Shooting Raw

Is shooting raw format making photographers stupid? Ok, an obviously dumb question. Every photograher understands, or should, and if they don't they should learn, why shooting raw has a lot of advantages over jpeg, which I discussed a little about in an earlier post. I haven't moved from that position very much since then and still shoot jpeg most (80-90%) of the time for convenience.

Ok, to begin with, digital cameras always capture images in a raw format, istoring the original intensity data of each pixel in the sensor. The camera uses your settings, such as ISO, picture style, white/color balance, exposure settings, exposure control, filter effects, etc. to display the image in the camera and initial post-processing and to convert the raw to jpeg.

With raw format, the only controls the photographer has are the exposure, ISO and EV (exposure value) control. You can overcome the ISO in any post-processing, but you can't overcome a wrong exposure setting or EV control resulting in the image extremely over or under exposed. This is due to the sensors and the dynamic range of cameras.

While some photographers argue digital cameras have a 7-9 zone range, the practical range is on par with film about 5-6 zones excepting some black and white film which has a 7-9 zone range. It's how that range is captured that makes this important. In digital cameras, the zones aren't equal linear zones, but non-linear, meaning each zone is progressively less and less of the image to where they begin to indistinguishable on the end of the range, near black and near white zones.

This is where the practical range of about 5-6 zones become evident in scenes, but the advantage for shooting raw is that you can sometimes extract more from the outer zones with post-processing, recovering some of the dynamic range. But then you have the limitation of the exposure being the controlling parts of the capture where the zones simply aren't distingushable. Sometimes the range of film can be recovered in development - the traditional expose for the shadow and develop for the highlights, but in digital it's usually lost.

And my point to this rambling? Well, while I agree shooting raw has a lot of potential for photographers, and he recommended method for signficant post-processing image production and it's a powerful mechanism for overcoming a lot of mistakes in the exposure, such as white/color balance, picture style, filters, light sources, etc., especially under different light conditions. But it can also become a fallback for a photographer, and this is my point.

Shooting raw can make photographers photographically dumb - not knowing, or stupd - not thinking, and image processing smart. It can overcome a lot of mistakes film photographers wouldn't make or know how to correct in the field. Shooting raw can make photographers iilliterate, if not incompetent, photographers and only technical image processers. All a photographer has to do is shoot raw, set the camera to optimum ISO, automatic white/color balance and automatic exposure, and know you can fix anything in Photoshop.

Ok, this has been a point of arugment for decades, long before automatic exposure settings on cameras, to the introduction of cameras with light meters before than and external light meters before that. It's all relative to as they say, and here it's relative to what's important to capturing and producing an image, and where you put your expertise. Before digital processing, some people learned to become darkroom specialist and some photographers focused on capturing photos.

So it's not new, but now the level of expertise has fallen into the hands of everyone, even those who have little if any knowledge of photography and exposure, but simply set everything to automatic, then point and shoot and fix everything Photoshop. Is that photography?

Not to me, but I do shoot raw when I want to play with some images, and even then I shoot raw+jpeg. I've always been a photographer who likes to test my knowledge, undestanding and experience, how limited it is, to see how well or bad I did. It's like shooting film, even when you bracket, because you make decisions and trust yourself. Shooting raw doesn't do that, it's not cheating but certainly not teaching you anything about photography.

Ok, I'm being a curmudgeon about it. But not really, as I make the point shooting raw has a lot of advantages for the photographer. My point is that while that, it's also a way of being a bad photographer but a good image producer. It's not what I was taught or why I do photogaphy. It's why I'm a photographer, to capture what I see as realistically as I can, and not trust some post-processing to overcome my own stupidity.

JMO - Religion in Politics

Reading all news stories about the presidential primaries, I would like to ask the candidates to park the religion and ask the public and reporters to stop asking about it. We've all seen what a born-again Christian can do to the role and work of the President with George Bush and the damage done in the name of his faith, and I for one, have had enough. But now I read about Romney's mormonism and Huckabee's faith, and I would like them to simply stop. Stop making it an issue.

I'm not arguing against religion or against a President who has a personal faith. I'm arguing it's not a part of a President's role and job representing this country and the people. I listened to Huckabee's statement about wanting to be the President "of" the people, but reading about his values and views, I wonder if he can be or just wants to be the President of the people who agree with him or have his faith.

Can he really be the President of all the people, as he says he wants to do, to unite us when we've heard the same promises in 2000 from then candidate Bush only to find they were false promises - and from a man of faith too? Can Huckabee after saying HIV patients should be isolated, saying homosexuality is immoral, and so on, simply reiterating what he believes his faith tells him than being a human being and telling his faith to take a back seat.

Can Romney really divorce his decisions and actions, if he were elected, from his mormon faith and the Mormon Church? He says he could, but somehow I don't see it as he would simply limit his options and choices to those that fit into his faith and church than look at the whole diversity the people and our country. Does the Mormon Church really think he'll abandon them so simply disguise or reframe it like George Bush has done about his faith throughout his terms?

Can the Democrats really stop stumbling over themselves trying to out-faith the other one so we think they're a good person? A good person doesn't need a religion or faith to be good, it's about what Martin Luther King said, the character of our being. It's about knowing what's good without resorting to some artifice or book of a religion as a guide. That's an excuse not to think and be a good person.

Can we get the candidates to simply say, "I have a personal faith. It helps guide me in some situations, but it's not the main reason or the values I will exercise as President. I will be a President of all the people and find the best for everyone. I will not abide by the values or views of any single faith or religion or be bound by any single church. I will seek the counsel of those from all sides, facets, and aspects on an issue, even those I may not agree with because of my faith. I will accept it as the whole of the human condition and people of this country. That is the role and job of being President."

So, do you think any one will?

JMO - Dear Candidates

Dear Presidential candidates.

So I don't have to listen to the diluge of political rhetoric and stump speeches written to sell yourself to voters - I'm already tired of the campaign and there still another ten months to go - I'll give you my views on the issues. And if you are so generous and like some, or even many, then I'll listen to you sometime in the fall of 2008 if you win your party's nomination. Otherwise, I'll save my ears and you can save your breath. Fair?

So here goes. My views on the issues, in no particular order, just as I think of them.

One, Iraq. I've already written why we should end this war. It's about the soldiers and troops. Nothing more and nothing less. We've exhausted our soldiers in an endless unwinnable war of attritution. If we don't leave in 2-3 years, we'll be there another 2-3 decades. Americans want a plan to resolve Iraq and come home. It's their country and nation, not our territory for oil or global power.

Anything less and you don't get my vote. It's very simple. I'm a veteran and know it's time to bring them home.

Two, Social Security. Leave it alone except to tinker with the income for contributing. It's solvent for 30 years and longer is if you add people and raise the contribution. Do NOT reduce benefits in any form or manner. I will fight you tooth and nail as a citizen and voter of this. Ok?

Three, EPA. Please return this agency to the real purpose and mission, protecting the American environment and people, and not corporations. Stop polluters. Clean up waste site. Enforce current laws with (more) staff and lawsuits. If we don't, we lose.

Four, education. Kill the No Child Left Behind Act and restore local education quality with tearchers, resources, schools, and whatever else it takes. It's about America's future, our children. How hard is that to know and believe in?

Five, people. Support equal rights and protections for all Americans. No discrimination allowed. I don't care about their sexual orientation, gender identity, human expression, or whatever. We're all Americans. That means in marriage, hate crimes, workplace, and so on. It's about all of us.

Six, civil rights. Undo the Patriot Acts and restore civil rights and liberties to Americans. We're not the enemy! Make the FBI and other law enforcement agencies use the tools they had. They failed in 9/11 because of human communication, not techology or laws. They didn't need the Patriot Act then and we don't need it now.

This means prohibiting warrentless searches and wiretaps on American citizens wherever they are without a court order, even it's a FISA court. No massive indiscriminate Internet traffic surveillence programs on American citizens. Give us our privacy in our daily lives.

Seven, torture in Gitmo. What don't you understand about the Geneva Convention we signed? That's all you need to know. Follow it. Shut down Gitmo and give the land back to Cuba. If you have a terrorist, try federal court with real, honest evidence, not false evidence obtained by inhumane torture. Be a world standard for the rights and treatment of prisoners.

This is about America and our global reputation. Restore our global leadership, integrity and ethics.

Eight, immigrants. It's simple, legal is legal and illegal is illegal. What don't you get about that? Solve the problem of the latter without amnesty programs or putting them at the head of the line from their country. This country had and still has a front door into legal immigration. Demand everyone go through it.

And by the way, pay all the states the money you owe them for the cost of the problems they've encountered taking care of the illegal immigrants the federal government is supposed to do or pay for. Write the damn checks.

Nine, abortion. It's simple to me, as I've explained. It the right of a woman and mother to the full range of choices about herself and the life of her fetus/baby. It's her right and our government's to ensure access. It's also a decision made solely by the mother and her doctor. No one else!

Ten, government. Restore the prestige of government workers. I spent 4 years i the Air Force and 27-plus years in the Department of Interior. Government workers are the best. Support them.

Eleven, federal lands. What don't you understand about land in the public interest? It's our land, the people's, so manage it accordingly, not for private profit.

Twelve, China. Can we find an answer to them taking jobs, products, and seemingly everything else we have to not just save but restore American jobs. If all of many of our products come from China, where's the global advantage for us except shipping money and jobs there?

I would like to hear some longterm ideas to deal with them on a global scale for jobs, their environmental problems, their lack of human rights there and countries they trade with (we do too), their government owned corporations disguised as capitalism, and on and on. I want a policy that helps America and Americans.

Thirteen, taxes. What are you allowing corporations to get away with almost no taxes on incomes? Most of government is paid by the lower and middle classes. Can't we get some fairness here?

Fourteen, American workers. It's about fair wages which can suport a family. It's not about cheap illegal immigrant wages taking good jobs. It's about affordable health care. It's about affordable housing. It's about living. You would know that if you weren't so damned rich above it all with all your money and financial supporters. Get real!

Ok, that's it for now. I add or modify my issues as time goes by. If I have to listen to you, you can listen to me. If not, and you only want my vote, then there is a plethora of street slang I could recite along with a lot of text message acronyms. Get the picture? Pay attention to the people, as people, not votes.

STL - Toaster

It's just a toaster, you say. Ok, it's just a toaster. But it's also a 1930's toaster that has never failed in 70 years. It came out of my mother's parents home when they lived in Boise Idaho. My maternal grandfather came to the US from Germany, where his name was Muller, around the beginning of World War I. He wanted to join the US Army and go back to fight the Kaiser. He did and after the war joined the US postal service, eventually becoming the Postmaster General for Boise, Idaho.

When he was there he met a beautiful young socialite from Soda Springs, Idaho. My maternal grandmother who's family name is Shufeldt. Her family moved from Ohio around the time of the Civil War after immigrating to the US in the 1830's. They married and bought a brick home in one of the then better neighborhoods in Boise. My Dad, a young Army officer stationed at Mountain Home Air Base, met their daughter, my Mom, who also was a young socialite.

And the rest of the story is obvious. When they closed my grandparents home so my grandmother could move in with us, most of her household goods were either sold or stored. Somehow this toaster made it through the hussle and bussle of belongings gone everywhere. It sat in a box until I married and we needed a toaster. And so we got this one, and I've never had another one.

I like this toaster for its simplicity. It toasts one slice of bread at a time, sorry no bagels, but it will do frozen waffles, and it has only one control, lighter-to-darker, but once set, I've never changed in decades. If it doesn't toast the first time, you simply push it down a second time and watch. And listen to the tick of the timer.

How hard is that? With all the fancy multi-slice toasters and toaster-ovens in the world today, this toaster does one thing very well, toast bread. It has a bottom panel you unscrew to get the crumbs out. And it still has the original cloth cord and plug. Not bad for a seventy year old toaster. And I'll keep it shiny for a long time too, occasionally spotted with butter and fingerprints.

Happy New Year

Photo public domain by NPS

Nothing like a good photo of a beautiful place to start the year to clear the mind of the matters of the past year and see the new year in a refreashed way so everything is a possibility. At least for a moment, if not a day or even longer? We can always hope, and if we plan right and work hard, we just might get there, and at least we'll get somewhere along the road. And we should never forget it's not the destination that matters, but the journey itself and the people we share our life with along the way.

And so I wish you a happy and properous year to come for you and your family and friends.

You can get the image of this scene at Paradise in Mt. Rainier National Park from the NPS Webcam, where you can also get the recent weather, including the snow depth (in the photo at 9+ feet, normal for New Year's Day 2008.