I had intended to go to FedEx, pick up my new computer, come back home, move all of my stuff around and then relax; however, the boys and girls at FedEx didn’t have my package yet because the driver was late getting back to the depot. So, since there were some beautiful clouds around, I decided to take my D40 and do some shooting.
There’s a place near my home called University Place Boardwalk. Why I hardly ever go there is beyond me, but I felt like going there today and I’m so happy that I did. I spent about 2 hours there taking pictures of everything. The clouds were beautiful, the water placid, the people friendly, the birds plentiful, and all was right with the world. I met another photographer there who was trying out his new Canon Rebel XT and we chatted for a bit while taking pictures.
I think that for the rest of the week, I’ll be displaying these pictures. I had so many that I was pleased with of the 100+ that I took. I hardly know where to start. So, I guess that I’ll start at the beginning.
I’m really happy that things turned out the way that they did or I would have surely missed this fantastic opportunity. I plan to have dinner with the wife-a-roni on Friday. There are a number of restaurants around the water’s edge.
Related Posts :
Yesterday, after I arrived home, I spent a couple of hours looking at the various pictures tha ...
Fall comes to the lower elevations Sunday was the first day of so-called, Standard Time. W ...
You know the saying: While the cat's away, the mice will play! Well, the cat is away this wee ...
Wow, what a gorgeous location!! You did have a perfect weathere day, too. I’ll enjoy admiring these photos over the next couple of days.
This place looks so beautiful….
Absolutely gorgeous….you’re lucky to live near such a beautiful place!
Hi Paul,
When I was dating my wife she lived just off Harris Blvd and we use to walk around the lake at University Place and often dined in the area. I remember they also had open air concerts there in the summer. I wonder if they still do? It’s been a long while since I’ve been there and your photo’s brought back fond memories and a big smile. Thanks for sharing.
Looking forward to seeing more.
Good thing you were shooting jpegs, otherwise you’d be chained to your new computer adjusting your “snaps.”
Micki: Yep, it was a perfect day, IMHO.
Earl: What a small world! It is a lovely place. I don’t go there often, but plan to visit more frequently. I don’t know about the concerts, but it would seem to be a perfect venue. I’ll have to check into that!
John: A man after my own heart! Yep, none of that constant tweaking with pictures! JPG, the simple choice for me!
Paul, I think shooting RAW is actually much better. Especially in AdobeRGB. You capture more color and with your camera, the RAW files are 16 bit. But Im sure you know all of this. I’m just a little curious why you like JPEG.
Those places look really peaceful.
I would bump down the contrast on those roofs and buildings. Other than that, I like.
Reza: Many have tried, but I ain’t budging on the RAW vs. JPG thing! It works for me, however, should you want to read my reasons, here they are: http://www.paullesterphoto.com/wordpress/?p=258
I have to agree with you on your thoughts there Paul. However, I think the reason that you don’t use RAW is because you don’t photoshop the hell out of your photos. Which is a good thing, mind you.
Lots of times (not anymore, my trial version ran out), I edit the photo to hell and back, and I notice that the more you edit a JPEG, the worse it looks.
But for what you do, I can understand why you don’t like RAW. Come to think of it, I don’t really need it either, but I’m a freak and I like to have as much control over something as possible. Recently, I too have sort of questioned using RAW, seeing how a legit copy of photoshop is 15 minutes away (thats 14.99 minutes too far, especially with these gas prices), at the campus.
I wish they find a way to make RAW file sizes smaller. My file sizes end up 32 mb in the end. Sometimes in the 40′s when I convert RAW to TIFF (my fav. format).
So, in short, I see what you mean.
2nd posting today for me Paul! Jumping into the RAW/JPEG debate some more (hopefully I won’t pi– anyone off too much!).
My wife works for an ad agency as an account manager, and is constantly going on photo shoots (in fact she’s in Detroit today for a shoot involving NorthWest Airlines and Habitat for Humanity) working hand-in-hand with the client and the photographer. She brings home CDs of the photos and I’m amazed at how much these working pros use only Jpeg format. Time is money to them and the client; they can’t afford to take thousands of RAW images back to their studios to tweak and convert them, they need to get them into the client’s hands as soon as possible. Often times the camera is tethered to a laptop so my wife and the client can see exactly what’s happening the moment it happens. Same goes for sports photographers and photojournalists who are producing work that needs to be shipped “yesterday.”
I sometimes think RAW was created for mass consumer photographers (or perhaps for those of us who think they are fine art photographers) so they could sit at their (our) computers, loaded with the newest and most expensive image tweaking software, and fiddle with their images till the cows come home. The guys who are using their cameras on a daily basis to put food on the table and pay the bills are shooting JPEG.
All right, time to get off the soap box!
Very vivid colors. And it looks like a cool afternoon.
Beautiful colors & reflections there, Paul. (Just a thought…is that a restaurant in the background? I’d check into whether they plan to update menus, brochures, or ads anytime soon. This would make a superb photo for any of those.)
As for RAW vs. JPEG…I save mine in uncompressed TIFFs on CD. When I first switched to a 5D, I thought I’d use RAW exclusively, but as some have pointed out, they’re huge files, time-consuming, and I really don’t see the need. A decent camera produces such good JPEGS, it’s almost redundant to work in RAW. I know some, though, who swear by RAW format, so each of us has to find a system that works for us. The time constraint is pretty high on my list.
Beautiful shots paul … the lights are splendid … looks like a fantastic day beautifully captured ….
Tena koe ehoa
This place looks like an adorable place to walk hand in hand with the one you love. Wonderful light and fantastic details!
In adding some of my own rubbish, John raises an interseting fact which I think not many photographers (or some are not aware of).
RAW is a quality option for shooting if you like the opportunity to render your images in post production workflow. Those that have the time and the prupose will choose RAW an image image qaulity option.
Many photographic businesses don’t actually shoot in RAW for workflow reasons concerning time and costs in post production, deadlines and storage of files sizes. In most cases unless required to by a client most shoot in Jpeg formats.
That’s a gorgeous place. I would go back often.
Well, the camera is a tool, and as long as JPEGs get the job done, that’s just fine. And Paul, your pictures are just plain beautiful, so why change a winning strategy?
However, for me, JPEGs simply don’t do it. I’m certainly not over-processing my pictures, usually it’s just a bit of curves, dodging and burning, etc. But RAW sometimes gives you SO much more “feeling” in the pictures, it’s really incredible. More often than not, I’m really dissapointed when I compare the original RAW (in Adobe RGB) with the JPEG output (sRGB)for the web. Of course, it really depends on the type of picture. Landscapes seem to be especially vulnerable.
As Paul rightfully said in his previous post: that RAW is not standardised is a HUGE drawback. In my mind the only “real” one. Backup isn’t that problematic, todays hard drives are big and cheap enough. Major advantages are the much bigger tonality and the ability to adjust the white balance afterwards.
I actually don’t find it that surprising, that the small computer-on-a-chip that automatically bakes the JPEG in the camera falls short in comparison to the human-steered post-processing on a xGHz machine.
Oh well, I think everybody to his or her own melodie, huh? Anyway, Ken Rockwell (the guy that Paul is referring to in his previous post) has been (rightfully so!) labelled the “Chuck Norris of photography”. Most of his so-called essays are a real pain in your lower back. A more balanced view (in my mind) is given by e.g. Michael Reichmann at .
Thomas