Hi... Some general queries...

[gurvinder77]

Hi Everyone...

It is a nice community to interact, and to learn ways to improve; subtle changes that make big differences...

I have quite a few queries/suggestions that I wish to post here, and look forward to have everyone's take on them:

1. Even if we shoot RAW, should we rely too much on PP? Can we not frame the shot in such a way, and with such ambient conditions, that PP is reduced to minimal; so that shooting in RAW is just a way to store Digital Negative and we produce JPEG from it with minimal PP? So far as film photography was concerned, it is said that film had lot of latitude for exposures, and it compensated for lot of mistakes, so PP was not so intensive; but digital sensors do not have latitude. Is it mandatory to have too much PP, rather than having a great shot in the first place???

2. Because of my profession, I carry a Point-and-shoot with me all the time (very simple Sony DSC W 180); and I have captured some images with it just because it was there with me at the moment; and my DSLR was resting at home. Would it be appropriate if Point-and-shoot images are posted here just for comments about composition???

3. If I like the photos of other colleagues, what is the status of their copyright??? I have hardly posted the photos that I have clicked on any other site for one simple reason: I have a sense of OWNERSHIP. I would not like anyone else to have MY photos. It would be possible to 'save' images of other colleagues onto my PC/Mac, but it would be trespassing their rights. Everyone would have different take on it; but I wish to make one suggestion: Why doesn't each of us put his/her 'copyright' info on his/her photo posted online, so that even if others wish to download it for display purpose; the due credit to original 'author' would remain.

Looking forwards to comments....

Regards...

Best wishes...

Gurvinder... :-)

[Shadowman]

Hello Gurvinder,

1. You don't have to rely on PP, but it helps especially when you very little control over your shooting environment. For instance, if you are at a museum and are not allowed to use a tripod, then certain subjects will require handholding, a stationary object will not be a problem but if you want to include people in the image then you are at the mercy of the controls of the camera and may not get as stable of an image as you would like.

2. There is a section for posting point and shoot and bridge photos, but you are free to post any photo you deem worthy of critique.

3. See this website on copyright issues: www.danheller.com. Even if you post or imbed a copyright marker that would not prevent someone from using your image. Most people limit the size of images posted on the web and if the image is truly worth protecting then don't post it at all.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Gurvinder,

Even if we shoot RAW, should we rely too much on PP? Can we not frame the shot in such a way, and with such ambient conditions, that PP is reduced to minimal; so that shooting in RAW is just a way to store Digital Negative and we produce JPEG from it with minimal PP? So far as film photography was concerned, it is said that film had lot of latitude for exposures, and it compensated for lot of mistakes, so PP was not so intensive; but digital sensors do not have latitude. Is it mandatory to have too much PP, rather than having a great shot in the first place???

Getting things right "in camera" is something that most professional photographers strive for (myself included) - however - it really depends on the shot & on the circumstances. If you've booked a portrait session - and on the day the model turns up with a pimple on her chin - do you reschedule the shoot, or simply fix the pimple in PP? In reality, you just fix it in PP. Same goes for many other circumstances where it's just not PRACTICAL to achieve something in-camera. Additionally, the camera doesn't work the same way that a human eye does, and inevitably, adjustments need to be made. So in "real world" professional shoots, getting it right in-camera saves a lot of post-production editing - but after that, we have to rely on PP.

Because of my profession, I carry a Point-and-shoot with me all the time (very simple Sony DSC W 180); and I have captured some images with it just because it was there with me at the moment; and my DSLR was resting at home. Would it be appropriate if Point-and-shoot images are posted here just for comments about composition???

Yes, that's fine.

If I like the photos of other colleagues, what is the status of their copyright??? I have hardly posted the photos that I have clicked on any other site for one simple reason: I have a sense of OWNERSHIP. I would not like anyone else to have MY photos. It would be possible to 'save' images of other colleagues onto my PC/Mac, but it would be trespassing their rights. Everyone would have different take on it; but I wish to make one suggestion: Why doesn't each of us put his/her 'copyright' info on his/her photo posted online, so that even if others wish to download it for display purpose; the due credit to original 'author' would remain.

Being respectful of others copyright is a good thing in my opinion. In most cases, it's fine to use others work for educational purposes; my suggestion would be to credit the original artist whenever possible, and ensure it's not used for commercial purposes. Personally, I can't stand photos with watermarks / copyright info imprinted on the image itself -- I can't think of a faster way to draw the viewers eye away from the intended flow through the photo. I find it so distracting that I usually don't give images like that even a 2nd look.

[Colin Southern]

There is a section for posting point and shoot and bridge photos

We did away with this a few months ago -- these days all photos are treated equally.

[jiro]

1. Even if we shoot RAW, should we rely too much on PP? Can we not frame the shot in such a way, and with such ambient conditions, that PP is reduced to minimal; so that shooting in RAW is just a way to store Digital Negative and we produce JPEG from it with minimal PP? So far as film photography was concerned, it is said that film had lot of latitude for exposures, and it compensated for lot of mistakes, so PP was not so intensive; but digital sensors do not have latitude. Is it mandatory to have too much PP, rather than having a great shot in the first place???

Shooting in RAW is like having a master plate of your shot. You can edit it over and over again without destroying the original data stored. After you have done your edit you can save it in different format depending on your intended purpose. If you want to share it to the Web, save it as Jpeg, for printing, you can save it as TIFF, PSD, or others. RAW is basically like a Film Negative, you are right on that. Now, if your shot is really that good both in framing, composition, and exposure and you have no intent to "enhance" it anymore, all you have to do is to simply convert it to the format you need using a software of your choice. You will eventually still need to apply some decent editing to an image. Basic editing workflow involves white balance correction, cropping to position the main element in the major focal points, leveling, color enhancement, contrast adjustment, and sharpening. If you don't need these things to make your shot stronger then that too, is also a personal choice.

2. Because of my profession, I carry a Point-and-shoot with me all the time (very simple Sony DSC W 180); and I have captured some images with it just because it was there with me at the moment; and my DSLR was resting at home. Would it be appropriate if Point-and-shoot images are posted here just for comments about composition???

Yes, you can.

3. If I like the photos of other colleagues, what is the status of their copyright??? I have hardly posted the photos that I have clicked on any other site for one simple reason: I have a sense of OWNERSHIP. I would not like anyone else to have MY photos. It would be possible to 'save' images of other colleagues onto my PC/Mac, but it would be trespassing their rights. Everyone would have different take on it; but I wish to make one suggestion: Why doesn't each of us put his/her 'copyright' info on his/her photo posted online, so that even if others wish to download it for display purpose; the due credit to original 'author' would remain.

Looking forwards to comments....

Smart photographers add some METADATA information on their images. There are some available softwares that can actually do this for you. You can supply your copyright information, the location, the title of the shot, a small description about the shot (if you really want to be comprehensive about it), and in some cases even the Geo-location of the shot. Now, if anyone wants to copy and use your image, they better prove to anyone how did they take the shot and where did it happen.

If you go to some websites like www.dpreview.com they share images with some guidelines. Should you use the imageson their website, it should only be used or stored on your computer for study or learning purposes and not to be edited. If you did use these free images from their site to add on your work (like using it as a good background for a lousy shot) then you have violated the common terms agreement that was assigned to the images.

There are some photographers who like to use big obvious watermarks right in the middle of their images to protect them. That's OK. However, as what others have said before it does not give the viewers a lot of leverage in assessing the image due to the obtrusive watermark! So, what others do (me, including) is that we add a border like frame around the image and then we add the title and our copyright signature on the border and not on the image itself, a clean way to show your ownership of the image. Even if you save these images on your computer, if the corresponding EXIF data is attached to the image during conversion then all the important copyright details are still there.

Hope this helps, Gurvinder

[gurvinder77]

Dear Collin, Jiro and Shadowman,

Thank you very much for your time, and for very succinct, and precise replies...

Colin, and Jiro, with your explanation about RAW, I am much enlightened, and have taken special note of Jiro's recommendation of basic work-flow.

I endorse your viewpoint that it is more about one's own conscience to acknowledge someone else's work and offer due credit to original artist. But it is a vast world, and one can control only one person with certainty: One's own Self!

I am really grateful to you for your input...

Thanks a lot,

Best wishes,

Truly,

Gurvinder... :-)