| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/10/2006 02:03:24 PM · #26 |
Dunno if you want more examples, but here are a few...
Edit Orig
Edit Orig
Edit Orig
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 02:24:14 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Edit Orig
|
Wow! Very cool Jimmy... |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 02:33:57 PM · #28 |
A couple of my more radical transformations...
Orig  Edit 
Orig  Edit 
Orig  Edit 
Orig  Edit  |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 02:35:31 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Orig Edit
|
Goodness! What did you do to this one? What are those sticks at the thirds? |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 02:38:19 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by BradP:
Orig Edit
|
Goodness! What did you do to this one? What are those sticks at the thirds? |
Controversy. |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 03:14:10 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
... When thinking of RAW conversion the first thought that comes many people's mind is white balance. The RAW converter allows us to correct WB should we have it set wrong when we took the picture. The question here is should that be allowed in basic editing? If it's purpose is to teach fundamental photography should we make the photographer live with that error in basic editing? I don't know. ... |
That's funny, WB (for me) is rarely adjusted with a RAW editor. Most of the time I'm tweaking the exposure a bit (usually +.15 to +.30), and sometimes the shadow and highlights contrast.
However, with any of the above mentioned items, they are legal in basic editing as well with photo editing software (PSP, PS, GIMP, etc...) as long as it's applied to the entire image (without selections).
Many "fundamental photography" errors are fixable within the basic editing ruleset without a RAW editor. |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 04:39:02 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by stdavidson:
... When thinking of RAW conversion the first thought that comes many people's mind is white balance. The RAW converter allows us to correct WB should we have it set wrong when we took the picture. The question here is should that be allowed in basic editing? If it's purpose is to teach fundamental photography should we make the photographer live with that error in basic editing? I don't know. ... |
That's funny, WB (for me) is rarely adjusted with a RAW editor. Most of the time I'm tweaking the exposure a bit (usually +.15 to +.30), and sometimes the shadow and highlights contrast.
However, with any of the above mentioned items, they are legal in basic editing as well with photo editing software (PSP, PS, GIMP, etc...) as long as it's applied to the entire image (without selections).
Many "fundamental photography" errors are fixable within the basic editing ruleset without a RAW editor. |
I'm wondering about a more fundamental educational issue related to basic editing and RAW. In 'basic' DPC is attempting to teach the photographer how to use a camera. RAW circumvents that learning.
The top two items on the Adobe RAW converter are WB and Exposure, both are fundamental camera settings every photographer should know intimately. If made to live with their original settings photo newbies would learn them better.
But with RAW it does not matter what your camera settings are because they are not applied to the RAW image. Things like WB and exposure have not been applied. In that case it does not matter what your settings are, you can 'rescue' the image from your bad camera settings with the RAW processor. That might not be what we want to teach.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 02:38:50 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
But with RAW it does not matter what your camera settings are because they are not applied to the RAW image. Things like WB and exposure have not been applied. In that case it does not matter what your settings are, you can 'rescue' the image from your bad camera settings with the RAW processor. That might not be what we want to teach. |
I agree with this, although I shoot in RAW when I am using a camera that does it, but only because I know how to get my settings right in-camera. Sometimes I don't, and RAW is handy in helping fix that, but never do I take a photo knowing I can fix it in RAW.
Ever since I got my P&S A85, I have used manual mode. If I screw up my exposure on my A85, there is not much I can do to save the shot, so I had to get it right. When I started using my friend's D100, I only ever used manual mode. I have now only just started using Aperature priority on the D100, but only because I was missing shots due to having to change settings constantly. I think it is a must that everyone learn how to use manual first and learn what their camera is doing before they start using more automated settings.
And as promised, a photo edited just in Capture NX, re-sized in PS. This wasn't even really edited heavily in comparison to what NX is capable of. This is just to prove the point that the "original" should not be after RAW, but before any conversions to the photo take place.
Original:  NX Edited: 
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 02:57:08 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I'm wondering about a more fundamental educational issue related to basic editing and RAW. In 'basic' DPC is attempting to teach the photographer how to use a camera. RAW circumvents that learning.
The top two items on the Adobe RAW converter are WB and Exposure, both are fundamental camera settings every photographer should know intimately. If made to live with their original settings photo newbies would learn them better. |
Funny, I think the opposite. RAW makes it easier to understand the concepts you say it circumvents by providing an environment to experiment in a non-destructive way unlike doing it in-camera where once you make a mistake you are stuck with it. Frankly, I never understood why doing something in-camera is better than out-of-camera. I think we should be teaching people how to get the "best results" possible. Whether it's done in-camera or out-of-camera should be beside the point.
Message edited by author 2006-10-11 02:58:08.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 03:31:28 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Anymore, RAW conversion software allows for a lot more than what can be done in camera (unless I'm totally wrong).
Thus, when we present images for comparison, is it fair to produce a converted (with adjustments) RAW image, and call it "original"? I know that for DPC purposes it is, but is it really? |
The "original" should be the image that closely resembles what the eyes see at the actual scene. Not what the "artistic eye" see. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/14/2025 01:26:15 PM EDT.
