Photo/Photographer thread.

[Tothehills]

From my cheap casio camera.

I will upgrade one day.

 

Just a question to some of the more serious snappy takers out there. How many photos these days are raw versus edited photos

 

[Taps]

From my cheap casio camera.

I will upgrade one day.

 

Just a question to some of the more serious snappy takers out there. How many photos these days are raw versus edited photos

99.99% are edited. If they are not, they should be. The editing of RAW photos is a debate non-photographers will willingly engage as they often have insufficient understanding of what a RAW photograph is. Editing jpeg photos is another story, but it depends on what you are after, it is not "wrong". If your camera shoots RAW, that is the best format to use however, it does require the appropriate software to render it correctly and to be able to export it for view on the web or to be printed. The most commonly used software is probably that of Adobe's (Lightroom / Photoshop) but there are other great options available.

[Taps]

PS. RAW implies a format, just like JPEG. You might understand a raw image to be one that has had no editing done? There is a big difference.

[HappyMartin]

PS. RAW implies a format, just like JPEG. You might understand a raw image to be one that has had no editing done? There is a big difference.

Eaxactly. If a camera produces a jpg it is essentially pulling the data off the chip and rendering it to a particular algorithm which is actually an automated editing process. Cameras have become really good at this and in many cases will do a better job than a beginner working with sophisticated software like Lightroom will be able to do. However a skilled operator will always outperform the cameras automated jpg processing.

 

The camera manufacturers design the raw file to be a little flat and undersaturated and unsharpened as these things can be done to taste but once overdone it's hard to come back from. The raw file is designed to be easily edited and is not expected to be perfect before the editing process begins.

[Tothehills]

PS. RAW implies a format, just like JPEG. You might understand a raw image to be one that has had no editing done? There is a big difference.

That's what I meant. No editing done. At what point does it become "fake" and not natural.

I look at some photos and think my brain/eyes sees it a lot differently than what is captured.

Maybe it is the same with my ears, can't here the sound differences between a R 10,000 speaker and R 100,000 speaker

[Rob Mortimer]

Exactly as the camera took it ................. no idea what editing the camera did to it. Was a real lucky shot, was looking at something else (Hippo if I remember correctly) and this BWB decided to wander past the car

 

[HappyMartin]

That's what I meant. No editing done. At what point does it become "fake" and not natural.

I look at some photos and think my brain/eyes sees it a lot differently than what is captured.

Maybe it is the same with my ears, can't here the sound differences between a R 10,000 speaker and R 100,000 speaker

The eye and the camera are totally different. The eye doesn't take photos. It sends signals to the brain and the brain makes up a picture.

 

What focal length is your eye? What is the shutter speed? Depth of field? The eye has around 5 degrees are sharp color vision. It has huge peripheral coverage but blurry and in black and white basically good just for detecting movement. Your brain builds a picture with your eye scanning over a scene. Your vision has a large blind spot just off centre where the optic nerve enters the retina, your brain removes this for you. Your vision is 3D up to a certain distance. In short a camera never takes a picture like what you see. What happens is we are accustomed to pictures looking a certain way from previous technology. Technology is changing and so is how photographs look.

 

All the above is not to say that at the moment awful cheesy techniques rule. This is due to lots of tech and little taste.

[Slowbee]

For star trails, lots of folk use photostackers. It is a real art to take one image, and get decent star trails.

 

On the other point you guys are after about raw and jpeg. I did an introduction to photography and camera's course as a birthday gift some time ago. One of the projects we had to do was take a photo of a "white" piece of paper. When you do this to get what the camera sensor perceives as a correctly "exposed" picture, the image actually comes out grey.

 

To get the paper white, you actually have to go with manual and then fiddle with the shutter/aperture settings to get the darn thing white..........and it took ages ! This was the biggest aha moment for me. What the eye see's is not always what the camera's see's. And sometimes, just sometimes, some scenes, that you eye thinks will be a great photo, is not always the case.

[MoveMyBicycle]

Anyone know where we can find a buddying photographer / videographer for a 4 day road bike ride during May? Preferably an enthusiast.

[MoveMyBicycle]

Anyone know where we can find a buddying photographer / videographer for a 4 day road bike ride during May? Preferably an enthusiast.

 

Oh - forgot to mention - ride is in the Western Cape. Thanks.

[Tankman]

The camera manufacturers design the raw file to be a little flat and undersaturated and unsharpened as these things can be done to taste but once overdone it's hard to come back from. The raw file is designed to be easily edited and is not expected to be perfect before the editing process begins.

 

Not when using Lightroom, the edits are not applied to the original image, you can make a gazzillion changes while keeping the original image safe and return to the original by the click of a button.  Photoshop is a little trickier in that regard.

 

I only shoot in RAW and in Manual (no way I am letting the camera decide!)

The options for editing is just so much greater, editing a JPEG is pretty limited.

 

One time I took a few shots and only later realized that I haven't checked the settings in a while, those shots were all under exposed   luckily they were all captured in RAW so I could still use them post-editing.  If they were JPEG they would have been useless, delete, delete!

[Veebee]

For star trails, lots of folk use photostackers. It is a real art to take one image, and get decent star trails.

 

 

While it may be a real art to get a single image star trail, the bigger challenge comes in when the sensor produces some heat and then creates hot spots [red dots mainly]. This is why its better to opt for stackers as there is less chance of the final image being dumped.

 

The other key to taking astro shots is that you need to be away from light polluted area's, and shoot when the moon is not at its brightest.

[Veebee]

That's what I meant. No editing done. At what point does it become "fake" and not natural.

I look at some photos and think my brain/eyes sees it a lot differently than what is captured.

Maybe it is the same with my ears, can't here the sound differences between a R 10,000 speaker and R 100,000 speaker

 

its a personal touch really. process to you liking, if you happy with the jpeg image then so be it.

[Tankman]

Can anyone recommend a website for selling camera equipment?

 

I have tried gumtree and told the first two scammers @#$! right off.

 

Have a Niko Macro lens that I am not using and need to get some other new gear.

 

Add here:

 

http://www.gumtree.co.za/a-camera-lenses/somerset-west/nikon-macro-lens-af+s-105mm-f-2-8-g-if+ed-vr-n-nano-crystal-coat/1001969919430910073036209

 

Negotiable

 

[Veebee]

Can anyone recommend a website for selling camera equipment?

 

I have tried gumtree and told the first two scammers @#$! right off.

 

Have a Niko Macro lens that I am not using and need to get some other new gear.

 

Add here:

 

http://www.gumtree.co.za/a-camera-lenses/somerset-west/nikon-macro-lens-af+s-105mm-f-2-8-g-if+ed-vr-n-nano-crystal-coat/1001969919430910073036209

 

Negotiable

 

DSC_3834.jpg

 

Have you tried Orms trade in ? Their values are sometimes not too bad.

 

You can also advertise on ODP Classifieds - http://www.outdoorphoto.community/classifieds/

And try the various Facebook groups.

[Tankman]

Have you tried Orms trade in ? Their values are sometimes not too bad.

 

You can also advertise on ODP Classifieds - http://www.outdoorphoto.community/classifieds/

And try the various Facebook groups.

 

Thanks man, will give them a shot.

 

Yea Orms seems pretty cool, working in retail (far away from the city) makes it difficult to get the gear to them.