Bogley

Richard Barron · Joined: 09 Jul 2005 Posts: 1057 Location: Byng, OK, USA

CarpeyBiggs wrote:

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

goofball · Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject:

Summit42 wrote: I need to take a photo shop class.....

I took this in Provo Canyon yesterday.

photoshop is nice, but nothing beats good lighting and good composition - and the ability to capture both together. cameras and software are really the least important foctors in my opinion. developing a good eye, being able to visualize teh final result from teh beginning will improve anyones photos greatly.

a lot of the time we are stuck having to take what we get when we're there. visiting and revisiting a locale in order to get it under the best light and conditions, shooting it from different angles, different crops, different focal lengths, is often what is needed though to get a really spectacular shot.

the only thing that separates a pro form an amateur is patience and the ability to consistently produce quality images from the understanding of light and composition. you don't need to make money from it to be a pro. and looking at others work is really helpful. understanding how they got that great shot will tell you how to get yours.

keep up the good work !

goofball · Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject:

Richard Barron wrote: CarpeyBiggs wrote:

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

is it the compression of the image when converting that makes the difference so noticeable ? and on that as well, my raw files are 10-14m and tif at 16 bit reaches 57+. if my files is being compressed to convert, how does it get so much BIGGER ?

Bo_Beck · Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 775 Location: Southern Utah

Taken in Red Hollow following meltoff from a snow storm

stefan · Joined: 09 Jan 2006 Posts: 4191 Location: somewhere

oooo ... very nice bo :2thumbs:

sparker1 · Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:27 am Post subject:

Incredible.

Bo_Beck · Joined: 02 Dec 2005 Posts: 775 Location: Southern Utah

Another of my personal favorite shots...I know, I know! Its not the typical water, but does it count?

Richard Barron · Joined: 09 Jul 2005 Posts: 1057 Location: Byng, OK, USA

goofball wrote: Richard Barron wrote: CarpeyBiggs wrote:

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

is it the compression of the image when converting that makes the difference so noticeable ? and on that as well, my raw files are 10-14m and tif at 16 bit reaches 57+. if my files is being compressed to convert, how does it get so much BIGGER ?

16-bit files are huge, since colors (red, green, blue) are each represented with 4086 values instead of 256.

As far as the RAW files from the D1 are concerned, I find that the biggest differences between RAW and JPEG are noise and color rendition. The JPEG engine in the original D1 is very primitive compared to Adobe's RAW converter. The files still aren't up to the quality from the D1H/X, for example, but they are certainly usable.

I agree, of course, with the post about light, composition, the moment, and the effort being paramount. A great moment with a cheap point-and-shoot always trumps a knees-locked, high-noon snapshot with a D2XS, always.

waltny · Joined: 16 Jul 2007 Posts: 311 Location: Hill AFB, UT

Got some overexposure with hanging the shutter trying to get some milky water.

hallkc · Joined: 11 Aug 2007 Posts: 45 Location: Layton

I stopped the flow of water a little, I like the effect of stopped water more than running water.

hallkc · Joined: 11 Aug 2007 Posts: 45 Location: Layton

Sometimes it's fun to stop the water motion (on the right half) AND show the water motion (on the left half)...

Anyone guess how I did this?

goofball · Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject:

while i feel my landscape eye is still very much a work in progress, i have always been satisfied w/ my shots of running water. and i love hiking to lakes or along rivers/streams whenever posssible. got this one over the weekend. i just wish the banks weren't so cluttered and unaccomadating to me and my camera sometimes.

Summit42 · Joined: 03 Aug 2006 Posts: 1937 Location: 127.0.0.1

Very nice goofball

rooster32 · Joined: 22 Jan 2007 Posts: 100 Location: Sandy, UT

goofball wrote: Richard Barron wrote: CarpeyBiggs wrote:

Yeah, RAW is definitely the way to go.

I got a very beat-up D1 for shooting news last year for just $300, and shooting RAW with it and opening those files in Photoshop tames most of that old girl's sins. It's pretty amazing, really, how much better they are than the JPEGs.

is it the compression of the image when converting that makes the difference so noticeable ? and on that as well, my raw files are 10-14m and tif at 16 bit reaches 57+. if my files is being compressed to convert, how does it get so much BIGGER ?

Is not the benefit of shooting raw the ability to adjust white balance and other controls....and not the fact that raw is actually a "better" pic then a fine jpeg? Jpeg being harder due to the fact that you have to nail the exposure/wb as compared to raw where you can "fix" a not so perfect shot after the fact. All being equal and you nail the shot without need to PP....is the raw still a better quality picture? Without blowing the pic up to huge sizes...could you actually tell?

The other question is if 16 bit is really that much better then 14....again can you actually see the differnce? I've been searching around on a bunch of photo sites and a lot say ...No???? Anyone have examples?

(didn't mean to hijack thread.....)

Thoughts??

Thanks :2thumbs:

Richard Barron · Joined: 09 Jul 2005 Posts: 1057 Location: Byng, OK, USA

In the case of my old, old D1, the fact is that the camera has a very primitive JPEG engine compared to Nikon Capture, Bibble, or Adobe Camera RAW. Those programs are capable of extracting better color rendition and less noise from the original data than that camera's outdated processing. The same is true for my D100 - I shoot RAW with it all the time, not because I need the features of the NEF files, but because the camera does a fairly mediocre job of extracting image quality from the data and producing JPEGs. Most modern RAW converters can acquire much better images. By the time the D70S came into my hands (and my wife's), the JPEG rendering engine had been improved enough that I seldom shoot RAW with it.

Everyone's needs are different. I tell my students to shoot, shoot, shoot. Nothing the internet can tell you will help the way actual hands-on experience can.