Normal vs. Fine quality

W

WayneF

Senior Member
Yeah, but of course, our fancy digital cameras can always get everything just perfect now. :eek:

It is amazing to me, talking to friends and family, who can drive a car, read a book, graduated cum laude from school, can run the financial affairs of decent size company..... that their eyes simply glaze over when you say "pixel".
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
WayneF said:
Yeah, but of course, our fancy digital cameras can always get everything just perfect now.
Click to expand...

I think they do an amazing job of getting it pretty close IF we do our job of setting up the camera correctly in the first place AND shooting withen the limits of the camera AND we process the photo correctly when we transfer it.

Wait a minute....I think our cameras still need us. :cool:

i do think you have hit on something. Some people think that if you spend $1,000 plus for a camera and a good lens that it should wash the dishes for you. I actually think the less expensive cameras are better for putting out a better photo right out of the camera BUT they can not come close to what a really nice DSLR with a dedicated photographer working hard can produce.
 
S

Sambr

Senior Member
When I shoot JPEG(very rarely) I set it to "Large Fine" I never really know what the end result would be with the shot so I leave all my options open.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:
I think they do an amazing job of getting it pretty close IF we do our job of setting up the camera correctly in the first place AND shooting withen the limits of the camera AND we process the photo correctly when we transfer it.
Click to expand...

I would argue "Not really", not in practice. Not so much about the camera, but we simply cannot always do our job right.

When we set Incandescent WB, there are many colors of incandescent lamps (and the scene might even be mixed). Same for Fluorescent WB. Same for Daylight WB (open shade, covered shade, cloudy in degrees, sunset, etc). Same for Flash WB, flash color varies with power level. We might get it in the ballpark, but we cannot get it "right".

You're in the big museum. Lots of large windows and daylight, also lots of overhead lights, of unknown type. What are you going to do? What I do is worry with it later in Raw, when I can actually see the result, to know what I'm doing, and have good tools to do it.

It depends on how critical we want to be, some apparently don't see the difference, but "correct" results do always stand out. Like your example. It definitely seems a necessary skill set.
 
Last edited:
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
WayneF said:
I would argue "Not really", not in practice. Not so much about the camera, but we simply cannot always do our job right.

When we set Incandescent WB, there are many colors of incandescent lamps (and the scene might even be mixed). Same for Fluorescent WB. Same for Daylight WB (open shade, covered shade, cloudy in degrees, sunset, etc). Same for Flash WB, flash color varies with power level. We might get it in the ballpark, but we cannot get it "right".

You're in the big museum. Lots of large windows and daylight, also lots of overhead lights, of unknown type. What are you going to do? What I do is worry with it later in Raw, when I can actually see the result, to know what I'm doing, and have good tools to do it.

It depends on how critical we want to be, some apparently don't see the difference, but "correct" results do always stand out. Like your example. It definitely seems a necessary skill set.
Click to expand...

I stand by my statement. The part about "shooting within the limits of the camera" covers all your statement about WB.
The statement :"IF we do our job of setting up the camera correctly" covers a lot of ground to. My whole point is that only under perfect conditions and if we have covered every variable in the camera settings will the JPEG be perfect. But as we all know that is pretty much impossible. That is why many of us including me shoot in RAW all the time. I find very few photos that I shoot that are not fixable when I shoot in RAW.


​
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:
I stand by my statement. The part about "shooting within the limits of the camera" covers all your statement about WB.
The statement :"IF we do our job of setting up the camera correctly" covers a lot of ground to. My whole point is that only under perfect conditions and if we have covered every variable in the camera settings will the JPEG be perfect. But as we all know that is pretty much impossible. That is why many of us including me shoot in RAW all the time. I find very few photos that I shoot that are not fixable when I shoot in RAW.


​
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it is impossible too, for anyone, maybe except for the non-critical. I Know that I'm not good enough to shoot JPG, too many variables that I cannot even identify (as mentioned), too few choices even if I could, and I cannot even see it to know what it needs. Heck, I can't even always get the exposure right on either. :) Raw helps me tremendously, seeing it first makes it easy, to make it look like I want it to look.

But Raw involves that scary word "edit", which seems to keep out lots of people that don't understand what it is yet. I don't see it as an "edit". It is just simply about fixing the image, color and exposure mostly. Look at it, see what it needs, and simply fix it, tweak it in. You'd think everyone would be interested. :D
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
WayneF said:
Yeah, I think it is impossible too, for anyone, maybe except for the non-critical. I Know that I'm not good enough to shoot JPG, too many variables that I cannot even identify (as mentioned), too few choices even if I could, and I cannot even see it to know what it needs. Heck, I can't even always get the exposure right on either. :) Raw helps me tremendously, seeing it first makes it easy, to make it look like I want it to look.

But Raw involves that scary word "edit", which seems to keep out lots of people that don't understand what it is yet. I don't see it as an "edit". It is just simply about fixing the image, color and exposure mostly. Look at it, see what it needs, and simply fix it, tweak it in. You'd think everyone would be interested. :D
Click to expand...

you will notice that I rarely use the "E" word
 
B

Bill16

Senior Member
Hey Don do they have a dish washing model?! I hate doing dishes, and that might be the ticket for me! Lol ;)
Tracsoft - Don Kuykendall said:
I think they do an amazing job of getting it pretty close IF we do our job of setting up the camera correctly in the first place AND shooting withen the limits of the camera AND we process the photo correctly when we transfer it.

Wait a minute....I think our cameras still need us. :cool:

i do think you have hit on something. Some people think that if you spend $1,000 plus for a camera and a good lens that it should wash the dishes for you. I actually think the less expensive cameras are better for putting out a better photo right out of the camera BUT they can not come close to what a really nice DSLR with a dedicated photographer working hard can produce.
Click to expand...
 
Top