North Shore Images (many pics)

[Dbl]

Just a few from my trip up the North Shore over the last few days. Hard to pick just a few out of the 500 or so shot. Just a variety of different shots, I'm sure I had 200 waterfall shots alone! Shot with Canon 20D with a 100-400L/4.5 - 5.6 and a Tamron SP 24 -135/3.5 - 5.6. I may change a few of these as I get more of a chance to look at what I have.

The ever popular Gooseberry Falls.

Near the summit of Carlton Peak.

Grand Marais harbor rocks.

Pink Lady's Slipper

Birch Forest.

Lake Superior sailing

Two Harbors Lighthouse, would have been a great shot if I could have gotten inside the fence for free. Still liked the shot with the flag and red lighthouse against the sky.

Thanks for looking.

[floating minnow]

Those are some great shots.I really like the sail boat image.

[Tom Wilson]

Me too! I think the sailboat image is great.

[Dbl]

Couple more sailboats.

Off Artists Point in Grand Marais.

Must be a race.

[Dan Thiem]

Incredible images! I really like that area of our state. You just brought me back there. Thank You!

[Jill]

Cool pictures! I think my favorite is the Grand Marais harbor rocks picture - I love all of the vibrant colors. Thanks for sharing.

[thewalleyeguy]

I live in the area so I see this quite often but I have never seen areas this nice . The sailboat pic is awesome. Great Job.

[Steve Foss]

The birches and the images of sailboats alone (and the one pair) on the expanse of Lake Superior are exquisite.

I sincerely hope you shot RAW. Those sailboat images I mentioned in particular are completely marketable.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

The birches and the images of sailboats alone (and the one pair) on the expanse of Lake Superior are exquisite.

I sincerely hope you shot RAW. Those sailboat images I mentioned in particular are completely marketable.

---

This was play with camera time, learn what is capable of. So.....shot in Medium fine JPEG. I was more interested in metering, focus, etc. I know what it will do in RAW. You know I much prefer RAW, and after seeing what it will do JPEG out of the camera (Very happy) my outdoor shooting will again be RAW except for sports which I will continue to shoot in JPEG (Shear volume alone will kill you, can you say another few hard drives). Thanks to all for the compliments, they are appreciated.

[jonny_redhorse]

superb photos! Dbl!.......the photo of the rocks and clear water is great ........and......i really like the pink lady slippers.........jonny

[Swimmer]

The rocks ROCK. I love the colors of the lichen up there, and the diagonal transition into the mono-colored lake rocks.

[Redstormy]

These are excellent shots, we vacation there once

a year as well. We stay at Hollow Rock Resort, but I like

to go in early Oct. No bugs.. I love that light house

you got a better shot than I did. I went inside the fence

but couldn't get far enough away to get the whole building.

I didn't have a great camera either.

[polarsusd81]

Steve, can you explain a little why RAW format images are more marketable than those shot in JPEG format? I have never quite understood this. I shoot JPEG all the time and the images seem to be fine. I have printed as large as 12x18 with no noticeable pixelization shooting with a Digital Rebel.

Thanks,

Tom

[Steve Foss]

Tom:

More marketable? Well, there's a bit of give and take here.

There are two key differences. RAW allows you to preview the image in post processing and make changes to exposure, contrast, color saturation, white balance and a whole host of factors (including correction for some lens problems like chromatic aberration) before actually opening the image, which can help correct things done wrong by the shooter as well as deficiencies in the equipment. Jpeg doesn't allow that. It's not a golden parachute or anything, but it can take a good image and make it better, and can take a sub-par image and make it OK, as long as the composition and sharpness are OK. So it can make an image more "marketable" by "saving" it. This factor has been overrated, however, and, as I said, it can't turn dump into gold.

RAW also allows you to ultimately make larger and better quality enlargements, because each pixel retains its color value, which is not true of jpeg. Jpeg gets to be jpeg, a compressive format, by looking for adjacent pixels of close color and lumping them all into one color value. Thus allowing all those pixels to be considered one pixel (shrinking total file size), and then when you open the file, it adds the original pixels back in, but they retain the single color value given for compression purposes. That's why jpeg is considered a lossy format and RAW is not.

So a RAW enlargement will retain that fine color subtlety to a larger size.

I have a shot of a captive wolf, a full-frame portrait shot at iso800 in large jpeg mode from the 10D with the same sensor as the 6.3 Mp Rebel. I've bumped it up to 13x19 using a combination of photoshop interpolation and lowering resolution to 240ppi. It looks beautiful. I can't go much larger, however, before it starts to fall apart.

I've taken RAW images shot with the same camera and made prints that look even better than that 13x19 wolf up to 24x36. With the 20D, I can go even larger. And there's a program called Genuine Fractals that can produce a fine print up to 800 percent the size of the original image out of the camera (yes, 8 times larger, no kidding.) I've seen prints enlarged using this program, which only costs $150, cheap for pro purposes, and downloads and is used as a plug-in in photoshop. Those prints are gorgeous.

Now, these techniques work with both RAW and jpeg, it's just that RAW gives you so much more to work with than jpeg.

As to which may be more marketable, that depends on the market. Sometimes it matters not at all. If I shot just for newspapers on deadline, I'd shoot little but jpeg. And there are magazine shooters who shoot jpeg, especially when they may have to shoot 600 images during the course of an assignment. Since any shot I take may someday need to be a fine enlargement big enough for half a wall, I shoot RAW.

[buzzsaw]

Great explanation Steve, if you'd like even more detail go to this site and you'll get everything you ever wanted to know and more. I've found it very useful.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm

Whether RAW or JPEG or any other format, the closer your camera settings are to the proper exposure for that picture, the better off you are, and this includes RAW.

When I need to do no additional work in post processing, my cup runneth over. The advantage of RAW is some additional flexibility in correcting for that lack of perfect exposure.

If you are processing RAW images, you should calibrate your monitor, at least for your own personal printer, and for the WEB. If your not making money at this, then the calibrating tools available in your computers own built in software should be sufficient.

What is nice about my D200 is I can shoot a raw and a fine jpg at the same exact time. It is a great feature of this camera. I can process the jpg's and still be able to save the untouched RAW file and if I need it I will have it. I hardly ever need to go to the RAW file anyway but it is good to have saved for any future use. Something to consider when buying new equipment thats for sure.

[Steve Foss]

Thanks Buzz. Shooting RAW plus large jpeg can be a fine option, though it fills any camera's buffer faster than all the other options. I shot RAW plus large jpeg on my 20D for awhile, but then changed to RAW plus small jpeg, and simply download the images from the memory card, don't bother with any camera browser, and click to view the small jpegs, discarding the RAW/jpeg combos I don't like and naming the others before processing RAW in photoshop.

[buzzsaw]

It's funny what we go through to get good pictures ie... finding the right location in the woods or near a lake or river, setting up photo blinds and dressing up a photo area, taking road trips to these locations... then we have to learn about our camera's strengths and weaknesses or our own for that matter and what settings we should be using at any given moment (metering & exposure) and how to switch to that setting in the blink of an eye or lose your photo opportunity... then we have post processing time with cropping, USM, saturation, curves etc... then trying to figure out the best way to re-size pics for the web so you don't get moire and or posterization in our images. (shooting 16 bit raw can help with posterization). Anyways, it's a constant learning curve and I for one feel as though I've learned alot in the last seven months and expect alot of others who take photography as a serious hobby or are ambitious about supplimenting their income have learned alot from others here as well.

[PierBridge]

Great info guys thanks..