fog photography - standards?

[dirk septer]

http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/removed/big/4/8/1/3346184.jpg

I disagree that this photo had ro be deleted as hazy/out of focus:

look at how sharp the foreground is;

though maybe somewhat shrouded in morning fog, vessel can certainly be recognized.

[Jens Boldt]

The foreground is sharp... but the tug and the barge are in the background which is, to be frank, a mud of pixels.

The name of the barge is not discernable.

Site standards for all photos point 2 (Sharpness)
(...)  In a sharp image, names (my emphasis), windows, cranes and other ship details will be clear (...)

[pieter melissen]

My photos are generally well over 20 MB, Dirk, which allows me to work on them to get acceptable results even under difficult circumstances. The only set back is that this site does not accept RAW format.

[davidships]

@Dirk - I have sent you a PM

@all - by all means continue discussion on the technical questions about images/cameras, but no more about specific deletions, please.

[Tuomas Romu]

While the photograph itself is very nice, I fully agree that the technical quality is not up to the standards due to overcompression.

The only set back is that this site does not accept RAW format.

I have always thought RAW is more like a digital negative whereas JPG is the "developed" photograph.

[pieter melissen]

I have always thought RAW is more like a digital negative whereas JPG is the "developed" photograph.
[/quote]

That is correct, but RAW contains much more information than shooting directly in jpg. That info can used to improve the jpg that results from the raw conversion.

[Tuomas Romu]

That is correct, but RAW contains much more information than shooting directly in jpg. That info can used to improve the jpg that results from the raw conversion.

Absolutely. Every photographer's workflow should be "shoot RAW, process, publish JPEG". Thus, there is no need for the website to accept RAWs.

[pieter melissen]

Tuomas, I actually only mentioned the RAW size as a reply to the statement that Dirk knows nobody who shoots at more than 10 MB. Sometimes I get jpeg sizes of about 10MB, when I use the Canon 1Dx, but I prefer the 1D Mark IV as my lense 28-300 does not vignetting problems there because of the 1.3 crop factor.

[Tuomas Romu]

Tuomas, I actually only mentioned the RAW size as a reply to the statement that Dirk knows nobody who shoots at more than 10 MB. Sometimes I get jpeg sizes of about 10MB, when I use the Canon 1Dx, but I prefer the 1D Mark IV as my lense 28-300 does not vignetting problems there because of the 1.3 crop factor.

Thank you for explaining.

I usually shoot "RAW+JPEG fine" with my Nikon D600. The JPEGs tend to be about 12-14 MB if there are a lot of details in the pictures.

[pieter melissen]

So now Dirk knows of two people who shoot over 10 mb...

[bendt nielsen]

I am convinced that most dedicated amateur photographers record with a minimum of 10 mb and I would think this applies to the majority of those who post on Shipspotting incl. myself.

3-4 mb was something you used 10-12 years ago so I guess most have got a new camera since.

I have tried to scale Dirk's image of Celebrity Millennium down to 1200x900 px and given the unsharp mask it gave a clearly improved result try it yourself. And I see no reason to post in full size.

[pieter melissen]

I have tried to scale Dirk's image of Celebrity Millennium down to 1200x900 px and given the unsharp mask it gave a clearly improved result try it yourself. And I see no reason to post in full size.

I did the same,(see Dirk's other tread). and it seems we can conclude that there is most likely nothing wrong with Dirk's photo's but that his processing methods can ruin the shots.