FIMBY - Gardening - Comments

Kirsten, Thanks. I blogged

renee — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:15:11 -0500

Kirsten, Thanks. I blogged about my new camera (circa summer 08) here.

oh those are so beautful!

Kirsten — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:29 -0500

oh those are so beautful! And I never would have guessed SOOC! What new camera do you have??? Wonderful shots!

I love plant photos too.

Julie R — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:45:41 -0500

I love plant photos too. These are lovely.

Love the lambs

Mandy — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:40:34 -0500

Love the lambs ear...beautiful. I'm surprised at whats blooming in my right now, as well.

The shot of the back lit

Fern @ Life on the Balcony — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:37:54 -0500

The shot of the back lit lamb's ear is beautiful!

Beautiful! Lambs ear is a

Andie — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:50:05 -0500

Beautiful! Lambs ear is a favorite.

I just love lambs ears and

Trina — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:15:19 -0500

I just love lambs ears and I'm lovin those little droplets on the foxglove! Great pics!

Trina

It's so much easier that

Wayfaring Wanderer — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:50:02 -0500

It's so much easier that way! Great shots.

These are beautiful! (I

Julie — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:32:35 -0500

These are beautiful! (I tried to comment before, not sure if it went through and is awaiting moderation or what...)

Have a nice weekend!
Julie

Wow! Gorgeous photos...I

Sandi @ Life with Jessica — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:22:07 -0500

Wow! Gorgeous photos...I especially love the foxglove.

Beautiful photo and I love

Julie — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 21:09:36 -0500

Beautiful photo and I love your site!!

I'm with Barbara. I've

Kimberly — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:37:54 -0500

I'm with Barbara. I've never heard the term "short speak" and I love it!

Lovely photos. The Lamb's Ear in particular. Was ever a plant more aptly named? :)

Hi Renee, In my book, as

laura - dolcepics — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:30:24 -0500

Hi Renee,

In my book, as long as you're not tweaking curves or adjusting anything it's SOOC. We can't upload RAW files directly so we have to export as JPG, which doesn't count as 'processing' in the editing sense. What I was talking about is when we shoot JPG in-camera, the camera actually does a bit of processing.

This is a good article to read about RAW and JPG in-camera:
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2196/jpeg-vs-raw-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-explained.html

So those who shoot JPG, will have images that should be a bit more contrasty compared to our RAW files. But, for these purposes, I'd say those who shoot JPG still have SOOC images since that's what it looks like when it comes out of the camera.

That's why I suggest that you might want to shoot RAW+JPG where you will record both formats. They're both still "straight-out-of-camera" but the JPG should look a bit better.

I hope that makes sense... I'm battling a bad cold right now so I might babble a bit. hehe

Great shots, I love the

Danette — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 18:19:48 -0500

Great shots, I love the foxglove!

huh?? I'm slow on the

renee — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:26:12 -0500

huh?? I'm slow on the uptake. I guess my photo software Bibble does process the photos. By SOOC I mean I'm not tweaking curves, boosting, saturating or otherwise. Whatever Bibble does I just use that. All I know (which isn't much) is that my RAW photos are "richer" than JPG. They look better so that's what I shoot in.

--
Renee