|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 09:49 AM
|
| |
Only if it is labeled as "artists pov".
Those of you who would have worked in darkroom in age of film work in lightroom today
Those of us who would have depended on Kodachrome automation in age of film depend on JPEG in-machine-automation today.
People who don't understand that will drive post count up here.
I will not.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-22-2018, 08:40 AM
|
| |
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}.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 06:41 PM
|
| |
Once we start using "good enough for you" language, we are descending into the type of discussion I was afraid Norm was starting, because it is a statement of values. I will not descend into that pit with you.
This is not a matter of good or evil. As I already indicated, I am a 'documentarian' not an artist. My goal is to record and preserve 'truth' I see as best I can, which does require "baking" things in as soon as I can, by keeping that data which most closely represents that truth and making any change as difficult as possible.
Just like the days when I used slide film, the "JPEG engine" is adjusted so I know what it will do before I press the button, and the decisions I make before pressing the button determine what the final image will look like. Like those who cover the Olympics, that means only minor 'tweaks' will happen afterwards, and that is precisely what I want.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 04:12 PM
|
| |
My point is that JPEG needs no "interpretation" - it is what it is.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 02:15 PM
|
| |
The reason I asked is that I may be the "odd man out" here. I got into photography fifty years ago as an offshoot of my hobby as a 'railfan' {long story there}, so my primary goal has never been to display - my primary goal has always been to have an 'accurate' rendition in my files.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 01:59 PM
|
| |
I routinely shoot "RAW+", and use the JPEG (saved three stars} unless I'm dissatisfied with it and can't 'tweak' it to get what I do want.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 01:42 PM
|
| |
Is the assumption here that the primary reason for photography with a "good" camera is to create a picture hanging from the wall, or is that merely the focus of this discussion?
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 11:30 AM
|
| |
The main value of your photos is in what you do before you ever put them into the computer; maybe everyone can post an OOC image, but your's are more worth posting than others are {including mine}.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-21-2018, 06:02 AM
|
| |
What no one has commented on, so I will, is what a good job the Pentax in-camera software did in creating the JPEG file.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 08:19 PM
|
| |
A problem with "unsupervised" in-camera JPEG is that it can provide ruthless WB. In 2014 I took my Canon Elph to the Madrigal Dinner put on by the college where my wife works; part way through the dinner, she leaned over and whispered "Those aren't right". After a few minutes of whispered conversation, I understood the issue. The producers of the dinner had gone to considerable lengths to turn a student lounge into a medieval dining hall, including simulating lighting by candles, but the WB built into my camera was "fixing" the WB. A few weeks later I purchased a Q-7, figuring this was one time I would have to start with 'raw' and 'develop' the images myself; however, at the 2015 dinner I discovered that the "candlelight" SCN delivered photos that accurately rendered what we were seeing.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 07:56 PM
|
| |
To be honest, the blue tint of shadowed snow doesn't both me at all - because from many years of photographing snow {and we have lots of opportunity to do that} I repeatedly saw that effect from slide film - perhaps less dramatically, but it was there. I believe it is real - our brains are wonderful things, and are able to do a form of "white balance" to make us see what we know must be there - but shadowed / shaded / overcast light really is bluish. Since I know that snow normally is really white, I could live with the first variant also.
edit: I wrote this before reading Norm's explanation - I didn't remember there was a second page to this thread
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 05:18 PM
|
| |
It is not a matter of "being smart".
Having shot Kodachrome, I developed habits that result in the photo I want without any further 'muddling' in the discomfort of a room - dark or light.
Over the past forty years of marriage, my wife has become accustomed to the fact that a "five minute photo stop" may actually take thirty minutes.
To me, the biggest disappointment is the person who takes a quick shot, and then the next day discovers an issue, such as something in the way, that could have been fixed by a quick adjustment in the field, but is now real work to fix {if it can be fixed at all}.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
11-20-2018, 05:11 PM
|
| |
I like both - the photographer did a good job, which is Job One.
I never zoom in to inspect shots .... I believe a photo should be viewed as a finished product from a distance where I can see the entire image.
I've already spent a lifetime in front of a computer, so I'd rather spend any remaining time out in the field.
Since I used Kodachrome in the days of film, this is just a continuation of how I have always operated.
|
