That front is wicked. Looks like your about to snap that sh** to pieces. Lol. Cool picture man.
February 2022 Ride of the Month (ROTM) Contest
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
- Status
Lol appreciate it! That was a nice steep drop under the rig.
My spotter had me freeze for a quick photo op
Christian Y.
Member
Went out to get a better picture. Found a new way through the forest.
I thought the time was already past.
UKTJ
TJ Addict
Nice to see a picture with a cool sky that hasn't been 'tweaked'
Too soon?
UKTJ
TJ Addict
Nah, any later and the thread would be locked for voting. I like my TJs modified, but photos of them stock
What if I were to tell you that this photo was already tweaked and neither you, nor the person who took the photo realized??Nice to see a picture with a cool sky that hasn't been 'tweaked'
UKTJ
TJ Addict
I’d be intrigued.What if I were to tell you that this photo was already tweaked and neither you, nor the person who took the photo realized??
It's true - and important to understand so we can put this "tweaking" nonsense to rest...
The image a camera produces (regardless of the camera!) has two "images" when you press the shutter: what is captured and what is presented. Most cameras don't let you see the "what is captured" image (aka "RAW image") though there are many that can.
Here's a good example:
RAW Barn - as recorded by my Nikon D700, 14-bit RAW
The sensor does its best to capture the most dynamic range across all channels (RGB and sometimes a dedicated fourth channel). It then takes that photo and processes it through various algorithms, compares it against database images, and then converts that to what the user sees on the screen.
JPG Barn - as converted in camera by my Nikon D700, "Normal JPG"
The image above has not been edited, adjusted, or otherwise "tweaked" by me. This was done based on Nikon's programming and output under the "Neutral" JPG setting. The color space has been compressed but many colors have been saturated. Contrast has also been increased, while adding some sharpening to hard edges. The camera is giving me what it thinks I want and what is generally pleasing to the masses by closely matching what the eye "sees". The outputs can be manipulated greatly depending on settings picked (user selected or default).
Of course, what the camera thinks the eye sees is rarely what is actually seen. Our eyes are amazing - with different "channels" for color, luminosity, sharpness, etc. Cameras do their best but "tweaking" an image is usually the only real way to bring out the images "true colors"...
RAW file, cleaned up (wire removed), levels adjusted, colors adjusted and sharpness added to better reflect reality.
Dude - you pulled out the wire and left its shadow? Oh man, rookie mistake....It's true - and important to understand so we can put this "tweaking" nonsense to rest...
The image a camera produces (regardless of the camera!) has two "images" when you press the shutter: what is captured and what is presented. Most cameras don't let you see the "what is captured" image (aka "RAW image") though there are many that can.
Here's a good example:
View attachment 309877
RAW Barn - as recorded by my Nikon D700, 14-bit RAW
The sensor does its best to capture the most dynamic range across all channels (RGB and sometimes a dedicated fourth channel). It then takes that photo and processes it through various algorithms, compares it against database images, and then converts that to what the user sees on the screen.
View attachment 309878
JPG Barn - as converted in camera by my Nikon D700, "Normal JPG"
The image above has not been edited, adjusted, or otherwise "tweaked" by me. This was done based on Nikon's programming and output under the "Neutral" JPG setting. The color space has been compressed but many colors have been saturated. Contrast has also been increased, while adding some sharpening to hard edges. The camera is giving me what it thinks I want and what is generally pleasing to the masses by closely matching what the eye "sees". The outputs can be manipulated greatly depending on settings picked (user selected or default).
Of course, what the camera thinks the eye sees is rarely what is actually seen. Our eyes are amazing - with different "channels" for color, luminosity, sharpness, etc. Cameras do their best but "tweaking" an image is usually the only real way to bring out the images "true colors"...
View attachment 309884
RAW file, cleaned up (wire removed), levels adjusted, colors adjusted and sharpness added to better reflect reality.
UKTJ
TJ Addict
All very interesting. But actively changing the picture is IMHO somewhat different to what is happening inside the camera which is invisible to the person taking the picture.It's true - and important to understand so we can put this "tweaking" nonsense to rest...
The image a camera produces (regardless of the camera!) has two "images" when you press the shutter: what is captured and what is presented. Most cameras don't let you see the "what is captured" image (aka "RAW image") though there are many that can.
Here's a good example:
View attachment 309877
RAW Barn - as recorded by my Nikon D700, 14-bit RAW
The sensor does its best to capture the most dynamic range across all channels (RGB and sometimes a dedicated fourth channel). It then takes that photo and processes it through various algorithms, compares it against database images, and then converts that to what the user sees on the screen.
View attachment 309878
JPG Barn - as converted in camera by my Nikon D700, "Normal JPG"
The image above has not been edited, adjusted, or otherwise "tweaked" by me. This was done based on Nikon's programming and output under the "Neutral" JPG setting. The color space has been compressed but many colors have been saturated. Contrast has also been increased, while adding some sharpening to hard edges. The camera is giving me what it thinks I want and what is generally pleasing to the masses by closely matching what the eye "sees". The outputs can be manipulated greatly depending on settings picked (user selected or default).
Of course, what the camera thinks the eye sees is rarely what is actually seen. Our eyes are amazing - with different "channels" for color, luminosity, sharpness, etc. Cameras do their best but "tweaking" an image is usually the only real way to bring out the images "true colors"...
View attachment 309884
RAW file, cleaned up (wire removed), levels adjusted, colors adjusted and sharpness added to better reflect reality.
What is happening inside the camera is still "tweaking" by a person (the one that programmed the camera) - just not you... If someone has their camera set to +5 saturation, +5 sharpening, +3 contrast, +Vivid settings, what's the difference if I do that on a computer or if someone's camera does that in-camera?
The obvious answer is there isn't I would go on to argue that shooting in RAW and then post-processing the image myself is more in line with the essence of photography than letting the camera do it. Tweaking is tweaking (though really, "tweaking" is more trying to represent reality). The same happened in film believe it or not since you could get vastly different results depending on the fim selected and how/how processed the reel.
In my teens and early 20's, tweaking was my reality. I miss being young and skinny.
UKTJ
TJ Addict
Its all definitional and everyone has a right to an opinion. My opinion is seeking to get an image that accurately reflects what the person taking the picture sees is different to trying to make the picture different. It is the latter I am referring to when I say "tweaking". And as pointed out tweaking a picture is within the rules of ROTM - until reaches the point where it contravenes rule 6., which is down to Chris' judgement.
Anyway, it was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, don't want anyone thinking I am planning to invade Ukraine.
Haha - not a "mistake", just lazy... I aborted that edit, it was just the one I had the original Raw, original JPG and PSE file in my Creative Cloud drive (and accessible on my work computer). Here's the one I decided to work on instead (the original RAW and JPG are on my backup HDD in the office) - keeping it cropable to the various sizes/ratios that are common (5x4 and 16x9)Dude - you pulled out the wire and left its shadow? Oh man, rookie mistake....
It still isn't done, just where I left off on at...The barn actually belongs to the extended family of a friend of a friend. The previous owner used to raise cows in the back and sell bait across the street in the summer. The bait shop is gone unfortunately and the barn is looking a tad weathered. It's not a "working barn" anymore, just a place to store the plow truck, tractor, etc.
I've been geeking out lately on barns. The local township historian is looking to make a history-book of the local properties, what was parceled off and when, etc. She found an old aerial of my house, I need to bring my laptop and scanner down to the township building one of these days and get a nice scan of it.
Here's another barn (I don't know who owns this one) but I love it... I'm trying to convince the wife that our next investment needs to be an bunch of acreage and a big ass barn
Last edited:
- Status