Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 101 to 133 of 133

Thread: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

  1. #101
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Player View Post
    The point about HCB is that you don't develop an eye like that through study and tutelage alone. The man was supremely gifted and most likely would have developed a similar eye had he been left alone to his own devices.

    There are millions of photography students, and millions of photographers studying and being influenced with the goal of improving their eye, but alas, only one HCB.
    Yes like I said you have to have a good eye to start but you can develop that eye. i have seen it on several workshop folks already after 2 workshops how much there eye has improved. Hell i will even pick on one . Terry for instance has really made major improvements to her shooting and composition and such. Hope she still loves me now. LOL But seriously her work has been on a major upswing in what she has been shooting. Jack and I both agree on this and have talked about it several times. No question you can get better but having a good eye to start really cuts the learning curve down a lot. I also said some will never have it and i have seen that on the web also. But honestly not here, we have some damn good shooters here.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  2. #102
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by LJL View Post
    Jono,
    While I would agree with you that this is pretty much true for most folks, it does not always work for folks that have to go back to shots and reprint them or something like that. In that case, having saved all the various tweaks and adjustments in something like a multi-layered PSD file is important. Further, presently, I do one kind of sharpening for display in Web galleries and stuff, but apply a different kind of sharpening for making prints....and even that is media dependent (canvas, luster, glossy, etc.)

    So, keeping just the RAW, even with the preliminary adjustments, is important and can be done in Aperture or Lightroom. But a final version that may have to be reprinted several times and maybe at later dates, does better being stored separately as a 16-bit PSD file with all the various layers and stuff. That is the one place where Aperture (and Lightroom) fall down....they are unable to handle layers of instruction sets that can be tweaked separately, as is done in PS. I hope they find a way to manage that without having to essentially save two, three, six, or however many "versions" of adjustments that are TIFF or PSD files themselves, but without layer access.

    I have several clients that have come to me a few years after buying prints and wanting more of those exact prints. If I had not saved the PSD files at the time, I would be struggling to figure out just what I did with adjustments, cloning, etc., to get the final file. If one does not shoot and process things like this, then you are correct, just save the RAW file and whatever adjustment instruction sets that need to go with it.

    LJ
    Hi There
    I don't use Lightroom, but Aperture CERTAINLY DOES SUPPORT THIS. Simply set PSD as your default in photoshop, edit in external editor, the PSD file shows in aperture, and can simply be reloaded in photoshop.

    I may be completely wrong, but I get the distinct impression that many haven't really examined the functionality in these programs - if you're still using multiple file exports then I really think that's the case.

    Of course, maybe I'm just being stupid?

    Just this guy you know

  3. #103
    Player
    Guest

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Guy, I know a good eye can be taught, no argument from me whatsoever, but wouldn't you concede that a genius eye (if you believe such a thing exists) is one of those "either you have it or you don't situations"? I know if a beginning photographer, for example, just followed some basic shooting rules or tips their photography could improve dramatically. Even the most basic guidelines like fill-the-frame and the rule-of-thirds could improve a lot of folk's photography, but the geniuses are doing something different. Do you agree with this on any level? Thanks.

  4. #104
    Player
    Guest

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Guy, there's a b&w photo, the first one in Jono Slack's "I love my M8" thread that absolutely blows me away. Talk about an eye! Brilliant!

  5. #105
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Yes things are a little different from the Pro side of the world. I actually have separate hard drives one labeled RAW and the other FINAL and that is exactly what they are. The finals have all the layers and such and saved as Tif's with layers. There really not even the client files because my tifs in this hard drive are for me, so they are 16bit and all that stuff . The clients sometimes just get a 8 bit Tif and smaller depending on there need and what they can handle but that depends on each clients. But my Final Drive is really the masters. But let's not confuse everyone with what I do since it will be much different than the hobbyist needs but nice to know how Pro's handle the files in storage and such and how they meet there client needs too.
    Guy, sure, you can do this, but you don't need to - Aperture will handle this for you - if the versions of the RAW are not enough, and you need to work in Photoshop, then set the default export mode as 16 bit tiff in Aperture, and that's what it'll make, save, catalogue and reference. If you want a multi layer PSD, then it'll save that too - you choose, and the whole thing is transparent and seamless.

    When your client wants 8 bit tiffs, then you select them and export in that format to a DVD - secondary sharpening is available when printing (which will obviously be different for different sizes).

    Shoot me down in flames, but the arguments that you and others are making is that shooting RAW necessarily makes for more knowledge and complications - I just don't agree, I think it's simple. What's more I'm almost certain that most experienced people have looked at Lightroom and Aperture and then gone back to the old model with multiple files in different sizes and formats without really exploring the potential of these programs.

    Again and again you can read between the lines and see that people are really just using the programs (Aperture and Lightroom) like another raw converter (C1 for instance), which is missing the point so badly.

    Just this guy you know

  6. #106
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Well yes Henri had a amazing eye will not deny that for a second and there are many others . It was certainly a natural gift at birth but even they developed it further than the first outing with a camera or painting and such. There is some training that went on for them but i agree some of them we can just call right out and say had a genius vision right out of the gate.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  7. #107
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Player View Post
    Guy, there's a b&w photo, the first one in Jono Slack's "I love my M8" thread that absolutely blows me away. Talk about an eye! Brilliant!
    Oh! thank you! To be honest, if I have an eye, it's nothing to do with me, things pop up and I press the button . . . . but it certainly works better with practice.

    Just this guy you know

  8. #108
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Guy, sure, you can do this, but you don't need to - Aperture will handle this for you - if the versions of the RAW are not enough, and you need to work in Photoshop, then set the default export mode as 16 bit tiff in Aperture, and that's what it'll make, save, catalogue and reference. If you want a multi layer PSD, then it'll save that too - you choose, and the whole thing is transparent and seamless.

    When your client wants 8 bit tiffs, then you select them and export in that format to a DVD - secondary sharpening is available when printing (which will obviously be different for different sizes).

    Shoot me down in flames, but the arguments that you and others are making is that shooting RAW necessarily makes for more knowledge and complications - I just don't agree, I think it's simple. What's more I'm almost certain that most experienced people have looked at Lightroom and Aperture and then gone back to the old model with multiple files in different sizes and formats without really exploring the potential of these programs.

    Again and again you can read between the lines and see that people are really just using the programs (Aperture and Lightroom) like another raw converter (C1 for instance), which is missing the point so badly.

    Admittedly I do not know Aperture very well at all and only played with it, so I don't know the program well enough to speak of it. Also Jono I agree some things I don't want to learn and stick to some of my older ways because they are proven to me and my workflow. Change is good no question but changing a lot can be bad for a Pro. Also for others as well but yes I am missing a few of those tricks in the newer software.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  9. #109
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Oh! thank you! To be honest, if I have an eye, it's nothing to do with me, things pop up and I press the button . . . . but it certainly works better with practice.
    Don't kid yourself you have a very good eye and been saying that since i have known you.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  10. #110
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Admittedly I do not know Aperture very well at all and only played with it, so I don't know the program well enough to speak of it. Also Jono I agree some things I don't want to learn and stick to some of my older ways because they are proven to me and my workflow. Change is good no question but changing a lot can be bad for a Pro. Also for others as well but yes I am missing a few of those tricks in the newer software.
    Hi Guy
    Well, I really do sympathise - I had a similar kind of workflow, and I threw all the cards up in the air to commit to Lightroom . . and then to Aperture - Lots of work, but now it's a dream. On the other hand, my library was only 20,000 shots, and I could afford to fiddle about with it as I'm not a full time pro.

    But - I'm not for a second criticising the way you work - what I AM saying is that using the complications of your workflow as part of a discussion on whether or not to shoot RAW is unnecessary and frightening.

    If someone asks me that question the answer is immediate - shoot RAW only . . . . but make sure you're using Lightroom or Aperture and keeping the files as referenced rather than internal. Then watch the online videos!

    Just this guy you know

  11. #111
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Don't kid yourself you have a very good eye and been saying that since i have known you.
    Thank you
    Trouble is I have no control over it! Old photographic rule - see it, grab it quick before it goes away, then, if you have time try and get the right angle. For me it's always that grab shot which works best . . . it's one of the reasons not to go MF - I don't need to work more slowly!

    Just this guy you know

  12. #112
    Player
    Guest

    Thumbs up Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Oh! thank you! To be honest, if I have an eye, it's nothing to do with me, things pop up and I press the button . . . . but it certainly works better with practice.
    You sound like HCB. Henri says that he just points the camera and clicks the shutter. Humility is good though. Congrats!

  13. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi There
    I don't use Lightroom, but Aperture CERTAINLY DOES SUPPORT THIS. Simply set PSD as your default in photoshop, edit in external editor, the PSD file shows in aperture, and can simply be reloaded in photoshop.

    I may be completely wrong, but I get the distinct impression that many haven't really examined the functionality in these programs - if you're still using multiple file exports then I really think that's the case.

    Of course, maybe I'm just being stupid?
    Jono,
    We are a bit skew on our discussion. I use Aperture myself for tons of things, including the cataloging of those "finals" I keep for clients. No problem there. And I do export stuff as 16-bit PSD files, so I agree, that works very nicely. What I was talking about was having an image that gets several layers of adjustments, say using Nik software tools like Viveza, Color Efex, Dfine and Pro Sharpener. While one could just flatten the layers for the final, I preserve several of them, especially the sharpening layer, as it differs with size of image and media to which you may print. So, I could do a 5x7 glossy of a shot, or a 24x30 canvas of the same adjusted shot, and have each sharpened properly, while also having all the color adjustments made and preserved as layers. This is particularly important if one does selective area work and "paints" things in at different opacities, etc.

    So far, Aperture has not been able to allow any adjustments to the layers, even though it is able to preserve them. So, I keep the "final" versions of these sorts of files on their own drive, much as Guy mentions, and import them into Aperture as referenced files. The nice thing there is it still lets me send emails, post galleries, export to someplace else, etc. The only thing I cannot do is work on the individual layers again unless I go back into PS.

    This is a bit different need than just having a RAW file, making the adjustments in Aperture and leaving it at that, unless I keep separate versions of each image with different adjustment layers. That is not so practical, nor space saving. Keeping the RAW and its original set of adjustments is excellent, but layers do not work so well there.

    It is not like thousands and thousands of files (though the number is growing), so keeping the "final" versions of things with layers preserved is not too onerous for those important files. For everything else, I am very comfortable generating a newly processed image as needed in Aperture. For files that I do not intend to change, I can just flatten the layers and save it that way.

    I know this got off-topic a bit, as this was about the benefits of shooting RAW over JPEGs originally, but I do see one of the biggest benefits of RAW being the ability to keep coming back to an image file and working it however you need to non-destructively, plus having so much more information to work with from the start. I shoot sport event stuff, and have only shot JPEGs one time in my entire digital career, mainly because at the time I was running out of cards at an overly long event and had to switch to JPEGs just to finish capturing things. (This was early on before I knew to carry 30-40GB of card storage all the time )

    The only other point I had is that RAW files do need some adjustments, even before converting them to JPEGs, and that is the extra step that some complain about, especially if they need to shoot of several files quickly. I still do not think that is as big and issue as folks make it out to be. Working with RAW files becomes very second nature and one can produce a superb image file reduced to JPEG for exporting very quickly, and in Aperture, it is truly simple.

    LJ

  14. #114
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by LJL View Post

    The only other point I had is that RAW files do need some adjustments, even before converting them to JPEGs, and that is the extra step that some complain about, especially if they need to shoot of several files quickly. I still do not think that is as big and issue as folks make it out to be. Working with RAW files becomes very second nature and one can produce a superb image file reduced to JPEG for exporting very quickly, and in Aperture, it is truly simple.

    LJ
    HI there
    Well, I also have some files which are modified in both Viveza and photoshop, and I save them as I see fit and reference them in Aperture (by the way, I 'reference' ALL files in Aperture, I don't think importing them serves any useful function). The point is that although you can't modify them in Aperture (the layers) you can see that they are there, and open in the appropriate program.

    It's the last bit (in the quote above) that confuses me - the default profile for most cameras (for instance the D3) in Aperture produces files that are just as 'useable' as the jpgs from the camera.
    But what I don't understand is your reference to ' converting to jpgs' . . .why would you? I certainly don't? I simply fail to see why shooting raw is more effort than shooting jpg in Aperture . . . . am I being very stupid?

    Just this guy you know

  15. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI there
    Well, I also have some files which are modified in both Viveza and photoshop, and I save them as I see fit and reference them in Aperture (by the way, I 'reference' ALL files in Aperture, I don't think importing them serves any useful function). The point is that although you can't modify them in Aperture (the layers) you can see that they are there, and open in the appropriate program.

    It's the last bit (in the quote above) that confuses me - the default profile for most cameras (for instance the D3) in Aperture produces files that are just as 'useable' as the jpgs from the camera.
    But what I don't understand is your reference to ' converting to jpgs' . . .why would you? I certainly don't? I simply fail to see why shooting raw is more effort than shooting jpg in Aperture . . . . am I being very stupid?
    Jono,
    When I said "converting to JPEGs", I was referring to very specific needs, such as a client wanting low and high resolution JPEGs to use in online and print stuff respectively. That conversion is very simple in Aperture. The other part of that is that although I find the RAW conversion in Aperture to be pretty good for my 1DsMkII and 1DMkII files as the "stock" profile, it is not quite what I prefer for some shots, so I will tweak things as I think they need it. Maybe I should talk about that as the adjustment instead, but I have not found any conversion tool able to produce an image to my liking without some tweaks. Just me. So I would never run a bunch of RAW images into an app and have them turned into anything else without my going over each one to some degree. Lot more work for me, but it does not go out until it looks the way I want it to look, not the way the application thinks is o.k.

    For the record, I personally do not think shooting RAW is more effort than shooting JPEGs. Maybe a few more steps for some things, as my preferences require, but I would probably want to do that with the JPEGs too, and that is just worth fiddling with. Shoot RAW and get the look you prefer is my mantra.

    Now, if I was doing a lot of studio shooting with very controlled lighting and stuff, "batch" processing of RAW might be an option, but the vast majority of my shots are fast action, on the move stuff under rapidly changing light, so I feel strongly about making the adjustments to files for my liking, as none of the standard profiles or WBs ever get things quite right for me.

    LJ

  16. #116
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Hi,
    I've been away for a while, and am only slowly catching up. If this following comment has been made before, my apologies.

    An argument against jpg alone is this; I have noticed that auto jpg from a P+S have shown rather odd colours - usually in the sky, which is a sort of cyan rather than blue. The corresponding raw was much more accurate.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  17. #117
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Bertie and this will always be true with any camera on AWB it is really just guessing at the correct color balance, some certainly better than others but the truth is if jpeg only your just flat out stuck with it, with Raw you can certainly use the correct WB.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  18. #118
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Player View Post
    You sound like HCB. Henri says that he just points the camera and clicks the shutter. Humility is good though. Congrats!
    Embarrassed it is that I am! (and not so flattered as to be fooled)
    AND I'm not sure that the people around this house would subscribe to the humility theory either

    But I do realise that most of my successful shots are more to do with the subconscious - and that shooting every day hones this ability.

    But - thank you again, it's a kind remark, and very much appreciated.

    Bertie - I think that some cameras do really good jpg files (the Olympus E1 is a case in point - they're always lovely), others are dreadful.

    Nowadays, the only reason I can see for shooting jpg is if you need to wire pictures straight from your camera via mobile phone . . . but if that were the case, I would have thought you'd shoot both jpg and raw.

    On the other hand . . . it's amazing what you can do with respect to WB even with jpgs - Lightroom is especially good at this.

    As for Auto White Balance, I'm increasingly feeling that it's like playing Russian roulette - but with 4 bullets in the gun rather than 1!

    Just this guy you know

  19. #119
    Player
    Guest

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    But I do realise that most of my successful shots are more to do with the subconscious - and that shooting every day hones this ability.
    See, it's the subconscious that everyone takes for granted, and they just chalk-up their successes to dumb luck. I know better though.

    Reminds me of golf: can Tiger Woods really take credit for that amazing chip-in, or the eagle where he was just trying to get the ball close? I think so!

  20. #120
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Player View Post
    See, it's the subconscious that everyone takes for granted, and they just chalk-up their successes to dumb luck. I know better though.

    Reminds me of golf: can Tiger Woods really take credit for that amazing chip-in, or the eagle where he was just trying to get the ball close? I think so!
    EXACTLY - I couldn't agree more - like playing darts, the calculations required to work out the trajectory before throwing . . . impossible, yet some of us can certainly do it, and with practice we get better at it.

    My photography is like that, and I really do need to 'go with the flow'. It is actually the principle reason why I didn't go for MF - I don't want to be more careful and deliberate, I don't want to stick the camera on a tripod and think!

    Of course, for others it's different.

    It's great to actually formalise these feelings though, so thank you for your succinct and excellent post.

    Just this guy you know

  21. #121
    Player
    Guest

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    EXACTLY - I couldn't agree more - like playing darts, the calculations required to work out the trajectory before throwing . . . impossible, yet some of us can certainly do it, and with practice we get better at it.

    My photography is like that, and I really do need to 'go with the flow'. It is actually the principle reason why I didn't go for MF - I don't want to be more careful and deliberate, I don't want to stick the camera on a tripod and think!

    Of course, for others it's different.

    It's great to actually formalise these feelings though, so thank you for your succinct and excellent post.
    ThankYOU Jono.

    I never really thought about it much until talking with you, and Guy's thread.

    Interesting, for me it is different, I like to stick the camera on a tripod, but I don't think I could ever do the kind of photography you do.

    Maybe for me it's like setting the golf ball on a tee.

  22. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    i have a question. when i save a jpeg from lightroom as a 16 bit tiff, i get a 35 meg file which i can tweak in paint shop pro, elements, cs. it will take a lot of tweaking. what is the difference between that 35 meg tiff file and a raw file?
    thanks,
    wayne
    www.pbase.com/wwp

  23. #123
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Wayne,
    There is a difference between a RAW file and everything else. In the TIFF file you are describing from a JPEG, you will have whatever data was "fixed" at the time the JPEG was created. That will NOT include all the data you would have available in the RAW file. The TIFF would let you make a lot of adjustments, and it would preserve more of the newly interpolated data from the JPEG. (JPEGs usually come out at 8-bit, so going to 16-bit in a TIFF file, or PSD file in Photoshop, is simply adding interpolated data to fill in the gaps.)

    So, if you wish to have the most data available, use the RAW file and process things as you need to create JPEGs, TIFFs, PSDs, etc. If you are going to work with JPEGs, be aware that every time you make a change and save those changes, you are going to lose data in the file. JPEG is a compression process, and after about 8 versions, your files will be blobs. Going to TIFF from a JPEG is a better way to work on things repeatedly, as it will not lose data in the saving/compression process, but if you are going to go through that effort, just shoot the RAW and work with things from there.

    LJ

  24. #124
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    hi lj,

    thanks for the info. what i was afraid to hear. now i'm wondering if the lack of information isn't what i'm after! my favorite small camera that keeps getting pictures that are interesting to me is the fuji f30/31 (no raw). now the the s6000 has the same sensor, raw, a 28-300 lens, etc. for public events it could be the camera of choice. but the f30/31 one fourth its size and good for getting a feeling of intimacy, even in landscapes, oddly enough.

    sam abell, the national geographic photographer says in

    http://www.amazon.com/Sam-Abell-Phot...4940414&sr=8-1

    that he carries very spare equipment and most importantly is looking for a particular kind of picture. i realize i too am beginning to look for a particular kind of picture, the intimacy i mentioned.

    it doesn't always have to be this camera. here's a gallery i shot in raw with the g3. i fixed one picture in lightroom and applied it to all the rest:

    www.pbase.com/wwp/choreo2

    so there's many ways to skin a cat. i think abell's looking for a particular kind of picture the key for me, no matter how you get it. i recommend his other book

    http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Gardens...940774&sr=8-13

    which is a very reasonable purchase and to get an idea of what he's looking for.

    thanks again,

    wayne
    www.pbase.com/wwp

    ps. any tips on how to get the very most from a jpeg?

  25. #125
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Bertie and this will always be true with any camera on AWB it is really just guessing at the correct color balance, some certainly better than others but the truth is if jpeg only your just flat out stuck with it, with Raw you can certainly use the correct WB.
    I've tried changing the colour temp with jpgs, but it doesn't always work. I suspect the problem is with erratic/perverse/peculiar or whatever in-camera raw-to-jpg processing - and this cannot be changed. My jpgs come - mostly - as an in-camera side effect of shooting raw.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  26. #126
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Bertie use daylight on your camera when in daylight, you will just be more consistent and change according to the light conditions . Now there is another way and depending on your camera you can actually shoot a white card and set the camera to that temp. in the light you are in.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  27. #127
    dlew308
    Guest

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    I've seen the idea of sewing on a gray material to a backpack. Hmm a photo bag in 18% gray color, genius!

  28. #128
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,097
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Bertie use daylight on your camera when in daylight, you will just be more consistent and change according to the light conditions . Now there is another way and depending on your camera you can actually shoot a white card and set the camera to that temp. in the light you are in.
    Guy,

    we are talking at cross-purposes I think. I'm suggesting that some in-camera jpg conversions are mediocre. But I don't shoot jpg primarily - I can't turn them off in some cameras, so I get and can see the results I don't want.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  29. #129
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    Wayne,
    Not sure I know how to answer your questions around developing a look or style with a particular camera, and how you capture things. I looked through your dance class gallery, and you have some very nice shots in there. You are capturing more of the environment or mood or setting to some degree, and that looks good. One of my impressions was that things looked a bit dark, but that may be what you were trying to convey as part of your theme or representation. I never think about that as only being done with a certain camera. One could do that with a Leica M8, a Canon G9, a Nikon, or whatever, if you have the settings you want and use the lenses to achieve your objective. The softer focus is not dissimilar to a Leica 35/2 pre-aspheric lens, as an example, shot wide open. So that sort of "look" is attainable different ways, and you should not think about being locked into a certain camera.

    On the flip side, dealing with processing, if those shots were done in RAW, you could do a lot of adjustments and things to them to achieve other looks also, without doing anything to the files in the process. You are more limited with the JPEGs, but you still can do a fair number of things, should you want. If you are looking for a camera to create a certain look as you "signature" as might be the case in some of the books you mention, I would not know how to discuss that as much, as those photographers set their cameras, or process their images in a way that they like. It is not about the camera, though snapshots from some cameras will have a certain look to them.

    As for getting the most from your JPEGs.....I would always recommend shooting them at the largest size and least compression your camera offers, and also to go with a more neutral capture mode, rather than high contrast, or high saturation or something like that. While the file may look "flat" to begin, you will have more information upon which to make some adjustments with tools available in various applications. You can always increase contrast, brightness, saturation and things like that in post, but if the file conversion at time of capture set some of these things to extremes, that information may not be there. Not sure if that helps answer your questions or not.

    LJ

  30. #130
    Paul Stenquist
    Guest

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    For me, the most important reason to shoot RAW is that cameras are dumb. A jpeg is basically a RAW conversion performed by the camera according to preset parameters. The camera doesn't know what you want to see in the image. It doesn't know if you want to crush some of the blacks or preserve shadow detail. It doesn't know how bright you want the midrange. It doesn't know if you need to pull down the highlights. RAW conversion gives you control over the image. You define it and fine tune all the variables. While that may sound like a complex procedure, RAW conversion soon becomes almost automatic. You evaluate your image and adjust the parameters. Data that may have been lost through in-camera jpeg conversion is yours to work with.

    Most importantly, RAW conversion is fun. I equate it with darkroom work. It's a playground for photographers.

  31. #131
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    thanks, lj. those are important tips. i've tried so many things, partly cause i get bored, but also because i haven't found the way i'd really like my pictures to look. i know the absence of a style is also a style, but it is a frustrating way to go. i do enjoy processing (most of the time) so that part doesn't bother me. thanks again for the thoughts.

    wayne
    www.pbase.com/wwp

  32. #132
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    hi lj,
    just a post-script to that last post. i had a mini-epiphany thinking about the 40 years i spent as a writer. i enjoyed writing in lots of modes: absurd, realistic, mythical, etc., thinking people might find something they like without liking everything.
    and i've been wondering why it's different with pictures, where i'm doing exactly the same thing. my frustration i mean. maybe it's because photos are so immediately accessible. i'd like to have a picture which is just 'my own.' guess i have to accept the variety, as i did with writing.
    here are some selected poems, if you'd like to check them out and see what i mean. www.pbase.com/wwp/poems (i think poetry my first love still. words seem more enduring than pictures. isn't that rather odd?)
    thanks again.
    best wayne
    www.pbase.com/wwp

    ps. i'd like to extend my thanks to jack and guy for setting up the dpi forum. the leica forum got pretty wicked at one point. it's very easy to get discouraged.

  33. #133
    Member MisiekBunnik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eindhoven
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The benefits of shooting Raw over Jpegs

    I would like to make a side-step... My experience is that shooting raw is also dependend on the 'make' of the files and the software that support that format.

    I am experienced in dealing with hacked canon G7 raw files that i developed in raw therapee and Lightroom. Even if they had to be converted to .DNG beforehand. It takes time to learn how to develop and adjust using all the options available. Actualy of course the de-mosaicing step is the important one, as a user you simply have a lot of things to sharpen/tone/balance/de-noise using sliders, to get the look you want.

    But, now that I have a DP1, things are different. The .x3f files are only supported by SPP, so using RAW is now limited to SPP (exporting to Tiff aside). SPP has 7 sliders only.

    Does this make shooting Raw easier to deal with? Will it make you shoot raw instead of jpg if it is presented in this 'simple' way?

    My experience: shooting raw is also dependend on how much effort is involved and what tools are used in the chain:
    G7>DNG>raw developer of choice>sharpen and or de-noise.
    This was hard but results were good
    DP1>SPP>slide to get the look I want, no noise options.
    Results are as good (excellent), but the flow is much easier and certainly less time consuming.

    Shooting raw or jpg?
    on my G7>jpg
    DP1>raw

    Hope I made myself a bit clear, english is not my native language...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •