Mark Roberts wrote: > > "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On 4 Oct 2005 at 9:47, Powell Hargrave wrote: > > > >> My goal is to get it right in the final image. > >> If I get the shot close enough in camera to give material to produce the > >> final image that is being strived for with no lose of quality that is > >> success. > >> > >> After manipulating digital images for a while you can envision what can be > >> done which allows more freedom when shooting. > > > >This is similar to what I've said since I started shooting RAW exclusively, I > >make my exposure to ensure that I have the best data to use in post > >processing. > >This modus operandi doesn't always mean that the image will look great out of > >the camera but I know my final prints and digital images will. > > It's actually quite similar to shooting B&W negative film. Expose the > neg for what you know you're going to have to do in the darkroom. > In fact, I'd say that shooting RAW and not expecting to adjust black and > white points is like shooting negative film and not expecting to print > on anything other than grade 3 paper, with no burning, dodging or other > subtle darkroom techniques. Yes, it's possible, but very, very rare.
Funny... because that is exactly what I did when I printed - I rarely printed on anything but #3 or equivalent in multi-grade paper and virtually never did any selective dodging and burning. No patience. But I'd bracket when I shot and change filters and such. > > (Shooting JPEG in camera, however, is much more like shooting slide > film.) > I'm shooting in jpg, at the highest resolution - though I had done a few RAWS last June... travelling, I couldn't have shot in RAW - couldn't afford enough cards. annsan the stubborn > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com
