Photo Quality

The PhAnToM wrote:
 > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
  > > Donald Link <linkd.RemoveThis@mindspring.com> wrote:
  > >
   > > > I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital
 > cameras
   > > > do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image
 > quality.
  > >
  > > Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
  > > it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.
  > >
   > > > I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this
 > raw
   > > > image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.
  > >
  > > I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.
 >
 > Snow, raw images:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font</a>>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962rvTqCf</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962rvTqCf</font</a>>
 >
 > Snow, auto-level with PS:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font</a>>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641lNxEEw</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641lNxEEw</font</a>>

In retrospect, the auto mode from the camera was probably not good
enough. I should have switched to manual mode and increased ISO and
maybe the aperture, or put it into "night" mode to compare. These were
taken quick and dirty because we had a little kid and a worried mother
with who didn't want us to stay out too long (it was just about dark,
to be fair to her).

Zach<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->

The PhAnToM <victorthecleaner DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
 > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
  >> Donald Link <linkd DeleteThis @mindspring.com> wrote:

   >> > I thought that if you captured in raw format (a lot of digital
 > cameras
   >> > do not allow) that you would get the greatest possible image
 > quality.

  >> Not necessarily --- it means the greatest tweakability, but
  >> it also means a longer workflow and postprocessing.

   >> > I know a lot of the Photoshop experts recommend that you use this
 > raw
   >> > image to get the best possible editing results in Photoshop.

  >> I *vastly* prefer getting the shot right in the first place.

 > Snow, raw images:

raw, as in "RAW format" or rather as in 'as it came out of
the camera'?

<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font</a>>
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962rvTqCf</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006962rvTqCf</font</a>>

 > Snow, auto-level with PS:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244006637QAipZb</font</a>>

Identical URL to 'raw' image, sorry, no difference.

<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641lNxEEw</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/244004213/244007641lNxEEw</font</a>>

Obviously your camera was fooled: it delivered the pictures with a
very blue cast. So you did a colour correction. But I think you
removed _too_ much colour here. It almost looks like a b/w photo.

 > Rainbow, using PS to remove rain drops from camera lens (the trained
 > eye can probably spot the area on the rainbow where I did a quick and
 > dirty PS removal):
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680XCKblD</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/245445623/245457680XCKblD</font</a>>

Easy enough, it looks damaged. Without the raw image, there
is no telling if/how the picture improved by rain drop
removal.

 > Raw image:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553TtuqCA</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536553TtuqCA</font</a>>

 > Auto-level with PS removes the fog:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909hwlRfn</font" target="_blank">http://community.webshots.com/photo/232530461/232536909hwlRfn</font</a>>

Yes, but does it improve the image? Haze _is_ one of the things
the eye uses to see distance, and the result looks --- while the
sky is much more dramatic --- much later in the day. Ok, it
depends a lot on 'artistic' vs. 'documentary' photographing.

 > Now, I used to think that manipulation of digital images is cheating.

It depends.

 > When you think about it, however, that is exactly what darkroom work is
 > with film. Taking contact prints to get the proper exposure time for
 > final prints. Doging and burning when doing enlargements. A little
 > alteration of data is sometimes not unwarrented. This is hobbyist
 > photography after all. If the final result is a good picture, without
 > comprimising the spirit of the subject, then it is all good, no?

Tell that to the judge.

-Wolfgang<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->