Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Cambridge Botanical Gardens

Subject: Re: [OM] Cambridge Botanical Gardens
From: Nathan Wajsman <photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 22:05:17 +0100
Not wishing to start an argument with someone who is much more knowledgeable 
about post-processing than I, but I just note that most of the images you show 
here are in good light. In such circumstances, JPEG is indeed OK. But if you 
are like me, often shooting at night in crummy light, often converting to B&W 
etc., then RAW is the way to go.

Cheers,
Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog

YNWA







On Jan 20, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Moose wrote:

> On 1/19/2011 10:25 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>> Chris, these were easy lighting situations so it is not surprising that the 
>> JPGs were good. But in general, shooting JPG only is like throwing your 
>> negatives away after having minilab prints made.
> 
> Weellll  I agree with the sentiment, but technically it need not be that bad.
> 
> When I first got a film scanner, I was amazed at the tonal range available 
> from color negs. White skies on old prints 
> turned out to have blue sky and nice clouds, there was detail in shadows, and 
> so on.
> 
> Similar detail can certainly be lost in JPEGs compared to RAW. However, 
> better JPEG processors compress the ends of the 
> histogram, rather than simply letting them clip to black or white, as minilab 
> prints do. If one avoids blowing 
> highlights through overloading the sensor, a remarkably wide range of 
> brightness may be piled up at the top and bottom.
> 
> I always shoot RAW when it is available. Still, I recently bought a JPEG only 
> camera for its other features/qualities. 
> You may recall the good sized sample gallery I posted. I think it 
> conclusively shows that, with proper technique, both 
> in making the exposure and processing it, a considerably greater quality 
> result than found minilab prints is possible. 
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=SFBayArea/BlakeHouse/WB650_First_Shots>
> 
> For you, what you say may be true, given your personal preferences, rules, 
> equipment, referred subjects, technique, etc. 
> To generalize what you find to be true for you to every camera and user is, I 
> think, mistaken.
> 
> Moose
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> 
> 

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz