| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/29/2006 10:43:00 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
$50 may not be cheap, but it's a tank of gas, a couple of dinners out, 1/2 week's groceries....a 2Gb card can be had for $65. that'll hold a bit over 200 RAW files from a 30D/20D.
|
Hah, i'm trying to live on $50 a month for groceries over here! At least until I land a job *fingers crossed*. |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 10:52:47 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by deapee:
If you have to ask, just shoot JPG, seriously...get your settings right and no one can tell the difference. |
Of course you should always get your settings right in-camera, but there is more to raw than just that.
jpeg only allows you to record 8-bit in the sRGB color space. Raw allows 16-bit in the Adobe RGB (1998) color space. Huge difference in post processing and you are taking full advantage of your camera's CCD.
Even if you later convert back to sRGB for web graphics you still get better tonality and less color banding.
If disk space is not a problem then always shoot raw.
Message edited by author 2006-05-29 22:53:29.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:07:01 PM · #28 |
I have posted this on several sites, and the same thing happens each time ...lol It seems that there are very diffrent sides of this argument, and that it is probably best for me to just give them both a try and find what works for me. Let me pose one more question however.
If I was to shoot a raw image, convert it to JPG making no changes to the image, would it be the same as shooting the image in JPG right out of the camera? |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:10:37 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
I have posted this on several sites, and the same thing happens each time ...lol It seems that there are very diffrent sides of this argument, and that it is probably best for me to just give them both a try and find what works for me. Let me pose one more question however.
If I was to shoot a raw image, convert it to JPG making no changes to the image, would it be the same as shooting the image in JPG right out of the camera? |
No, I believe the camera does some slight modifications to the image, usually for the better. |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:14:25 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by boomtap:
I have posted this on several sites, and the same thing happens each time ...lol It seems that there are very diffrent sides of this argument, and that it is probably best for me to just give them both a try and find what works for me. Let me pose one more question however.
If I was to shoot a raw image, convert it to JPG making no changes to the image, would it be the same as shooting the image in JPG right out of the camera? |
No, I believe the camera does some slight modifications to the image, usually for the better. |
Yes it does. You need to do at least a curves adjustment to boost midtone contrast and saturation and sharpen the image. Both can either be done in conversion or in Post. Raw images look a little flat without the curves adjustment and they are a bit less than "sharp".
|
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:19:10 PM · #31 |
If you want latitude, options, and know how to edit and convert, and have a decent memory card, shoot RAW.
If you don't care for the quality, know how to shoot with your camera, can avoid artifacts, and halos in editing and don't have a decent memory card shoot JPEG.
Shoot for yourself. Experiment. You have asked this question on differant sites, you should know the answer by now.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:20:26 PM · #32 |
Why would I shoot in Raw vs JPG?
when you are too lazy to get the WB right the first time, Raw is a life saver. actually Raw is more than that. It's uncompressed, and no in-camera processing is done to the shot - you get whatever that is captured by the sensor (theoritically speaking of course)
What software would I need to do Raw right?
There are many software available, Photoshop CS2, Aperture, to name a few. The one that came with your D50 would be a good start if you dont plan to spend extra to process your RAW files.
Is the raw image the closest thing to the analog of film I can get digitally?
In a way, yes.
Somebody told me that the JPG conversion with software is worse than the camera's JPG conversion is this true?
False. Unless you are using some stone-age computer and software to convert your JPG, a personal computer is almost always the better choice to convert your photos into JPG.
What is with all the talk of noise in the raw image that is not in the JPG?
see my first answer - RAW are not processed by the camera. JPG is processed in-camera, and that includes noise-reduction. Most people prefer to perform noise-reduction on their computer where they get more control over details-noise ratio.
Is is hard to keep so many raw Images organized?
It's the same as keeping JPG as far as I know, since WindowsXP SP2 have support to view RAW files natively now. The problem you should be concerned about is storage! RAW are generally HUGE since it is not compressed. |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:20:27 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by deapee:
why would you regret not shooting RAW? Think of all the time you save yourself by getting your settings right the first time. |
I've often seen this type of comment from you and it surprises me. Settings vary from one shot to the next. |
I'm not saying there aren't advantages to shooting RAW. Quite the opposite...
But to tell someone just getting into photography that they should shoot RAW so they can fix all their photos once they get back to their computers, and change the white balance, exposure, etc, etc, is just creating lazy photographers who will spend more time infront of the computer than they will taking pictures...it's plain and simple.
Get out there and shoot...shoot JPEG...learn to get your settings right the first time. Always shoot manual white balance. Force yourself to shoot manual exposure (at least for a while) so that when you do go back to shooting aperture priority or different metering programs, you will know exactly what the numbers are doing in the viewfinder. Know your equipment, know your settings, and I guarantee you will be rewarded with less time infront of your computer in the long run.
Now I'm not saying I'm good...I'm not saying anything about my own personal skill level. What I'm saying is that once someone learns to shoot JPEG, then, and only then, they can start to appreciate the real benefits of RAW...not to touch up their white balance or fix their poorly exposed photo.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:35:42 PM · #34 |
| shoot RAW. The benefits have been discussed here ad nauseum....my only .02 would be that as no one ever is 100% dead on with all their shots, it sure is nice to know you have a little latitude to insure your shots are as good as they can be. I'd hate to lose a portfolio shot and be stuck withan almost-portfolio-quality JPEG image. |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:39:17 PM · #35 |
| I used to shoot JPG, and once in a while I still do if I'm planning on shooting a ton of photos at a location that isn't my house. But normally, I shoot RAW. |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:44:25 PM · #36 |
I shoot both. I don't believe in limiting myself. For the most part, I shoot jpeg if I'm just out for the day or the weekend for fun and could use the space on my cards. For important events, I shoot RAW so that, as many have said, I have a little latitude to work with as far as having "uh ohs" happen. (and they *have* happened).
I'd suggest getting a feel for shooting in both modes. Learn your camera inside and out, and that includes shooting both JPEG *and* RAW. Heck, use the RAW+jpeg and note the differences in processing each (if you have that option).
Most of all, just have fun learning your camera and choosing the workflow that works best for *you*.
I really can't answer most of your direct questions definitively, however:
When I shoot RAW, I use RawShooter Essentials for conversion. I find it a very nice free program, and it's a little more user friendly than Adobe Camera RAW IMO.
I find that I can usually go just as fast processing RAW files as jpeg as I can fine tune more RAW files before conversion faster than I can open and fine tune JPEGs in photo-shop, which definitely helps in the long run. Yes, larger files mean slower loading or whatnot, but I've never found it enough of a bother to worry about personally.. you might think differently though after trying it yourself, who's to say.
Anyway.. I just wanted to add that last bit
Message edited by author 2006-05-29 23:47:52. |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:45:30 PM · #37 |
I recommend to all of my competitors that they shoot jpeg only.  |
|
|
|
05/29/2006 11:50:37 PM · #38 |
| I shoot both now .. all challenge entries are shot in raw anything else depends on my situation. Today I shot both raw and jpg. I got pics I was happy with in both modes. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:07:06 AM · #39 |
There is only one correct answer - shoot both!
However the worst reason I can think of to shoot RAW is so that you can correct WB, if thats your only reason then learn to use your camera.
But if its because you want to access the extra 16 bit processing capabilities, or high dynamic range, or some other reason (there are lots) then shoot RAW |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:18:49 AM · #40 |
I know the answer, but I wonder why noone ever debates to use Tiff files in these discussions?
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:19:52 AM · #41 |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:22:09 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I know the answer, but I wonder why noone ever debates to use Tiff files in these discussions? |
TIFF is just like JPEG, minus the compression :)
there, discussed, closed! lol |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:22:24 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I know the answer, but I wonder why noone ever debates to use Tiff files in these discussions? |
Because most cameras don't shoot in TIFF.
You convert RAW to TIFF (or can), but you don't *shoot* in TIFF |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:26:25 AM · #44 |
Quite a few do shoot in TIFF. Both of my Nikons do. I don't believe my Canon does.
It's superior to JPEG, but does let the camera do the processing. Big drawback is HUGE file sizes compared to RAW.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:29:48 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Quite a few do shoot in TIFF. Both of my Nikons do. I don't believe my Canon does.It's superior to JPEG, but does let the camera do the processing. Big drawback is HUGE file sizes compared to RAW. |
Yes, and so does the Panasonics and then some. I personally think it's great for people who cant be bothered about spending time doing post-editing, but want the best quality possible for direct printing. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:33:02 AM · #46 |
TIFF is the best option if you can keep the white balance right (which my camera does well in auto mode). But the only problem is that file size is too big and it takes more than 10 sec for my camera to write one TIFF file. I'm not into RAW (still need to see benefits) but I keep highest quality JPEG settings on.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:36:04 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Quite a few do shoot in TIFF. Both of my Nikons do. I don't believe my Canon does.
It's superior to JPEG, but does let the camera do the processing. Big drawback is HUGE file sizes compared to RAW. |
Ahh, I wasn't aware of that. Is it mostly an option for P&S cameras? |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:53:47 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ahh, I wasn't aware of that. Is it mostly an option for P&S cameras? |
I know many of the P&S's do. Also, the pro SLR's from Nikon, such as the D1 and D1X did. I'm not sure about the other Nikon DSLR's. I'm pretty sure the Canon DSLR's don't.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:58:37 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Ahh, I wasn't aware of that. Is it mostly an option for P&S cameras? |
I know many of the P&S's do. Also, the pro SLR's from Nikon, such as the D1 and D1X did. I'm not sure about the other Nikon DSLR's. I'm pretty sure the Canon DSLR's don't. |
Amazing what one can still learn. lol.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:59:10 AM · #50 |
| For the other side of the argument, see //kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm |
|
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: 08/03/2025 03:20:10 PM EDT.
