Raw shooter or Jpeg shooter?

[CrasHBURN]

Raw shooters are lesser photographers?
Raw shooters tend to do a lot of post production.. more time facing the darn PC.. than taking shots.. Theres absolutely no wrong in doing so.. like I mentioned many times.. own preference.. Now, why lesser photographer? Because if you shoot raw.. you tend to spend more time facing the computer and doing your post production using an Image editing software.. thus making you a more of an Image editor than a photographer.. very simple..

Yep there's no wrong in doing so... korek...

Ian, correction lang for educational purposes. Processing RAW only takes seconds... seconds i mean, less than 20 secs... or 10 secs... again, photo editors cannot edit RAW, can not even open RAW files. Let me make a shot, let me download the RAW file, and i can forward you the JPG / TIFF after 15secs... mo agwanta ko ug 15 secs for extra detail sa ako photo...

OT: Sa tinuod lang, sakit gyud nga gi tawag ko ug "lesser a photographer" sa imo mentor just because i shoot RAW... hehehe... ok lang... I understand his ignorance in Digital Photography anyway. If I were in his class, dili pud ko makig debate nya, i understand old people and how they think... Pasensya na...

[CrasHBURN]

It's time to OVER-REACT... parampampam!!!

All of these are from RAW files...

Title: I've been photographed by a lesser photographer


Title: I'm as sharp as a lowly photographer...


Title: The lesser photographer HAHAHAH!

Hello guys, you can try to touch my face and feel the DETAIL... LoL!!!

All of these images are taken using an entry level Canon EOS 350D... oh... They say Nikon produces better colors? hmm...

[Ian]

Its alright boss. I myself was totally in shocked but the only thing that kept me in believing is the fact that it made me somehow concentrate more playin my camera to get that stunning photo and to keep it as simple as possible..

Thats why I was totally surprised when tolstoi edited my pics. Anyways.. I admit I sometimes shoot raw but most of the time jpegs.. I myself would like to master hitting right on target thats why.. and for me thats the good side of his principle..

No problem bossing ikaw pa kurog ko nimo! [br]Posted on: December 08, 2006, 10:44:34 PM_________________________________________________O T: Say what? Nikon? Yes boss.. hahaha..

[Isabella Rain]

After offending so many sensibilities by publishing that darn statement of your alleged mentor, it's so easy for you to say it's not you.

In the first place, you should have refrained from writing in this forum his alleged demeaning words if you could not even give his name. The people here who were insulted/hurt by that statement, Ian, are real people. Sure, we are using nicknames and, no, I have not met anyone of them but I know that everyone is real enough to get debased by such an irresponsible utterance. And we don't have the luxury and none of the cowardice to hide behind a student/protege - fanatical or otherwise. Harbingers and authors of ideas that are outrageous and revolting and so scornfully abusive should be denied the refuge of privacy, lest, they may continue doing so with impunity.

There are other ways to evoke ideas for a spirited discourse. What you have succeeded in doing was to provoke indignant emotions that are justified in righting so grave a wrong.

If we managed to intellectualize the discussion even with the brickbats, it was largely because of the participants' dogged determination to rise above the muck that is the insult heaped upon us by that teacher of yours whom you are so ardently protecting as if we amateurs could really dent, even if we wanted to, his "world-renowned" reputation.

Abortretryfail and Beor have long ago unilaterally muted their guns. I wish you could do likewise. Perhaps, then, we could salvage what is left of the amity now tattered by side, and snide, remarks.

I rest my case.

[Ian]

What did I do now Isabella Rain? Sure thing its not me and his words ain't supposed to be demeaning, you guys made it so complicated and sure thing you guys made that statement demeaning.

[Ian]

Harbingers and authors of ideas that are outrageous and revolting and so scornfully abusive should be denied the refuge of privacy, lest, they may continue doing so with impunity.

You don't have proof of your accusation in the first place boss. How I wish I hadnt share this with you guys.

[edwin_sn]

"PURIST"... according to you Ian is ... COMPOSE, SHOOT, PRINT... i'd like to suggest that you change your term for it... "SIMPLISTIC"... raw shooters i believe are photographers that want the purist image ouptput possible thats why they shoot raw as they dont want to be limited to the cameras limited process

[edwin_sn]

now ladies and gentlemen, after reading all the posts in this thread i cant help but comment some more :mrgreen:
let me join the heated discussion...

BACKGROUNDER:
i have been into photography for a little over 25 years. my first camera was a minolta-XGM
full manual... and later upgraded to a minolta X-700, then a minolta maxumm. but this doesnt
mean i'm a pro. and i dont think i can still claim to be an amature to this wonderful world
of photography either. i had a great mentor when i started. and that mentor has influenced me so much
with staying with my full manual camera for quite some time until i upgraded to the auto focus
minolta-maxumm series. but i so much admired my mentor, because he was so open minded and have
learned to accept that having an AF lens system can indeed give me more pictures than that of my full
manual one. but he still reiterates that what he taught me were the basic principles of taking
pictures and i should use them even in the most sophisticated camera i may be holding.

@IAN - your group believes in PURITY of the image. wherein you
define or describes it as... COMPOSE, SHOOT & PRINT... thus you use jpeg file formats.
COMPOSE ... you frame the shot, take note of the lighting, camera settings... then the press the shutter
button to take the SHOT. then go to your local lab or own printer and PRINT the photograph or image...
you call it "PURIST" ... i see absolutely nothing wrong with that. in fact as far as i can remember, that was
also covered by my mentor when he was teaching me about photography.

but, the way i understand your meaning of purist (correct me if i'm wrong... just basing this from your posts),
is this... WHAT YOU SEE IN YOUR VIEW FINDER WHEN YOU TOOK THE SHOT, SHOULD BE WHAT YOU PRINT AND NOT
BEING ENHANCED IN POST PROCESSING, thus the use of jpeg format only. am i correct in this... i further interpret your meaning of purist as:
WHAT YOUR HUMAN EYES CAN SEE SHOULD BE WHAT YOU GET AND PRINTED, without the slightest
manipulation... the reason why you were encourage to shoot jpeg only. i f i understood you correctly, then may i present to you some
samples below (but if not, then ignore the samples and proceed to the next paragraphs hehehe) and ask you whether you can call these
photographs pure or not.

i have here two photographs, took this a few minutes ago just to illustrate my point. these were taken
with a dslr using a wide-tele zoom lens. these were all in jpg, took the CF card out of the cam, uploaded
the images in my PC, resized for web posting... nothing else. DOES THAT QUALIFY ME AS AN IMAGE EDITOR?
maybe yes coz i had to process the pics to a desired size for the web... hehe... but hey, THIS COULD
SURELY PASS FOR A PURE PHOTO as there was no other process except for resizing.



another two photographs using a dslr, now with my lensbaby 2.0 lens. what i see in my view
finder is what i get... these are photopgraphs of the same scenes as above, but with my lens-baby, i opted
to get a selective focused area. why? for different reasons... i just want the flowers to be emphasized...
i dont want my worn out kitchen cabinet to be seen in details... reasons can go on and on.



these were taken from camera in jpeg fomat and no post processing too, ready for printing. can these pictures
be taken then as PURE? in your definition of a PURIST... COMPOSE,SHOOT & PRINT, this will certainly pass
as pure. but as far as the real world is concerned... this is not the way a human eye sees things, thus may
not be considered as pure... therefore your PURIST claim is rather subjective. (by the way, this can be done in photoshop)

let me again suggest (as in my previous post) that you dont call yourselves PURIST... but rather SIMPLISTIC.
suggestion lang na ako bro ha walang personalan...

NOW TO THE TOPIC:
- RAW & JPEG... PHOTOGRAPHER & IMAGE EDITOR...

raw, jpeg, bmp, tiff, tga, gif etc etc ect... are IMAGE FILE FORMATS. they are not merely pixels,
THEY ARE IMAGE (DIGITAL) FILE FORMATS. even a word document when converted to PDF is made of pixels and
is also an IMAGE FILE FORMAT. all of these files including jpegs have to undergo a process in order
to be printed out into a HARD COPY... (the PHOTOGRAPH itself) with or without post enhancements.
therefore RAW, JPEG,BMP,TIFF,TGA etc. can be aken to as the negative in the digital darkroom. they are
all made of pixels... megapixels for that matter.

a PHOTOGRAPHER is someone who takes pictures, whether a pro, an amature... he is the picture taker.
Photography is the process of making pictures by means of the action of light. Light patterns reflected
or emitted from objects are recorded onto a sensitive medium (film or storage chip) through a timed
exposure. The process is done through mechanical, chemical or digital devices known as CAMERAS. The
product of photography is called a photograph or pictures... and now in the digital world has been
slowly replaced by IMAGE. whether you agree or not... the image/photograph has already been taken when
the shutter curtain opened and allowed the light to imprint the image into the sensor/film. if you pertain
the photograph as merely the printed output or the hard copy, i think there is mis-information in this line.
because the photograph/image has already been taken & stored by the camera. therefore using this line of thought,
file formats doesnt matter... RAW, TIFF, including JPEG has to go to the same printing process to produce
the hardcopy of the image.

an IMAGE EDITOR is someone who does some manipulation on an image whether to enhance it to give it more
color, sharpen, etc... alter it and take out unwanted elements in the image, or even replace elements in the image
in order to achieve a certain goal of presenting something (a product etc) to its audience.

ARE PHOTGRAPHERS IMAGE EDITORS? some are... and most of them are not.
A PHOTOGRAPHER THAT ENHANCES HIS IMAGES THRU the PC, IS HE AN IMAGE EDITOR? to some degree, yes he is...
Is HE A LESSER PHOTOGRAPHER? certainly not!!!
WHEN HE ALTERS HIS IMAGES, (like taking out some distructing elements in the photo) IS HE A LESSER
PHOTOGRAPHER? i dont think so.

@Ian, I too was taken aback by your mentor's statement that RAW shooters are "lesser photographers" even if
i dont shoot much RAW. i then would like to try to understand his statement in the simplist way i could... in a
simplistic line of thought... he said, LESSER PHOTOGRAPHERS because they take less time in shooting/taking pictures
but more time in DEVELOPING (not editing because it can totally mean differently) their images/photographs in the PC...
my interpretation on this line: LESSER BECAUSE THEY TAKE LESS TIME IN TAKING PICTURES, THUS TAKING LESS "NUMBER" OF SHOTS...
thats my simplistic way of understanding him. and with that, i completely understand. HOWEVER, does it necessarily follow that since
you take so much time in your PC you take less time taking pictures ... i dont think so. so his statement is
flawed in my opinion... because i think raw shooters still take so much pictures as jpeg shooters do. hey, i
assissted in a wedding shoot and the main photographer was shooting RAW and i was shooting JPEGs but still
he took more pictures than i did... he even composed the shots better than i did... so the statement "LESSER
PHOTOGRAPHER" is somehow confusing and will lead to a heated debate like this...

now calling yourselves "PURIST" because you only shoot JPEGs is also flawed. because PURIST is also subjective
as i tried to illustrate above.

with all due respect to your mentor and to your group, i would like to encourage you (your group & mentor) to be
open minded to the changing times. after all, all of us photographers (newbies and experts alike) want to achieve
that perfect picture as much as possible. perfect, i mean to say what you have already envisioned in your mind
before you even pressed that shutter button... capture it the way you want it, whether realistic or a bit of
abstract... its your composition anyway, who can argue.

RAW SHOOTERS-LESSER PHOTOGRAPHER? ... BECAUSE RAW IS NOT PURE IMAGE?... i dont think so. in fact, i consider RAW
shooters "PURIST", because they want nothing less but the purist details in their photographs.

RAW SHOOTERS-LESSER PHOTGRAPHER?... BECAUSE THEY TAKE LESS NUMBER OF SHOTS THAN JPEG SHOOTERS? ... not necessarily,
they still shoot as much as we do (jpeg shooters).

RAW SHOOTERS-LESSER PHOTOGRAPHER? ... BECAUSE THE TAKE SO MUCH TIME IN POST PROCESSING? ... i dont think so, in
fact, i admire them and even envy them for they take so much time to perfect their image.

ARE they IMAGE EDITORS? oh certainly to some degree they are... is their something wrong with that? lets discuss
IMAGE EDITORS/MANIPULATORS in another thread hehehe.

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY MODERN CAMERAS HAVE A FEATURE CALLED "EXPOSURE BRACKETING" OR "WHITE BALANCE BRACKETING"?
its because as of this time of age they have not invented a camera that can get the perfect exposure of a scene that
the human eye is seeing in the real world. these bracketed exposures of the same scene are then processed in the PC or
other instuments to get that perfect exposure. IS IT PURE? yes in my opinion it is.

i have been typing for the last hour, i hope i still made sense... and if i made things more confusing... ignore
my post hehehe... what am i doing in front of this PC!!!!... this will certainly make me a LESSER PHOTOGRAPHER (sarcastic
tone) hehehe... PEACE

lets go out and shoot guys!!! forgive me for the long read hehehe... it must have been the beer... oh well.

[tolstoi]

^^^a great input you got there EDWIN_SN :mrgreen:

@IAN..my only intention of posting those pics was for me to clarify on your part if the post processing that i've done to your orig pic makes me a "lesser photographer"..not meant to offend you whatsoever

you may not need to answer that one coz i've been enlightened already just by reading EDWIN_SN's post above :mrgreen:

[CrasHBURN]

edwin: Good contribution! daghan na ta na hubog sa beer... hahaha!