Let us set aside the issue of a possible algorithm that would prove whether a digital photo has been altered.
Question number one: If you shoot a photo in RAW format, can that file be saved as another RAW file if it is renamed?
Bucyrus wrote: This brings me to my next question. I have heard, as you describe, that one could edit the photo and save it in a way that would be impossible to detect, thus cheating the rule against alteration. I have also heard that there is a kind of numerical code that represents the original image, and this code is embedded in a way that makes it hard to get at and change. I don't really know how this would work unless the code gets carried forward as an image is altered and shows up as being different than a new code that is generated in the alteration. However it works, the idea is that it provides a way of verifying that the contest submission has not been altered. Which of these two opposing premises is true?Here is a link to the RPN forum, which has a thread on this subject:http://www.rypn.org/The individual thread is the link and it is titled:Sometimes I wonder about the screeners at railpictures...The point was made that there is no way for anybody to verify that a digital photo has not been altered. In the third to last post (on page 4), SR&RL No.10 mentions this concept of a digital fingerprint that will verify that that photo has not been altered. In the last post, Scott Turner refutes the claim. I have posed this question to TRAINS, but have not received a definitive answer. If there is no way to detect whether a digital submission is unaltered as required by the contest rules, then the rule is unenforceable. And if it is unenforceable, then it places all entrants who comply with it in a position of wondering if the winner cheated while they played honestly.I would like the contest sponsors to address these matters and clarify how this rule can be enforced in order to insure a level playing field.
This brings me to my next question. I have heard, as you describe, that one could edit the photo and save it in a way that would be impossible to detect, thus cheating the rule against alteration.
I have also heard that there is a kind of numerical code that represents the original image, and this code is embedded in a way that makes it hard to get at and change. I don't really know how this would work unless the code gets carried forward as an image is altered and shows up as being different than a new code that is generated in the alteration. However it works, the idea is that it provides a way of verifying that the contest submission has not been altered.
Which of these two opposing premises is true?
Here is a link to the RPN forum, which has a thread on this subject:
http://www.rypn.org/
The individual thread is the link and it is titled:
Sometimes I wonder about the screeners at railpictures...
The point was made that there is no way for anybody to verify that a digital photo has not been altered. In the third to last post (on page 4), SR&RL No.10 mentions this concept of a digital fingerprint that will verify that that photo has not been altered. In the last post, Scott Turner refutes the claim.
I have posed this question to TRAINS, but have not received a definitive answer.
If there is no way to detect whether a digital submission is unaltered as required by the contest rules, then the rule is unenforceable. And if it is unenforceable, then it places all entrants who comply with it in a position of wondering if the winner cheated while they played honestly.
I would like the contest sponsors to address these matters and clarify how this rule can be enforced in order to insure a level playing field.
This may be the outcome of the discussions (I mentioned above) years ago. I don't know, as I have never been privy to that information.
If it is true then somewhere there is knowledge of the algorithm that produces the number... some sort of checksum I'd suspect.
The algorithm is "secret" somehow and maybe even the fact that it is there at all is possibly supposed to be "secret" also. The fact that we are bandying it about now means that the possibility of its existance is not much of a secret.
Then the only thing is the secret of the algorithm and where in the file the number is placed. That information has to be diseminated somehow so the people that need to know if a file is altered can verify it. Most easily done in a computer program... unfortunately, there are lots of folk with little better to do than reverse-engineer the executable code and figure out the algorithm... now it ain't a secret anymore and a program to "update" the code will be available on the web a few days later. Then you cannot trust any photo file as being "unmodified".
What's to be done?
1) If the secret code exists, early contests have the best chance of not being duped. As time passes, the secret will be outted and later contests have a problem.
2) Digital photos could be excluded. That'd be ironic that the prize is a digital camera!
3) Have top selections prove the location and conditions to prove the photo is possible. This could be expensive and still be inconclusive.
Suppose I submit a photo of a steam locomotive completely airborne due to a grade crossing "ski-jump" being traversed too fast. You can see daylight beneath each of the 8 driver wheels.
If the photo is of the MILW 261 just east of St. Paul, then it would not cost much to get some Kalmbach personel there, along with the 261, and try it again (assumming you could talk Steve S. into doing it! "You want to do WHAT!?!?!"). Maybe I can prove steam locos CAN fly and my photo is kept in the running.
But what if my photo was taken in Outer Mongolia on a line that has since been destroyed by an earthquake, that also happened to destroy the special light weight loco they had. Not only is there greater expense to get judges to the site, but the site and participants are no longer available. Can't prove my photo, but obviously I am such an honest person that I might sue the pants off the magazine if they deny my entry from consideration. "How dare they question my integrity! Harrumph!"
I feel for the magazine. I bet they get entries that are photocopies of pages from the magazine... complete with the page number in the corner.
People are stupid and devious at the same time. And that makes it hard on all of those that are not so stupid as to pull such a dumb stunt, but not so devious to be able to make it work.
And, yes the honest entrants are left to wonder if the winner was just too devious.
Sports figures have stated that they took enhancing drugs because they feared the competition was doing it and they would have no chance if they didn't do so also.
4) The last option that I can think of, is to allow anything to be submitted. That kind of runs counter to the "implied" honesty of news journalism. The photos are supposed to be of real trains in real settings, based on the magazines focus of real trains in real business. "Did ja hear about the 261 helping a jumbo jet take off?" Bet I can concoct a photo of it!
You and I would know it is a lie, but 100 years from now, when this forum is gone and the internet is a vague footnote in history books, someone will find photographic proof that steam locomotives were used regularly to help big aluminium tubes to fly!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper Vaporo wrote: Bucyrus: Unfortunately, even within their rules the unscrupulous could still submit something and by my understanding of what they are looking for to detect it, they would never know. You do not have to rename a file when you edit it. Even if you did, you could just rename the new file back to the old file-from-the-camera name.
Bucyrus:
Unfortunately, even within their rules the unscrupulous could still submit something and by my understanding of what they are looking for to detect it, they would never know. You do not have to rename a file when you edit it. Even if you did, you could just rename the new file back to the old file-from-the-camera name.
I understand your concern and that of the people in the other forum you referenced.
I, too, am concerned. I see the rules as an attempt to keep the unscrupulous from submitting a photo of something that never existed. Unfortunately, even within their rules the unscrupulous could still submit something and by my understanding of what they are looking for to detect it, they would never know. You do not have to rename a file when you edit it. Even if you did, you could just rename the new file back to the old file-from-the-camera name.
This advance in technology has put the contest on the spot... it is much too easy for digital photos to be modified and lose the originality trail. I agree that post-processing is a part of today's digital photo artistry and this opens the contest to a much wider population, but apparently, the contest is still looking for the camera artist, not the post processing artist.
The suggestion in the other forum that a digital submission include an unaltered original as well as the photographer's "artistic" result is one idea, but still does not stop the unscrupulous. What is to stop a person from erasing the storm cloud over the scene and inserting sunny blue sky, then renaming that file as the "original", further editing the photo to enhance it as the "artist" version, and then submitting the (altered) "Original" and the "Enhanced" versions as the two required photos?
There were suggestions bantered about several years ago, when the easily used software came available, that all retouched photos and videos HAD to have some text added to the image to state that it was altered. This was a suggestion that it be a LEGAL requirement. The difficultly in enforcing it was only part of the problem. How much alteration is required to have to put the notice on the photo? A little color enhancement? A bit of "Sharpen"? Just erasing a light wire in the background? Substituting a person's face with that of someone else?
With FILM media it is harder (but not impossible) to produce a negative of an altered image.
I have (or, rather "had", dunno just where it went) a very nice photo of some bighorn sheep that I took on a vacation at Rocky Mountain National Park. Most people ask how I got so close to them to get such a good photo. I have to respond that I have no idea how the photographer got that close. Then they notice that when "I" took "my" picture I didn't stand close enough to the photo on the wall of the cabin where I was staying and you can see the picture frame in the upper left corner of the photo that I took. If I had stood that wee bit closer, you would not be able to tell (even examining the negative) that it is a photo of a photo.
My brother has a very nice photo of the earth as viewed from space... the photo even has his camera's date and time imprint in the lower right hand corner right there on the 35-mm film negative. No, my brother is not an astronaut, nor has his camera been in space. But, only those familiar with photos taken from space would recognize the photo is from one of the I-MAX theater shows at the Kennedy Space Center. He took the photo there during one of the multiple daily public presentations.
Any photo contest has the problem of the unscrupulous submission. Unfortunately, the digital realm has made it easier to be unscrupulous, intentionally or unintentionally.
Anybody else shoot pics as TIFF files? Do non-professional DSLRs do this?
Most news photographers I know shoot JPEGs because they are easier and faster to download, review, edit and send. Most publications do not require more than 300dpi.
On the Associated Press photo wire, all photos are downloaded as JPEGS.
While shooting in RAW does have its advantages, very, very few photographers have access to (or can afford to use) printing equipment and paper that can do justice to high quality photographs. So what's the sense?
Semper Vaporo wrote:[ I can't speak for the judges abilities, nor for the particular reasons behind the rules of the contest. I suspect that with the advent of digital cameras the rules have had to be modified to allow for them. Before digitals, you had to have had the negative available so they could see if you had done any "re-touching" of the images... also called "air-brushing". There would be evidence of re-touching on the negative if you had. To reiterate my thoughts from before, I believe the contest is to see who is a wizz at using the camera, not who is an artist at re-touching.
I can't speak for the judges abilities, nor for the particular reasons behind the rules of the contest. I suspect that with the advent of digital cameras the rules have had to be modified to allow for them. Before digitals, you had to have had the negative available so they could see if you had done any "re-touching" of the images... also called "air-brushing". There would be evidence of re-touching on the negative if you had.
To reiterate my thoughts from before, I believe the contest is to see who is a wizz at using the camera, not who is an artist at re-touching.
My line of questioning goes to the rules of the photo contest. There is some controversy about the fairness of the rules that forbid any alteration of the image. The reason for the rule is to prevent alteration that would add, remove, or change the subject detail. The reason is not to prevent alterations in graphic characteristics such as color, contrast, lighting, etc. However, the only practical method of preventing the subject alteration is to require that all entries are submitted right from the camera, without any alteration whatsoever, and not re-named. Apparently the requirement that the file not be re-named is intended as a means of verifying that the submission has not been altered.
So, while the rule solves the objective of preventing subject alteration, it also overreaches and prevents graphic alteration, which was not part of the objection in the first place. People who shoot in RAW thus feel deprived of what they see as a legitimate facet of the photo production process. Here is a link to a discussion that contains a post by John Ryan. He makes his case well:
http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?s=b15730acc9eb140faaa66023cb5fcc6e&t=5458&page=3&pp=25
blhanel wrote: Semper Vaporo wrote: I also have a photo of ME sitting in the cab of my 1:32 scale Aster Mikado Live Steam locomotive. NO amount of dieting will make anyone THAT small! Too bad you can't submit that one for the photo contest- it sure qualifies under the theme!
Semper Vaporo wrote: I also have a photo of ME sitting in the cab of my 1:32 scale Aster Mikado Live Steam locomotive. NO amount of dieting will make anyone THAT small!
I also have a photo of ME sitting in the cab of my 1:32 scale Aster Mikado Live Steam locomotive. NO amount of dieting will make anyone THAT small!
Too bad you can't submit that one for the photo contest- it sure qualifies under the theme!
Thanks to all who gave the photography lesson.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Even the largest of machines have "Small" details that they could not function without.
Small could Mean allot, Pick the smallest subdivision on a certain RR, or a key piece of a certain Locomotive, pictures of a small tourist RR, or shots of the Local running it's daily route. Picture a Big Boy next to a giant mountain range and the theme could be called "Small".
Small is a relative term, a person is small to a locomotive but an Ant is small to a Person. Your interpretation through the Camera lens will be the key.
Later Bill
Bucyrus wrote: J T wrote: JPG = in camera processingRAW = post camera processing (with a program like photoshop, etc).So basically what the Trains contest rules are saying is that if you shoot in JPG, the image can be processed, but if you shoot in RAW, it can not. Thank you JT and Charles for your explanations. So, as I understand it, when you say that in JPEG, the image can be processed, you mean processed only by the camera. The rules state that no editing is allowed to be performed after the shot, no matter which format is used. The requirement is that submissions be made unaltered, not re-named, direct from the camera, in either RAW or JPEG format. Therefore, from what I have read in this thread, I conclude the following: 1) If you shoot in RAW, there is no alteration performed by the camera. 2) If you shoot in JPEG, some alteration is performed by the camera. However, no matter which format you shoot in, no further alteration is allowed. Therefore all JPEG entries will be processed to some extent by the camera, and all RAW entries will not be processed at all. I can see why this would seem unfair to those who strive for the best possible work by shooting in RAW format, and post processing. In that sense, the rules seem to attempt to level the playing field by "dumbing down" the contest.QUESTION:What would you say to an assertion by the contest judges that they are capable of making a fair judgment by observation in comparing unaltered RAW files to each other, and in comparing unaltered RAW files to unaltered (but camera-processed) JPEG files? And in continuation of that question, what would you say to an assertion by the contest judges that they are not only capable of such judgment, but that they will add the appropriate post processing themselves so that the winning entries will all be optimally enhanced for display?
J T wrote: JPG = in camera processingRAW = post camera processing (with a program like photoshop, etc).So basically what the Trains contest rules are saying is that if you shoot in JPG, the image can be processed, but if you shoot in RAW, it can not.
JPG = in camera processing
RAW = post camera processing (with a program like photoshop, etc).
So basically what the Trains contest rules are saying is that if you shoot in JPG, the image can be processed, but if you shoot in RAW, it can not.
Thank you JT and Charles for your explanations. So, as I understand it, when you say that in JPEG, the image can be processed, you mean processed only by the camera.
The rules state that no editing is allowed to be performed after the shot, no matter which format is used. The requirement is that submissions be made unaltered, not re-named, direct from the camera, in either RAW or JPEG format. Therefore, from what I have read in this thread, I conclude the following:
1) If you shoot in RAW, there is no alteration performed by the camera.
2) If you shoot in JPEG, some alteration is performed by the camera.
However, no matter which format you shoot in, no further alteration is allowed. Therefore all JPEG entries will be processed to some extent by the camera, and all RAW entries will not be processed at all. I can see why this would seem unfair to those who strive for the best possible work by shooting in RAW format, and post processing. In that sense, the rules seem to attempt to level the playing field by "dumbing down" the contest.
QUESTION:
What would you say to an assertion by the contest judges that they are capable of making a fair judgment by observation in comparing unaltered RAW files to each other, and in comparing unaltered RAW files to unaltered (but camera-processed) JPEG files? And in continuation of that question, what would you say to an assertion by the contest judges that they are not only capable of such judgment, but that they will add the appropriate post processing themselves so that the winning entries will all be optimally enhanced for display?
EITHER format can be "processed" by an external, after the fact, photo editing program. The difference is strictly the loss of data caused by the compression process. If the camera saves the data internally already compressed (jpg) then one level of loss has already occured. Either format can be converted to the other by just about any photo editing program, but once it has been compressed some data is lost permanently.
Converting RAW to JPG introduces some loss in the image. The camera actually takes the photo in RAW format and then moves the data from the image chip behind the lense to internal storage. If the store function compresses the data, then loss occurs. It did not actually "process" the image to attempt to improve it, like what you and I would do if we loaded the image into an editing program and executed things like "Sharpen" or "adjust contrast", etc. The "processing" it did was to just compress it.
Converting a JPG to RAW just preserves the data in its present "lossy" form; it does not improve the image back to the original form. It is like putting an assembled jigsaw puzzle in a box. Shake the box like crazy and then look at the puzzle... some of the pieces may have come loose and the image is no longer correct. Shaking it again will not "improve" the image, only degrade it. A jigsaw puzzle can be reassembled because you have clues to the location of the pieces based on the shape and color variation across the piece; but the pieces (pixels) of a digital photo have no "shape" (they are all perfect squares) to compare to adjacent shapes, and each pixel is just one solid color so you cannot tell where one goes based on adjacent colors.
If you take a photo and the camera compresses the image and you transfer it to your computer, you can load it into a photo processing program and convert it to RAW format (often refered to as a "bit map" or .BMP file). Now you can edit, save, reload, edit, save, etc. to your heart's content without the compression loss attendent with the jpg file, EXCEPT for that first loss caused by the camera compressing the file the first time. You also have an 18-MegaByte file being carried around on your computer... space that could be used by several .jpg files that are a bit muddied by the compression function.
It is a trade-off of "perfection in storage" vs. I ain't got room to store another photo.
Ideally, one would take all photos in RAW format and once viewed on the computer, you then decide weather you really need "perfection" or can do with some muddyness in order to keep more photos on your computer. It is also a question of how many photos your camera can store internally before you run out of "film" (memory in the camera) and can't take anymore photos until you save them to some other media and clear the camera's memory?
If your camera only has 18-MegaBytes, then you can only take one photo at a time in RAW format, but could take maybe from 5 to 20 photos in JPG format.
Photos of distant trees can endure lots of compression loss because the leaves are all indistinct anyway, so who cares if it is a bit muddy. Photos of the text of the builder's plate on the side of the smoke box might leave the text unreadable if much compression occurs.
To reiterate my thoughts from before, I believe the contest is to see who is a wizz at using the camera, not who is an artist at re-touching. For all my playing with digital re-touching, I must say that the BEST photos I have (few and very far between) were done using 35-mm film in a Pentax K1000, doing a time exposure, using a flashlight to illuminate the subject... a technique known as "painting with light". That way I had complete control of the lighting, where shadows would occur and what got enough light to see in the image. The hard part is the utter guesswork of how long to shine the light in any one spot or how long to leave the shutter open. You can shoot off a whole roll of film and have no idea if ANYTHING will show up on the prints.
You can tell the "processor", when developing the film to "Push it 1" or "Push it 2" to try to get something better out of it, but that could just as easily ruin the images. Once the film is processed to negatives there is not much you can do to improve the contrast or color. The best advice I ever got was to make sure light made it to the film... i.e.: slight over exposure is better than under exposure.
I am not sure if the "best advice" I ever got is applicable to digital photo taking... over
Brian (IA) http://blhanel.rrpicturearchives.net.
Murphy Siding wrote: J T wrote: The answer to that can found once you understand the difference between shooting in RAW and JPG modes. Can you explain, in little words, to us non-photographers, what the difference is? Thanks
J T wrote: The answer to that can found once you understand the difference between shooting in RAW and JPG modes.
The answer to that can found once you understand the difference between shooting in RAW and JPG modes.
Others have explained in more detail, but I'll sum it up simply as:
Semper Vaporo wrote:Re-touching is FUN! But the resulting photo is not "real".
To the contrary.
Bucyrus wrote: So, because the contest rules stipulate that submissions not be edited in any way, the advantage of shooting in RAW instead of JPEG is lost. Is that correct?
So, because the contest rules stipulate that submissions not be edited in any way, the advantage of shooting in RAW instead of JPEG is lost. Is that correct?
I think the rule to not edit the photo is more because it is a contest for the photographer knowing how to compose the shot "at the camera"... angle, zoom, etc., and using the camera to set the exposure, color, etc.; rather than the "re-touch" artist cropping the photo to center the primary interest, erasing unwanted things, fixing blemishes, etc.
But, RAW format is the easiest to be re-touched undetected, whereas a JPG file will always be degraded by re-touching it.
I have a "photo" of Grant Wood's painting "American Gothic" with my grandkids faces in place of the farmer and his daughter.
I have a photo of ME sitting in the cab of the Milwaukee Road 261 with Mark D. firing for me. The throttle to the roof and the Minnesota country side is visible out the fireman's window. I was actually sitting in the cab, but Mark D. is the one that took that photo (I got his photo quite by accident later), the throttle was closed and there were tools hanging on the wall visible out the Fireman's window! A little re-touching and three photos become one!
Re-touching is FUN! But the resulting photo is not "real".
Computer photo formats 101:
RAW format saves the data without any compression... i.e.: for every pixel of the photo, there is one "word" of color information for that pixel. A "word" is usually 24-bits; three 8-bit bytes, one byte each for Red, Green and Blue. A 6-MegaPixel image thus requires 18-MegaBytes to store.
JPG (or JPEG) format is a method of compressing the data to make the data-file smaller (so you can store for more photos).
The compression that is used makes a file smaller by combining groups of pixels and storing only one "word" for the group. Each group has some overlap with adjacent groups (left, right, above, below and at the 45 degreen angles). If it did not do the overlapping, the number of effective pixels would be considerably fewer and the resultant image would be "blocks" the size of the groups of pixels. The color of the block would be an average of the single colors of that group and each of the adjacent groups that was stored for that group. The sizes of the groups varies based on how close they are to the edge, and how near they are to drastic changes in contrast in the image (that is why jpg files vary in size).
When uncompressing the image for viewing, the single words per group are recombined to (hopefully) recreate each pixel of the original image. But, it cannot recreate the exact data. Only some weighted average value per pixel is recreated, so there is some error in the recreated image. You can "see" the error in slight bluring (or muddying) of edges or large, nearly uniform, color areas (like the sky).
This problem is compounded if you use a picture editing program on the file. It uncompresses the file (thus the pixels you see are the recreated set which is not exactly the original image) so you can see it to edit it.
If you make no changes in the image, most photo editing programs recognize that no changes were made and if you do a "re-save", it does not re-compress the image, it just saves the original data back to the file.
But, if you make a minor edit to the image, like crop it (even just one row of pixels off of one edge), or smear a blemish, or do something more drastic, like color enhance it, or "sharpen" or "soften" it, or something even more drastic, like remove a utility pole and wires by copying some other piece of sky over them; then... when you resave the image, the compression occurs again and that will be compressing the "not exact" data (even areas you didn't touch) and a bit more error is introduced the next time it is uncompressed for viewing.
If you load a jpg file, edit it and then re-save it (an uncompress/recompresses cycle) multiple times, the image degrades a little bit more each time.
If you do want to edit a jpg file, doing so once is not too bad. But if you find later you want to make another edit, you really should have kept the original image in addition to the edited file. You should repeat the first edit on the original file (if you remember what it was you did!) and then also do the new thing you want to do (with no save and re-load in between). This eliminates the error introduced in a compression cycle.
Remember, it is the save and reload cycle that introduces the errors. If the edits you are doing are taking a long time and you must take a break from it periodically (I have spent HOURS! "retouching" a photo), don't save and re-load for each session... keep the editing program running with the partially edited image loaded. Granted, you should do periodic saves, just so that if your kid trips over the power cord and the computer dies, you won't lose everything you've done. But you then only risk introducing error from one re-load of the file, and hopefully if won't happen at all. (If it happens more than once, you need to rearrange your power cords!)
RAW vs JPG is merely a matter of where and how an image gets processed into a JPG. If you shoot stright JPEG, you're basically allowing the camera (and the processing algorithms built into it) to make the final image. Granted, JPG's are editable, but not as losslessly as RAW.
When you shoot RAW, the camera is still making judgements on a picture, but only for the purpose of display on the camera's LCD. The RAW image merely records the information that the imaging sensor receives. Before you can do anything with the image, you'll need to convert it to JPG. This can be done with the software that came with your camera, or a variety of aftermarket products (Capture One, Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Camera RAW, Apple Aperture, etc.).
The advantage to RAW is that it allows you a lot more leeway in your picture. White Balance, exposure, saturation, etc. aren't really critical, because you can adjust them to your desire at your convenience after the shot. The downsides are the extra processing and larger file sizes (generally RAW images are losslessly compressed, but lossless compression isn't very much compression).
JPG images offer the advantages of smaller size and easier distribution, etc. after the shot. This comes at the expense of some image quality. Canon and Nikon both seem to do well with in camera JPG processing (though there is still more detail, etc. available with RAW). My K100D also does very well, but Pentax's mid level camera, the K10D does terribly with JPG processing. Even monster names like Leica do much, much better with RAW than in camera JPG's (and the M8 is a $5000 camera!).
For general photography, JPGs work just fine (and you'll find that most photojournalists even shoot RAW because it's much quicker). If, however, you are looking to enlarge an image to mammoth proportions, you are shooting in strange lighting or you just want all the detail you can get, RAW is definately the way to go.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
videomaker wrote: I havent shot anything in RAW format with my camera yet but RAW gives you the whole spectrum of color to edit anyway you want the pic to look..JPG is fixed at the camera setting with less pixels than RAW and you cant play with or change the photo very much at all..Anyone correct me or add to this is its not right...Danny
CShaveRR wrote: Bucyrus wrote: J T wrote:Well, they certainly didn't make it fair for those of us who shoot in RAW. I thought they require shooting in RAW. Why would it be unfair?I prefer to remain clothed, thank you!
Bucyrus wrote: J T wrote:Well, they certainly didn't make it fair for those of us who shoot in RAW. I thought they require shooting in RAW. Why would it be unfair?
J T wrote:Well, they certainly didn't make it fair for those of us who shoot in RAW.
I thought they require shooting in RAW. Why would it be unfair?
I prefer to remain clothed, thank you!
Shoot in the raw and remember, think small.
Dave Nelson
That sums it up pretty well.
For the average photog, taking pictures chiefly for his or her own amusement or to share, JPG is just fine. It's a common picture format that just about every computer can deal with.
If you are into "developing" your pictures, or playing around with them (my daughter removed the minister from one of her wedding pictures), the RAW is something to consider. Some cameras will shoot JPG + RAW, so you have both. A word of warning - on my Digital Rebel, going from straight hi-res JPG to JPG + RAW takes the number of pictures that a 1 Gig memory card will hold from 265 to 62.....
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
J T wrote: Bucyrus wrote: J T wrote:Well, they certainly didn't make it fair for those of us who shoot in RAW. I thought they require shooting in RAW.No. Why would it be unfair?The answer to that can found once you understand the difference between shooting in RAW and JPG modes.
Bucyrus wrote: J T wrote:Well, they certainly didn't make it fair for those of us who shoot in RAW. I thought they require shooting in RAW.
I thought they require shooting in RAW.
No.
Why would it be unfair?
You are correct. In looking at the rules again, I see they allow shooting in RAW or JPEG. But why would it be unfair to those who want to shoot in RAW?
videomaker wrote:Chris, Why wouldnt you enter the contest? Your stuff is as good as any Ive seen. Dont cut yourself short. Or do you just not like contest? Danny
Why wouldnt you enter the contest? Your stuff is as good as any Ive seen. Dont cut yourself short. Or do you just not like contest?
Danny
Danny,
Thanks for the kind words. It's more of a "I don't enter contests" kind of thing. I've had some photographer friends really get burned by submissions to contests (over usage and rights issues). The Trains rules look good, but I guess I'm just kind of opposed to the whole contest idea.I guess I'm just weird like that...
CopCarSS wrote: As I read the information, I don't think there was a single interpretation of the theme. It's all about you, how you interpret the theme as it relates to railroads/railroading and how you choose to show that in your photo.It's definately an interesting theme, and I'm kind of anxious to see the winners. If contests were something I did, I might even submit a shot...
As I read the information, I don't think there was a single interpretation of the theme. It's all about you, how you interpret the theme as it relates to railroads/railroading and how you choose to show that in your photo.
It's definately an interesting theme, and I'm kind of anxious to see the winners. If contests were something I did, I might even submit a shot...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.