| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/16/2006 12:52:49 PM · #26 |
I only can shoot JPEG and TIFF in my camera, and I usually go for high quality JPEGs. When it is time to edit, I always make another copy and work and save in PSD untill I need it to be in JPEG again for web etc. I have no problems with JPEGs. Of course, I would love to buy a dSLR and shoot in RAW, but for now JPEGs rule !! ;-)
Edit : RAW can help you out with a lot of things, but not with things that really matter, like composition, subject, style etc. I mean if there are exposure problems or even a bit of color casting, it can be easily fixed in PS in a JPEG, as long as the photo was a winner to begin with.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:55:17. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:53:03 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ursula:
What's the preferred software to work with RAW images made in Nikon format? |
Nikon Capture
i believe it produces the absolute best JPGs conversion possible
& will provide a itself as a decent frontend into PS (though don't use Nikons plugin - it's horrible )
need ram thuogh lots & lots & lots ...
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:55:17 PM · #28 |
I fell in love with RAW - then I shot a wedding in RAW and quickly fell out of love - the processing in Photoshop was a killer (using the adobe plug in)- took WAY too long for what I was getting paid
So now if it's a paying client (go to this far away location and bring them back five shots) I shoot RAW no question
But for Alamy, Myloupe, prints up to 16x20 (or variations on that depending on the crop) JPEG does just great. In fact creating the 48 meg files for Alamy is MUCH faster for me using scripts in CS2 than any other way I can think of.
Please feel free to point out my lack of knowledge. If there is a fast way to process 300 RAW files, I'd love to know.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:56:50.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:55:26 PM · #29 |
I used to shoot everything in jpg until I used RAW a few times and seen what it could do. Now I shoot only RAW, has it helped me? yes but the learning curve has been hard. I went from letting the camera process some portions of my image to me having to do it all. And believe me you have to know what you are doing or you can over kill the processing on raw just like jpg. I should know, I do it a lot :P.
But RAW is by far the best. My only problem is having to convert in RSE and then edit in PS/CS. But I'm learning. I feel if you are going to have a great camera you should use it to it's best potential.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 12:55:44.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:57:53 PM · #30 |
| Yes Doug there is; hire 300 people to process one file each, and you'll get them done in no time ;-) |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 12:59:26 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by ellamay:
Originally posted by ursula:
OK, stupid question here, but .... when you shoot in RAW, what settings do you have on your camera (white balance, all those other things)? Whenever I shoot RAW it seems like the images I get are so dark. |
not a stupid question at all, tho my images are not dark, I do not know nikon but I would go thru all the custom functions/options and try to see what is set incorrectly. |
So ... what settings do you use when shooting RAW? Do you use the settings you would normally use for the same image when shooting jpeg?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:00:42 PM · #32 |
Thank you for the multiple answers on which software to use.
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 13:00:53.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:05:30 PM · #33 |
the real debate shoudn't be jpeg vs raw. simply because the "quality" of a print is controled by file size combined with ppi. you need at least 21 megs to get a film quality 8 by 10 and at least 45 megs for a film quality 10 by 13.
Raw files are nice because you can control the white balance and exposure to a degree but on the other side if your exposure is dead on a high quality jpeag at 520 ppi is more than enough.
it's going to come down to the "old" photogs vs the "new" photogs. Old photographers used film and some say are superior photographers because of they are experts of exposure. New photographers are what some say as "lazy" because they shoot to get their exposure close enough and then fix it in post processing.
that is the argument, I hear it every stinking day at school as my class is the first all digital class to come through OIP (ohio insitute of Photography). They both have their ups and downs.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:06:08 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
The main advantages of RAW, when done correctly, is the lack of artifacts.
JPEG is a compression file, and everytime you save that file, you lose information. |
Quite true, but if you treat the original from-the-camera shot as an original, convert to PSD before doing any editing, and only resave to JPG before posting to the web (for instance), you will not experience any generational loss. Some folks (mostly beginners, methinks) edit their original JPGs, in JPG format, and constantly save as they progress through an edit. This Very Bad practice leads to the amplification of those artifacts from compression.
As someone has already noted in this thread, high quality JPG shots have an enormous amount of information, and are very adequate for the needs of many photographers. RAW gives you much more quality and control, but at a cost in file size that some of us don't want to incur. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:13:08 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by ellamay:
Originally posted by ursula:
OK, stupid question here, but .... when you shoot in RAW, what settings do you have on your camera (white balance, all those other things)? Whenever I shoot RAW it seems like the images I get are so dark. |
not a stupid question at all, tho my images are not dark, I do not know nikon but I would go thru all the custom functions/options and try to see what is set incorrectly. |
So ... what settings do you use when shooting RAW? Do you use the settings you would normally use for the same image when shooting jpeg? |
My parameters are on standard, I do not do any stauration or in camera sharpening, and it is all the same as I would shoot a jpeg |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:15:50 PM · #36 |
As I understood it you can keep on saving a JPEG file whilst editing because the loss only appears when you next open the file? so, if you keep the saved image open in PS as you save your edits then the final saved version will only have 'lost' compression once.
Mind you, I now shoot in RAW and large JPEG (RAW to CF and JPEG to SD) then I sift through the JPEGS and edit the RAW version of keepers.
*wanders off to checkout the latest price of storage ;)*
*editid four spieling
Message edited by author 2006-02-16 13:20:14.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:18:23 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ursula:
So ... what settings do you use when shooting RAW? Do you use the settings you would normally use for the same image when shooting jpeg? |
The only settings that really matter when shooting RAW is shutter speed and aperture...all those custom settings, Shapening +, Vivid, etc, are not going to be applied to the RAW image whether they're selected or not.
White balance selection is still critical as that's how they're viewed when you're looking at the thumbs...
That being said, I rarely ever shoot RAW...too much space and hassle in my opinion. I've printed 16x20's in JPEG from partially cropped images and have been happy with the results.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:20:30 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by ursula:
So ... what settings do you use when shooting RAW? Do you use the settings you would normally use for the same image when shooting jpeg? |
The only settings that really matter when shooting RAW is shutter speed and aperture...all those custom settings, Shapening +, Vivid, etc, are not going to be applied to the RAW image whether they're selected or not.
White balance selection is still critical as that's how they're viewed when you're looking at the thumbs...
That being said, I rarely ever shoot RAW...too much space and hassle in my opinion. I've printed 16x20's in JPEG from partially cropped images and have been happy with the results. |
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:22:18 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by ursula:
What's the preferred software to work with RAW images made in Nikon format? |
You can get the best results with Nikon Capture. It is slow, but the best.
Here is a test of Capture vs Rawshooter essentials:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=319088
The D70 jpegs are noticeably soft compared to NEF's and therefore I have always shot in RAW, when you hang expensive sharp lenses in front of your sensor you should also aim for the process that does those lenses justice.
The only things I concentrate on while shooting are the exposure settings.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:27:14 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
As I understood it you can keep on saving a JPEG file whilst editing because the loss only appears when you next open the file? so, if you keep the saved image open in PS as you save your edits then the final saved version will only have 'lost' compression once. |
My understanding is that every time you execute a save command with JPG chosen as the format, the file is re-compressed, thereby exacerbating and amplifying any JPG artifacts that were there already.
Experts, chime in.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:27:34 PM · #41 |
I prefer shooting RAW and all my paid contracts are done in RAW but I still shoot the rest of my images in jpg and the reason is simple. The PS CS2 RAW pluggin sucks! My colors are way off so I have to use Nikon Capture first then open the image again in PS. With jpgs I save this time-consuming step.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:32:12 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
the real debate shoudn't be jpeg vs raw. simply because the "quality" of a print is controled by file size combined with ppi. you need at least 21 megs to get a film quality 8 by 10 and at least 45 megs for a film quality 10 by 13. |
12Mp is equivalent to 35mm film, regardless of enlargement. the Canon 1Ds 16Mp monster can out resolve 35mm film, and the big prints from it are much better than what 35mm film can do. It approaches MF (22Mp most seem to agree).
The 2 biggest drawbacks to RAW are: file size (for storage) or time to process the images.
-first, since the original can't be saved over, and is as good as TIFF but smaller, the size issue is not much of a real concern. HDs and DVDs are cheap enough and if you shoot that much the extra storage cost is really minimal.
Time to process seems to be one area folks have issues, and it seems mostly when you have hundreds of images to process. When you have hundreds one must automate it. Whether JPG or RAW, individually editing each image takes the same time - too much!
I have found in DPP I can work with an entire subdirectory (aka job) in RAW, and work on 1 or 1000 photos with the same ease and speed. It is not perfect... i am compiling a list of desired upgrades for canon that would cut my time by 30% yet again.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:33:59 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
As I understood it you can keep on saving a JPEG file whilst editing because the loss only appears when you next open the file? so, if you keep the saved image open in PS as you save your edits then the final saved version will only have 'lost' compression once. |
My understanding is that every time you execute a save command with JPG chosen as the format, the file is re-compressed, thereby exacerbating and amplifying any JPG artifacts that were there already.
Experts, chime in.
|
It's kind of a moot point; if you're using Photoshop and NOT using layers, you are messing yourself up badly in terms of trying out varitaions on the processing. And you CANNOT save a layered image in jpg format. So the only sensible thing to do is save-as .psd or .tif at the outset, do all your editing in that mode, and convert the finished work back to jpg after flateening it.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:34:39 PM · #44 |
Also 8 bit jpeg degrades faster when working with levels, curves, shadows & highlights, agressive b&w conversion or color changes.
Working with the 16 bit raw data is way, way, way better for that. Your skies and color gradations stay much smoother and less pixelated.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:44:40 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by strangeghost:
Originally posted by Ecce Signum:
As I understood it you can keep on saving a JPEG file whilst editing because the loss only appears when you next open the file? so, if you keep the saved image open in PS as you save your edits then the final saved version will only have 'lost' compression once. |
My understanding is that every time you execute a save command with JPG chosen as the format, the file is re-compressed, thereby exacerbating and amplifying any JPG artifacts that were there already.
Experts, chime in.
|
It's kind of a moot point; if you're using Photoshop and NOT using layers, you are messing yourself up badly in terms of trying out varitaions on the processing. And you CANNOT save a layered image in jpg format. So the only sensible thing to do is save-as .psd or .tif at the outset, do all your editing in that mode, and convert the finished work back to jpg after flateening it.
R. |
That's what I do. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:44:40 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Also 8 bit jpeg degrades faster when working with levels, curves, shadows & highlights, agressive b&w conversion or color changes.
Working with the 16 bit raw data is way, way, way better for that. Your skies and color gradations stay much smoother and less pixelated. |
OK, so again please excuse my lack of knowledge (I've been shooting jpeg almost exclusively). When you shoot RAW and convert to a file to work on in PS, you convert directly to a 16 bit TIFF or PSD? Then, when all your editing is done and complete, you save a final version as JPG if needed?
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:46:56 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by ursula:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Also 8 bit jpeg degrades faster when working with levels, curves, shadows & highlights, agressive b&w conversion or color changes.
Working with the 16 bit raw data is way, way, way better for that. Your skies and color gradations stay much smoother and less pixelated. |
OK, so again please excuse my lack of knowledge (I've been shooting jpeg almost exclusively). When you shoot RAW and convert to a file to work on in PS, you convert directly to a 16 bit TIFF or PSD? Then, when all your editing is done and complete, you save a final version as JPG if needed? |
Correct. The ONLY jpg's on my HD are 640-pixel versions for DPC.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 01:53:30 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ursula:
OK, so again please excuse my lack of knowledge (I've been shooting jpeg almost exclusively). When you shoot RAW and convert to a file to work on in PS, you convert directly to a 16 bit TIFF or PSD? Then, when all your editing is done and complete, you save a final version as JPG if needed? |
After doing all stuff in the raw converter I sent the file (that's an option in Capture) to photoshop as a 16 bit file. Once it is in Photoshop I save it as a 16 bit psd. And that 16 bit PSD is the basis for all other files like dpc 640x480's, trekearth 800x600 and fullsize or upsized print jpegs. I process the psd up to the point where only resizing and sharpening is left to do.
I could also save it directly as 16 bit tiff from Capture.
But you also have the option to save or work with 8 bit if 16 bit isn't that important (simple processing where time is more important than output).
|
|
|
|
02/16/2006 02:05:32 PM · #49 |
| I'm shooting jpeg on my little fuji and have no problem getting 12x8 & iix14 prints. In fact the enlargements are superior to those made on film with the same iso factor, My shots are downloaded to cd and are printed straight fro9m camera. |
|
|
|
02/16/2006 02:05:46 PM · #50 |
OK, thank you guys! This is very helpful.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/29/2025 08:15:51 AM EDT.
