| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2007 06:27:47 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by nards656:
At the risk of being thought of as foolish, backward, I have decided to turn off the RAW for a while.
Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW?
I'm actually convinced my photography has gone downhill since I started using RAW. My storage needs have tripled, I turn out fewer shots, I even SHOOT less because I dread the wasted shots.... yadda yadda. I don't have a built in RAW converter, so it adds a step, and I've found I don't like that.
As proof, my current entry is so far scoring as my third highest shot ever, and it was shot, gasp gasp, in JPEG.
Anybody else have the balls to admit it? :) |
I have never spent more than 10 minutes on any challenge entry. I always shoot jpg and try to work with minimum pp.
there are two reasons, one i do not have time, second, i always believed if i try to take best out of camera than i learn more. I would eventually switch to raw, but i do not think i have learned enough yet.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 07:28:56 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by nards656:
As proof, my current entry is so far scoring as my third highest shot ever, and it was shot, gasp gasp, in JPEG.
Anybody else have the balls to admit it? :) |
Ahhh, ahem..... I've actually started shooting in 640x480 GIF format. Who needs more than 64 colors. It's a crutch I tell you!
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 07:32:30 PM · #103 |
well, i can say this , since i started using raw, my scores started getting higher, and by higher i mean SERIOUSLY higher.
i think it gives you the opportunity to choose the right white balance and the right colors, without forgetting sharpening and whatever else comes to mind. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 07:47:39 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by nards656:
As proof, my current entry is so far scoring as my third highest shot ever, and it was shot, gasp gasp, in JPEG.
Anybody else have the balls to admit it? :) |
Ahhh, ahem..... I've actually started shooting in 640x480 GIF format. Who needs more than 64 colors. It's a crutch I tell you! |
Um GIF supports 256 colors... WTF? |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 07:55:39 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
I move out in two weeks back on my own. And for alot of kids they have the choice to stay home, my fathers kinda like get the hell out lol. |
FWIW, I shoot RAW to compensate for lack of foresight (exposure & WB) - it has saved many unsavable shots.
...oh, and regarding the quote: I agree with your dad - get the hell out. :)
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 19:56:06. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 07:57:15 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
I move out in two weeks back on my own. And for alot of kids they have the choice to stay home, my fathers kinda like get the hell out lol. |
FWIW, I shoot RAW to compensate for lack of foresight (exposure & WB) - it has saved many unsavable shots.
...oh, and regarding the quote: I agree with your dad - get the hell out. :) |
Well you being you ill forgive you for thaT! J/K... heh anyways its not exactly like i wanted to move back in. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 08:06:37 PM · #107 |
hmmmmm....
Think I'll stick to jpegs - that RAW stuff is wicked!
It is kinda' funky though.
:)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 08:25:45 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by biteme:
I don't know if this still makes sense in the thread (didn't read it all) but:
If you could choose between polaroid or film-negative, for f.e. photos for an exhibition, the choice would be obvious, right?
RAW is our digital positive. Get out of it what you can (but don't neglect the technics). |
A RAW is like a Negative
A JPEG is like a Print
DO you reproduce your 35mm Photos from the negative or the print? |
I disagree with the Print/Polaroid = Jpeg; Negative = RAW line.
I mean, you cannot perform post-processing on a print/polaroid but you can edit a Jpeg and do more with it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 08:28:14 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I find it ironic that a camera that cost over 3G doesn't take satisfactory jpegs right out of the box compelling one to use raw to compensate. lol jk had to say it though. |
You can find it ironic if you like, but those cameras are designed to produce images (RAW or JPG) that are expected to have further processing done to them. |
so back in the days of negative cameras, does the super-expensive cameras produce negatives that must be edited to be good? |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 08:47:55 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by crayon:
so back in the days of negative cameras, does the super-expensive cameras produce negatives that must be edited to be good? |
I bet the guys with the big expensive cameras either had their own darkrooms or had their stuff printed at a lab, not at the quickie-mart down the street. :-)
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 09:00:19 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by crayon:
so back in the days of negative cameras, does the super-expensive cameras produce negatives that must be edited to be good? |
Um ... yes. Transparencies did not allow you any leeway, but negatives were printed at the lab and *heavily* color and exposure corrected without your intervention. Pros would spend much more time on the printing process than the taking process (the trek to the location and waiting for the right light notwithstanding of course.)
Some quotes from Ansel Adams:
The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways.
Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.
You don't take a photograph, you make it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 09:03:39 PM · #112 |
I shot 5000 RAW before I got tired of all the tweaking and the time and space required to move it around and store it.
I have since shot triple that amount in jpeg *normal* (I don't waste the space on fine either, because there are simply so few artifacts in a good jpeg compression algorithm at moderate compression) .... and frankly, once you get used to nailing the exposure and white balance, the rest is pretty simple. I've been thrilled with my results ...
I shoot RAW now only when I want to shoot at 1600iso in low light. I always overexpose by 1/3 stop, which really helps with noise control. Pulling down is easy in RAW and I find the results very nice.
All other shooting is in jpeg, as it should be :-) |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 09:07:56 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by crayon:
so back in the days of negative cameras, does the super-expensive cameras produce negatives that must be edited to be good? |
I bet the guys with the big expensive cameras either had their own darkrooms or had their stuff printed at a lab, not at the quickie-mart down the street. :-) |
Guys, you're trying to mislead people again with that - your dark room/wallmart is more likened to post-processing methods, and not the recording medium. Film will be film will be film, no matter if the camera is $10000 grand or $1000 grand. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:19:46 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by biteme:
I don't know if this still makes sense in the thread (didn't read it all) but:
If you could choose between polaroid or film-negative, for f.e. photos for an exhibition, the choice would be obvious, right?
RAW is our digital positive. Get out of it what you can (but don't neglect the technics). |
A RAW is like a Negative
A JPEG is like a Print
DO you reproduce your 35mm Photos from the negative or the print? |
I disagree with the Print/Polaroid = Jpeg; Negative = RAW line.
I mean, you cannot perform post-processing on a print/polaroid but you can edit a Jpeg and do more with it. |
Wrong you can post process a print the same as a JPEG. In order to reproduce the Print the same way youd reproduce the JPEG to print you would do what? Scan it (me i say 4800 DPI) (also for me then edit the imperfections of the sacn then resize it to say 8x10 at 300 PPI). The post process it.
You say but theres loss from print to file in scanning. But aha! Jpeg has loss between camera to file to display to print! |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:22:15 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by BradP:
hmmmmm....
Think I'll stick to jpegs - that RAW stuff is wicked!
It is kinda' funky though.
:) |
You like that pic brad? JPEG all the way not to mention a cheap 6 MP point and shoot. A chair with the wheels removed. ANd my arm!
BTW Post processing invloved cant you tell? None unless u count a resize. I dont think i croped it.
It was my 3 hours too late cruddy butt attempt at motion panning.
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 01:24:22. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:29:28 AM · #116 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by crayon:
I disagree with the Print/Polaroid = Jpeg; Negative = RAW line.
I mean, you cannot perform post-processing on a print/polaroid but you can edit a Jpeg and do more with it. |
Wrong you can post process a print the same as a JPEG. In order to reproduce the Print the same way youd reproduce the JPEG to print you would do what? Scan it (me i say 4800 DPI) (also for me then edit the imperfections of the sacn then resize it to say 8x10 at 300 PPI). The post process it.
You say but theres loss from print to file in scanning. But aha! Jpeg has loss between camera to file to display to print! |
but dude... JPEG means a simpler workflow (than RAW), and what you just described to "post-process" a print/polaroid scares me away. So as you can see, they are not similar. So NO, Jpeg isn't equivalent to Prints. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:34:27 AM · #117 |
Well a JPEG sure as hell isnt a Negative.
And my preservation scans at 4800 DPI a single 8x10 can take up several GB. a 2400 DPI scan on an 8x10 is about 1.3 GB uncompressed.
You wouldnt believe the scratch space and the processor power it takes for photoshop to do some simple editing on them lol.
But i wont sacrfice any quality i dont have to. If i have the negative i scan the negative. If the print is all thats left i have to scan the print and take hours to meticously edit it just to get it to a Master Archive file status.
Opening Rotating Cropping and resaving an image at 4800 DPI takes about an hour. on a 2.6 GHZ P4 that is with 2 gigs of ram. An SATA hard rive would help the data from the "Scratch disks" move faster but mye SATA drive died lol. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:39:02 AM · #118 |
I use jpg often... in certain circumstances including, but not limited to:
a) When I am feeling lazy (very often)
b) When I want to save room on my card(s) (pretty often)
c) When I am shooting casual/fun/snapshot type stuff that I don't care about spending a lot of time processing (often)
d) When I feel confident enough in my abilities not to get the WB wrong/Highlights blown/Et al. (Seldom)
It's very dependant.
What I don't get, however, is why anyone else.. anywhere.. gives a shit *what* I, or anyone else that isn't themselves, shoots in.. besides people asking for specific pros/cons or advice on the differences.
I see far too often the battling that takes place over this.. how just because a person shoots in one mode, it means they're better or whatever..
No.
You're just being a complete and total dick at that point.
What matters is the end result, and I have seen far too many stunning results from *both* sides of shooting.. (and other methods, like DNG), to make me think any one way of shooting is inherently better than any other way.
So if you shoot in jpg, great. You have your reasons.
If you shoot in RAW, great. You have your reasons.
If you shoot in both, great. You have your reasons.
Enjoy your photography.
Peace out.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:44:47 AM · #119 |
| See i wish he was on the site council wrote that and locked the thread. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:47:51 AM · #120 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
See i wish he was on the site council wrote that and locked the thread. |
One can dream...
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:52:59 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
See i wish he was on the site council wrote that and locked the thread. |
One can dream... |
One can get off his lazy but and fill ut an app! Im kidding except for the getting off your lazy but and filling out an app part i wasnt joking about that part. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:56:02 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
See i wish he was on the site council wrote that and locked the thread. |
One can dream... |
One can get off his lazy but and fill ut an app! Im kidding except for the getting off your lazy but and filling out an app part i wasnt joking about that part. |
Who says I haven't filled one out?
Although.. I'd be worried if I did.. calling possible future SC people "lazy" isn't exactly smart ;)
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 01:56:50.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:56:11 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
See i wish he was on the site council wrote that and locked the thread. |
I'm curious what there is about this thread that makes it lockable? As far as I can see everyone's behaving in a reasonably civilized manner, everyone's expressing their opinions, so what's the problem?
R.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:57:15 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
See i wish he was on the site council wrote that and locked the thread. |
I'm curious what there is about this thread that makes it lockable? As far as I can see everyone's behaving in a reasonably civilized manner, everyone's expressing their opinions, so what's the problem?
R. |
I wish HE was on SC :-)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 01:57:24 AM · #125 |
| He said the most peaceful thing on earth and u know damn well if god said heres the solution everyone would shut up for about 10 years and then war would break out again. This man said what needed to be said and too bad it wont be more then 10 mintues before the next raw or jpeg post. |
|
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: 06/25/2025 02:31:22 PM EDT.
