Hey everyone! I've been kind of gone for awhile. It's not that I have quit photography or anything, but I had fallen too deeply into doing HDR photos, and kind of put off regular photography. I've been realizing that I am using HDR too much to compensate for getting the proper exposure, and I've forced myself to start shooting in RAW mode.

Now, RAW used to not be as good as it is now- my old *ist D captured about the same detail in highlights and shadows in RAW as it did in JPG. When I upgraded in 2009 to a Pentax K20D, I stuck with JPG, but started using the bracketing feature heavily, and began relying on HDR, which has some really cool effects no doubt, but I'm starting to realize it made me lose touch with photography in a certain sense.
So I switched to RAW mode. I hadn't really played with RAW enough on the K20D to realize just how much better the new sensor was at capturing detail in highlights and shadows until recently. I'm starting to fall back in love with photography, all because I switched over to RAW. It's almost like I got a new camera!

After deciding to switch back over to RAW, I decided it was time to go hiking up in a valley that usually is filled with iris. This year the Iris weren't in bloom like they normally are, but one year I'll catch them. I had a lot of fun shooting in RAW, and by now you're probably thinking "where are these photos?" Well here are the results!













And the hike back down to the desert below:

pretty place for a walk, for sure, though frankly, none of these images particularly work for me. there's no strong subject to hold my interest, and while i suppose shooting these in RAW was a "rediscovery" of sorts for you, the photos themselves could just as easily have been captured in JPEG. just my 2 cents...

I could see why you would say that. Upon that comment though, I'd recommend visiting the east side of the sierras and shooting in JPG. You WILL have blown out highlights and dark shadows, regardless of how good of a photographer you are, it's just too bright here. The dirt usually looks grey/white in most JPG photos. The sky will end up being blown out in most JPG photos if you expose properly for the ground. It's inevetible. For me these are a vast improvement vs shooting 5 shots in JPG and combining them in photomatix. At 7000ft, there's not much atmopshere, the light is much harsher. Living in oregon for nearly a year, I couldn't get a bad exposure, returning to the nevadan desert, it's a bit different.

Maverick, I have no complaints with your set, but I have to agree with Rocky, You have shown attractive land, but it did not all come together as breath taking, It does need that strong subject.

Just want to agree with the OP about RAW...to the chagrin of my colleagues, I shoot RAW and only RAW, disk space is cheap these days and I batch convert the images i don't care to tinker with but those 1% images, that I truly love (if that) having all of the data in RAW to tweak is priceless....

I have to agree with the image set. They are beautiful images but it's a tough scene to make interesting in photography...also noted there were a few opportunities to use the rule of thirds....

Thanks for sharing.

Doug

Originally Posted by DRT-Maverick I could see why you would say that. Upon that comment though, I'd recommend visiting the east side of the sierras and shooting in JPG. You WILL have blown out highlights and dark shadows, regardless of how good of a photographer you are, it's just too bright here. The dirt usually looks grey/white in most JPG photos. The sky will end up being blown out in most JPG photos if you expose properly for the ground. It's inevetible. For me these are a vast improvement vs shooting 5 shots in JPG and combining them in photomatix. At 7000ft, there's not much atmopshere, the light is much harsher. Living in oregon for nearly a year, I couldn't get a bad exposure, returning to the nevadan desert, it's a bit different.

i've shot at high elevations on sunny days many times. it does present challenges, but the sun's no brighter in Colorado than it is in the mountains of Washington. remember, RAW does not change or compensate for brightness or exposure - it only gives you more flexibility in editing after the fact. if you're getting blown-out highlights, it's not because the light's harsher in Colorado than in the mountains anywhere else. i took a bazillion photos at Bryce Canyon - the "rim" of the canyon is between 8,000 and 9,000 feet - and i never had a problem with blown skies even on bright, sunny days. it's not about what format you shoot in, it's about getting the exposure right in-camera. if you do that, it won't matter much whether you shoot RAW or JPEG.

Nice snaps, Maverick. I enjoyed viewing them and they work well for chronicling your travels. I agree with the others that there's room to improve composition and exposure. I'm certain the extended range of shooting raw worked in your favor, but it has its limits too. The best answer is to shoot during the golden hours. Shooting this kind of terrain in the bright sun rarely yields winning shots. Still, I do it all the time myself for probably the same reason you grabbed these. They still show the beauty of the land and where we've been.

Yeah it does lack a subject. Though I was mainly taking the photos to check out the color compensation and how it handles highlights. I do have to mention it really depends on the camera's firmware and how it handles JPGs as far as color though. At least with this camera, you can take photos in RAW+JPG, and you'll notice even without any tweaking a great deal of lost detail, especially in highlights, with JPG that for some reason are just registered as white instead of a color. the highlights just kind of go white.

Remember, any reduction from the RAW data to a lower format such as JPG means that the camera has to process the data, and whatever algorithm or 'enhancements' the camera applies to the JPGs really varies. Compared to the JPG format on my friend's old D70, even my new pentax doesn't produce as good of JPGs.