Capture 1 you can fight against this by degreasing contrast and ingreasing clarity. Both effect the contrast, but clarity does it in smaller scale. With right balance you get the wanted contrast, but without halo in the sky.

[normhead]

Thought due to more edits in the sky there are at least 4 dust spots visible now

Sheesh, you can't get away with nothing around here.

Tess always points out the dust spots to me, she's away today.
After my cataract surgery, maybe I'll see them myself.

[iheiramo]

Sheesh, you can't get away with nothing around here.

Tess always points out the dust spots to me, she's away today.

You chose the wrong day to post

[normhead]

Both effect the contrast, but clarity does it in smaller scale. With right balance you get the wanted contrast, but without halo in the sky.

In Aperture, you have contrast and definition, which is micro contrast. I need both in this one. for most image, definition is all you need. Using contrast also means dodging, so you don't have the blacks spreading out into areas where there should be detail, and the area has to be dark enough you don't blast any highlights using dodging and contrast, "definition" doesn't increase either highlights or shadow, contrast can kill you at both ends or the spectrum if you're not careful.

---------- Post added 11-22-18 at 02:20 PM ----------

You chose the wrong day to post

I'll have something else to post tomorrow. I hate backlogs.

I thought of another way to solve the "tree problem". NO tree, no problem.


You gotta love that K-1 crop room. The image is still larger than an *ist D file.

[normhead]

The last word, for those who believe in white balanced snow at blue hour.....
Welcome to Blue Hour and Night Photography | How to learn tutorials | bluehoursite.com | Blue Hour and Night Photography | How to learn tutorials | bluehoursite.com
It's a thing.

Sometimes folks blinkers limit their world view.