| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/30/2006 02:01:29 AM · #51 |
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. |
I remember using a digital camera in about 2000 for work that could take tif - seems to have become a thing of the past though with the advent of RAW. I used it a lot in that camera (can't remember what it was, an early kodak model) because the JPG compression artifacts in that camera were really over the top.
I can't see why you would want to use tif over Raw, it has none of the benefits and you still end up with a huge file.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:02:12 AM · #52 |
Now I know what deapee has been reading ;-) LOL
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:05:40 AM · #53 |
while we are on the topic of file compression and JPEGs,
check out WMP (Windows Media Photo) format |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:08:03 AM · #54 |
See.. I just don't see why it *is* an arguement.
Both formats have their pros and cons, and everyone will end up shooting whatever they find right for them.. in the end.
It's like the PC/Mac thing.. just silly to argue about which is "better".
Use both as needs dictate.. and, unlike PC/Mac, it's actually not going to cost you 3 mortgages to *use* both :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:08:39 AM · #55 |
That should bump up the price of a camera by about $100 if Microsoft has anything to do with it. :-(
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:11:11 AM · #56 |
Quote from that site "If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you". That sounds like most of what I do.
But when I shoot a wedding or some other event I'll take 1000 photos and there is no way I get paid enough to post process that many photos so I use JPG - as I posted earlier "shoot both". |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:15:31 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
But when I shoot a wedding or some other event I'll take 1000 photos and there is no way I get paid enough to post process that many photos so I use JPG - as I posted earlier "shoot both". |
These are the type of situation where TIFF comes in handy - too bad it's not a very popular feature to have. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:23:18 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
But when I shoot a wedding or some other event I'll take 1000 photos and there is no way I get paid enough to post process that many photos so I use JPG - as I posted earlier "shoot both". |
These are the type of situation where TIFF comes in handy - too bad it's not a very popular feature to have. |
Shooting TIFF for a wedding wouldn't be very good space-wise. You'd need a *lot* of cards :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:26:52 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
But when I shoot a wedding or some other event I'll take 1000 photos and there is no way I get paid enough to post process that many photos so I use JPG - as I posted earlier "shoot both". |
These are the type of situation where TIFF comes in handy - too bad it's not a very popular feature to have. |
Shooting TIFF for a wedding wouldn't be very good space-wise. You'd need a *lot* of cards :) |
OMG, yes... like 30 Gigs...lol
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 02:29:19 AM · #60 |
I shoot both, depending on what it is. Sports/fast events I shoot JPG. Unless you are moving your camera around a ton, your settings are not going to change that much.
For the most part I shoot RAW at the moment. I spend a good bit of time shooting things that are white. This means I can be significantly impacted by strange WB shifts if my meter grabs something I don't like. I also shoot RAW if I'm in a situation where I'm in danger of blowing highlights. (Say high noon, Arlington National Cemetery...) The RAW file gives me more data. I also use RAW for anything I plan on blowing up to larger print. Again, the RAW file gives me more data.
Both have a place. Are there things I shot jpg that I wish now I had shot RAW? Yup. Do I stress about it? Nope. Just figured it's part of the learning curve. :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 06:36:43 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
if in 2 years CS4 comes out with some wonderful new filter/effect/etc and you want to go back and edit your old files, you know you'll have the best you could have had - so if sharpening routines get better etc you can re-edit from the true original -
|
Except if this happens:
Originally posted by KenRockwell.com:
Today's versions of software may not be able to open older raw files, losing your images forever. My prognostication of this photographic apocalypse is nigh: as of July 2005 a reader writes that he couldn't get Nikon Capture 4.3 or Photoshop to open older NEF files, getting "unexpected end of file" errors. While waiting for Nikon support to tell him what historical combination of Nikon Capture and Nikon View versions would enable to see his images he tried Bibble Pro, which worked. I always make TIF archive copies of anything about which I care shot in raw. Raw means raw, which means it's not cooked and very perishable. Just like raw meat, raw files become worthless as time progresses unless they are processed into something with a long life, like a standard TIF or JPG image. |
I personally shoot RAW + JPEG whenever I have the space (unless I know all my photos will be snapshots) - then when I view them on a PC I delete the unnecessary RAWs (WB/exposure fine etc), but for those shots where the WB was slightly off, or would benefit from combining 2 exposures, I can use the RAW file to get a "better" starting JPEG. Although of course, in the last instance, one would be better off shooting 2 separate exposures in the first place, but that doesnt always happen.
I never keep RAWs without accompanying JPEGs, just for ease of storage/viewing. That should also mean that even if Ken Rockwell's scenario does come into play in a few years, I don't lose too much. As soon as I get a DVD-burner, I plan to start archiving on DVD-RWs, which are as cheap as chips for the memory you get. (ETA, ~$0.20/GB)
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 06:49:45.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:30:20 AM · #62 |
The best analogy for raw vs jpg is this.
Think back to shooting film. You take your shot (spot on in all respects) take the film to the lab and have it processed into prints. Bring the negatives home and promptly shred them and then reshoot the prints and make a internegative and retouch from there.
That is basically what you are doing when you shoot jpeg. You are loosing that original data that the camera is capturing (shooting the negative) and accepting what the camera interoperates as correct( getting the print). The original image data (the negative) is lost.
Arguments can be made for convenience and storage space but the fact is that jpeg cannot touch raw for range of manipulation
Hope that makes sense
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 07:34:12 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by KenRockwell.com:
Today's versions of software may not be able to open older raw files, losing your images forever. My prognostication of this photographic apocalypse is nigh: as of July 2005 a reader writes that he couldn't get Nikon Capture 4.3 or Photoshop to open older NEF files, getting "unexpected end of file" errors. While waiting for Nikon support to tell him what historical combination of Nikon Capture and Nikon View versions would enable to see his images he tried Bibble Pro, which worked. I always make TIF archive copies of anything about which I care shot in raw. Raw means raw, which means it's not cooked and very perishable. Just like raw meat, raw files become worthless as time progresses unless they are processed into something with a long life, like a standard TIF or JPG image. |
That being said all of my "work" images are tif NEVER JPG. JPG is a lossy format TIF is not ... JPG only gos to web or to print when the printer cannot take TIF. But I try to never "manipulate" from a jpg.
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 07:34:34.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 08:35:46 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by KenRockwell.com:
Today's versions of software may not be able to open older raw files, losing your images forever. My prognostication of this photographic apocalypse is nigh: as of July 2005 a reader writes that he couldn't get Nikon Capture 4.3 or Photoshop to open older NEF files, getting "unexpected end of file" errors. While waiting for Nikon support to tell him what historical combination of Nikon Capture and Nikon View versions would enable to see his images he tried Bibble Pro, which worked. I always make TIF archive copies of anything about which I care shot in raw. Raw means raw, which means it's not cooked and very perishable. Just like raw meat, raw files become worthless as time progresses unless they are processed into something with a long life, like a standard TIF or JPG image. |
My workflow begins with the conversion of all NEF files to Adobe DNG files www.adobe.com/products/dng/. Adobe has promised to keep this file format active and I'm inclined to trust that position, particularly as I can't imagine Photoshop disappearing for the foreseeable future.
Conversion is lossless, retains all (or more) RAW file attribute AND embeds the original file in the process. Down side? Total file size from my Nikon D2X is 25Mb per image.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 08:58:48 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by deapee:
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. |
Totally agree here. It's great when you explain your statements. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 09:04:40 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
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.
RAW files are just that - raw. JPG files are sharpened in camera and probably other things as well. Some of it will depend on your conversion software. I have the choice of changing WB, sharpness, color/bw/sepia and filters on those, saturation and contrast - when i shoot JPG that choise is made for me and I can't change it.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 09:12:00 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
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.
|
YOu also mention you shoot weddings (in jpg). I have to assume that all your weddings are outside? Or that you do it for free? Or that you've shot less than 3 weddings.
Around here weddings are indoors 90% of the time - my last one was not too bad, but the one before that was a WB nighmare - mixed lighting in the church (3 kinds plus flash), the light in the girls getting ready room was different than the one fo rthe boys, or in the hallways in between. it was a rainy day so everything took place indoors - receiving line had different (mixed) lighting as did the reception hall.
There is no way on earth that you or anyone could WB for that wedding - shooting two cameras and moving bewteen rooms every few shots (for the get ready bit). Then you're allowed flash for the processional, but then no flash (WB just changed, no time to re-WhiBal anything IF you intend to get the shots of the ceremony - cause you're also banished to the balcony - a nice sprint).
Anyone that tells me they shoot JPG for weddings is either lying or a lousy photorapher. Sorry, but I do this for a living and if you're charging people for your work you have an obligation to provide the best images you can, and JPG just ain't gonna do it, not even outside much of the time.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 09:15:00 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by boomtap:
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.
RAW files are just that - raw. JPG files are sharpened in camera and probably other things as well. Some of it will depend on your conversion software. I have the choice of changing WB, sharpness, color/bw/sepia and filters on those, saturation and contrast - when i shoot JPG that choise is made for me and I can't change it. |
Not totally true Prof. You can change the settings that JPEG uses as default, however, it would be quite time consuming changing these 'parameters' for each and every shot.
I'm a firm believer in the suggestions above to learn the basics and understand WB etc beofe moving onto RAW. I must admit to being somewhat lazy with the 1Dn as I shoot RAW to one card and JPEG to another and will view my images in JPEG on the PC then edit the RAW version of the better images as you have more latitude and a much larger file size if you will be printing above A4.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 09:17:35 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Anyone that tells me they shoot JPG for weddings is either lying or a lousy photorapher. Sorry, but I do this for a living and if you're charging people for your work you have an obligation to provide the best images you can, and JPG just ain't gonna do it, not even outside much of the time. |
Sorry, but that's just b.s. I know a number of very successful and very good wedding photographers who choose to shoot jpg. No need to make ridiculous statements about others just because you opt to shoot in RAW. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:25:43 AM · #70 |
When I feel inspired and don't want to lose anything I shot RAW. Otherwise jpg all way long. RAW gives you a lot of freedom. Once you are good and handle well the camera I think it does not make any differance. My oppinion...
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:37:44 AM · #71 |
Advantage of raw is you have more data to work with ...
Distavange of raw is you have more data to work with...
I have recently started shotting in both (set up to shoot both raw and jpg at the same time) I use a workflow program that knows it is the same picture so moves them both accordingly and I can get immediate feedback and preselect pictures. I shoot a LOT of pictures trying to capture a moment, but the resent addition of a 4gb chip has allowed me to switch. I was filling a 2gb chip in jpg before.
The advantage to me of having the original raw information is that if a picture turns out to be a once in a life-time shot, I have all the information to work with it and post-process it (polish it) to a high sheen (Not that I am any good at it yet, but still new to all of this stuff.) The disadvantage is storing raw information and it slows down my speed how many pictures a second I can take, and for the type of phototgraphy I do that is a serious consideration.
The other thing to consider is all the advantages of RAW really only appear if you are willing to spend your time learning how to post process, depending on your skill level it might be better work on taking pictures in the first place. Still even if you are just saving the RAW of your best for later, computer and chip space is getting cheaper and cheaper so can shoot raw now, and learn how to post-process later. You can do that with just jpg too, RAW just gives yet more options. Basically my advice is if you have the extra $$$ go ahead with shooting and storing raw shots now, gives you more options in the future. And options are always a good thing. But Jpg still what I work with 99% of the time, since I enjoy the act of taking the picture and not the post.
(also remember this is just a hobby for me, I don't have or expect to make a living at it so I can do what I like rather then what brings in the cash)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:51:16 AM · #72 |
I haven´t shot a single JPG in about 30 months, wouldn´t and couldn´t give up the adjustments .RAW allows for afterwards and actually it quickens my workload as I do most of my "processing" with batch conversions in a raw converter. Works for me I guess. I find this whole debate is a bit strange though, somehow makes me think of the whole Coke/Pepsi or Canon/Nikon debate. What works for one person does´t neccesarily work for another. Gotta agree with someone who said that if you have to ask if you probably should stick with JPG for now.
Message edited by author 2006-05-30 11:00:13. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 10:56:31 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by mk:
Sorry, but that's just b.s. I know a number of very successful and very good wedding photographers who choose to shoot jpg. No need to make ridiculous statements about others just because you opt to shoot in RAW. |
I totally agree with MK here, even though I mostly shoot RAW. That's a bit of a loaded comment about someone being a "lousy photographer". I know quite a few professional photographers who have shot hundreds of weddings in jpeg and their work is phenomenal. I do believe that Gary Fong shoots jpeg at his weddings, and he makes $120,000 a wedding for his "lousy" work. |
|
|
|
05/30/2006 11:08:36 AM · #74 |
(looking into my crystal ball)
....I see, I seeeee....a thread. A thread of length. 100...no, no...1000 pages long. I seeee....the title of the thread. Thhheeeee title (straining my eyes to see through the clouds of the future) issss.....
....."Do you shoot DNG or RAW or that thing called JPEG?"
(exhausted)
|
|
|
|
05/30/2006 01:34:28 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I know the answer, but I wonder why noone ever debates to use Tiff files in these discussions? |
Because they slow the camera down or even freeze it for a while with only one shot taken. I also do not know of any camera that does 16 bit tiff.
The only time I use (16 bit) TIFF is when scanning photographs (huge files, especially when they need to be englarged).
|
|
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: 08/01/2025 04:16:48 PM EDT.
