I'll just post a picture from this pocket camera from time to time.

Nice.

Rich,

I didn't realize I was taking a picture of your office when I took that photo.
Of course, a few million other people's offices are also shown.

Seen in Auckland, New Zealand.

Wink

I notice that you use one of Paul Bocuse's sayings on your posts, and I know you reside in France.

I am just curious if you ever dined at one of Mr. Bocuse's restaurants.

And by the way, sorry for your loss. I know he passed away recently and was revered as one of France's Great Chefs.

quote:

Originally posted by lindy2:
Wink

I notice that you use one of Paul Bocuse's sayings on your posts, and I know you reside in France.

I am just curious if you ever dined at one of Mr. Bocuse's restaurants.

And by the way, sorry for your loss. I know he passed away recently and was revered as one of France's Great Chefs.

Yes, at Collonges-au-Mont-d'Or about 10km north of Lyon. It was many years ago and it was worth it. I had lunch, so maybe "dined" would be inaccurate.

Lion Rock on the right, at Piha Beach, New Zealand.

Pohutukawa in flower. East Coast of New Zealand.

There is a lot to be said about small but precise camera gear. Here's another from my version, a Nikon Coolpix 7100. It exemplifies the old saw, "Never leave home without it!"

TT

Today in Rambouillet. It snows like this once every five years, so it's a big deal here.

After a lot of serious consideration, I've decided to title this "Goose takes walk in park".



In keeping with the theme of this thread, this was of course taken with a Nikon "Coolpix A" pocket camera, one of the most seriously underrated cameras of all time.

This particular volatile seemed totally indifferent to my presence, allowing me to get as close as I wanted.

Wink, it appears that some of these have a bit of post-processing work done. Can you show us some pics without any processing? I am interested in a new camera to replace my old Coolpix.

I'm such a dinosaur. I still have my Nikon F- 35mm w/all the lenses including my 600 mm telephoto,as well as my Yashika dual lense studio camera in 120.Try finding film now + getting it developed. I have not become used to the new digital cameras.I don't use these others but I have 2 Eastman bellows cameras from my grandfather.

quote:

Originally posted by NormanConquest:
I'm such a dinosaur. I still have my Nikon F- 35mm w/all the lenses including my 600 mm telephoto,as well as my Yashika dual lense studio camera in 120.Try finding film now + getting it developed. I have not become used to the new digital cameras.I don't use these others but I have 2 Eastman bellows cameras from my grandfather.

Not to avoid the question, but I always take RAW file photos, meaning they have to be post-processed (or at least converted from NEF to JPG) on a computer to be viewed as a jpg file for internet posting. The camera can of course take native JPG files, meaning the conversion takes place in-camera as a function of whatever Picture Control settings you choose in your camera's menu. None of the Nikon cameras (that I am aware of) allow you to take, or convert in-camera, a jpg file that is immediately, with no further modifications, ready to be posted on an internet forum. Let me rephrase that, you could immediately post them, but they would be far too big, both in size and in resolution, to be optimal for screen viewing. So, since you have to do some post-processing anyway, why not start with a file that offers more latitude for correction to optimize?

Most computer screens have an sRGB color space, so you will want to convert for that if you took a picture in the Adobe RGB color space. Most computer screens have 96 pixels per inch resolution, whereas the original photo file will have much, much more than that. You will want to have the software convert and downsize (meaning it will throw out a lot information that's in the original file). For prints you would want to resize to 300 dots per inch (or pixels per inch) to get optimal acuity. Conclusion, converting for prints is not the same as converting for internet posting.

Lastly, the visual acuity of a photo viewed on a screen has to be adjusted for the size and resolution you pick if you want it to look its sharpest, meaning I do it as the last step in the workflow process. I'm self-taught when it comes to photo software, so it took me a long time to get it where I am now, and I still have some way to go when I compare my results with some other photographers.

I think a useful analogy is to think of a RAW file as a negative, it still has to be printed to be viewed and there are a lot of things to adjust depending on final output size and the density of the negative, including the enlarger's lens f/stop, the type of paper you select (contrast or filters for contrast), the print exposure time, and the burning and dodging you might want to do, the focusing on the paper depending on the enlargement factor, etc.

Short answer, all a straight-out-of-the-camera jpg would show is the results of the picture controls I set in the camera, meaning my bias given the options I choose. A camera which somehow gets what I want just by pushing the shutter button doesn't exist, or it only happens by accident. Whenever you see a photo on internet, it is just a version of the file in the camera, not the original, which in fact is impossible to see on a screen.

Most of the pictures I post are around 350ko in size, whether the camera has a 10MP sensor or a 16MP sensor or a 36MP sensor. What you see on a screen is but a shadow of the information contained in the original NEF file, and I like to choose what gets rejected by the software before I post it. The only thing that produces a WYSIWYG is color reversal film (slides) and if you want to see one printed then either you go the Cibachrome route or you make an internegative and enlarge for a print.

The new compact cameras are frequently equipped with a wifi capability, allowing you to transfer photos to a mobil phone. You can then use the telephone to downsize and send, I think. This might be the best option for someone who wants iPhone immediate transfer, but wants the better image quality of a larger sensor camera. I have never done this so cannot comment on how well it works. But it might be an option for someone who uses social media like Facebook or just wants to attach the photo to an e-mail. This won't help someone who needs a "host" for their photos, like Photobucket, if they want to post on AR for example. I believe the Nikon A900 has the wifi capability, as do many other compact cameras by other makers.

Another Lion Rock at Piha Beach picture with Coolpix A.

I guess I should ask the question a different way. How much increase for sharpness and contrast did you use on the RAW images to get these photos, average?

Larry,

I want to be helpful in my reply, rather than saying that there is no correct answer to your question. But it's a hard question to answer and here's why: assuming you are using a Nikon camera, the RAW file does not allow any of the picture controls set in the camera to be read by software, unless it is Nikon software that is reading it. In other words, unless you use the same software I am using (sometimes DxO Photolab, sometimes Lightroom, sometimes a combination of the two) and you follow the same workflow as I, than nothing I say will have any meaning or applicable guideline. I do have Nikon software, but stopped using it for the most part, and did not use it to prepare these photographs. All in-camera software is proprietary, which also means that every photo software company has to reverse engineer their product (unless the camera manufacturer provides proprietary information, which is rarely the case). There are a couple of exceptions, which Adobe tried to market as a single approach, which is DNG (digital negative) but as far as I know there are only a couple of camera makers who went that route, like Leica.

If I were to set the camera to produce JPG files then the camera software would produce a file following the Picture Controls I set, as a JPG file. But that's not what I do. With a JPG file you cannot modify the exposure or the color balance once the shot is taken. You can modify any number of other aspects, like contrast, highlights, low lights, color tones, color vibrance, color saturation, etc. But not the two main attributes of the file, which are exposure and color balance. They are baked into a JPG file.

So, to best answer the question you would have to provide some information, like type of camera and software you use. Then I could walk you through a workflow that resembles mine.

I understand completely. Thanks.

Most photography software can be downloaded for a trial period, for free.

https://www.dxo.com/us/download/dxo-photolab

https://www.adobe.com/products...-trial-download.html

https://www.phaseone.com/download


Select a few of your favorite RAW files, from whatever cameras you have, and try them out. They all have online tutorials to help you get started. You'll be as confused as I am in no time. But it's a great way, if you preselect a bunch of your best pictures, to get the power of these tools applied to your best photos for nothing.

Maybe not related directly to questions asked of me, but:

1) on all my cameras (since what you see on the LCD is a function of this) I set the Picture Control to Neutral (or Flat if that is an option). Within that I set sharpening at +6 (mostly to be able to check if I'm in focus when looking at the LCD). I set Saturation at +1. All other options at camera default, no change.

2) I leave White Balance on Auto (or Auto1 if that's an option). On a nice sunny day with lots of green in the photo I set White Balance manually, to either Direct Sunlight or to 4900K. Lots of green screws up the auto white balance, especially on older cameras. When using my D700 (old camera), or taking portraits with any camera, I use a WhiBal card in one of the shots and adjust White Balance in post-processing.

3) I expose to the right, meaning I set the camera LCD to show the RGB histograms to verify. If I'm not all the way to the right I will slow the shutter speed (or open the aperture) by a third of a stop and look again. If not to the right I repeat by another third of a stop. Underexposure is not the way to go with digital RAW files. This is not the case with JPG files, where exposing to the right usually results in over-exposure overall.

4) If I've got a static subject, like landscapes, I take a lot of pictures at different settings; it doesn't cost a thing.

5) All the rest is done in post processing.

6) If I've got a lot of time and want to get all technical about things, I'll take a shot with an xrite Passport Color Checker and create a color profile in Lightroom.

This is a mug shot of a not super happy about it daughter letting me get a test shot for a color profile.



If accurate skin tones are important to you, this is a good way to get there.

That is exactly what I wanted to know. Thanks.

If you are like me, your daughter is a much better looking subject than I would be.

Converting to B&W sometimes has its own logic (not a Coolpix A photo here, a D810). Another Lion Rock pic.

I cheated on my last post with a D810 file. Back to the Coolpix A stuff, which also converts to B&W nicely.