| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2007 09:52:43 AM · #26 |
And we all like to be cool ;)
I started shooting raw about 6 months back, and despite the ridiculous amount of hard drive space I need I wouldn't go back... I have a lot more control over post-processing, and a lot more detail in the images.
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Because the cool kids do it. :-D |
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:14:21 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by surfdabbler:
The RAW can be a little sharper, yes, but also noisier. |
Huh? Noisier?
Perhaps if you have in-camera noise reduction on for the JPGs, but I'm never had any issues with noisy RAW conversion, unless I completely effed up the exposure. |
Agreed. If RAW is noisier, you're doing something wrong.
R. |
I've actually noticed that my raw images are noisier than the jpgs, but the noise is easily filtered and the benefits of the 12-bit imaging greatly outweigh shooting in jpg mode. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:18:00 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by signal2noise:
I've actually noticed that my raw images are noisier than the jpgs, but the noise is easily filtered and the benefits of the 12-bit imaging greatly outweigh shooting in jpg mode. |
The only reason this may be true is if there is noise-reduction working in the camera on JPG files. Or perhaps if one is struggling to return detail to underexposed areas with RAW. In any case, noise reduction may be applied in PP where that is an issue.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 10:19:55 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Why shoot jpeg? And before you say that jpegs are easier to edit or suchlike... I can work faster with RAW files to achieve the same goals. Storage can not be an issue at current price levels.
The only reason not to shoot RAW in my opinion is if your computer not good enough to deal with the files. |
I always shoot RAW but there is certainly an issue when you want to do more then a few frames in sequence. I know the 20D is bad compared to the more modern cameras as RAW's on it clag very quickly compared to JPG but all of them shoot RAW's much slower in burst.
Another situation where JPG would be better if you were only shooting for a newpaper or web-site and you had to email quickly small files (in this case I might shoot RAW+JPG but anyway).
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:02:56 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by robs:
I always shoot RAW but there is certainly an issue when you want to do more then a few frames in sequence. I know the 20D is bad compared to the more modern cameras as RAW's on it clag very quickly compared to JPG but all of them shoot RAW's much slower in burst. |
That's the most compelling alternative scenario for sure: if you are shooting sustained burst mode, like in sports, on a lot of cameras RAW is not an option, realistically.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:15:35 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
People are always telling me too shoot RAW images! Why? What are the benifits of changing the file name and marker type? What does it do? DO it change picture quality? |
Try it and then you will understand. |
I've tried it and still don't understand..I hate the raw images because they are blurry and it takes twice as long to mess with them...maybe it is my camera, so I continue to shoot jpg. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 11:48:12 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
People are always telling me too shoot RAW images! Why? What are the benifits of changing the file name and marker type? What does it do? DO it change picture quality? |
Try it and then you will understand. |
I've tried it and still don't understand..I hate the raw images because they are blurry and it takes twice as long to mess with them...maybe it is my camera, so I continue to shoot jpg. |
jpgs are automatically sharpened in camera, so the RAW files look blurry compared to them. They can be sharpened right in the RAW software (probably depending on what you use) and should fine after that. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:07:44 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
People are always telling me too shoot RAW images! Why? What are the benifits of changing the file name and marker type? What does it do? DO it change picture quality? |
Try it and then you will understand. |
I've tried it and still don't understand..I hate the raw images because they are blurry and it takes twice as long to mess with them...maybe it is my camera, so I continue to shoot jpg. |
jpgs are automatically sharpened in camera, so the RAW files look blurry compared to them. They can be sharpened right in the RAW software (probably depending on what you use) and should fine after that. |
Let's face it; for those who want instant gratification with a minimum of fuss, JPG is the way to go. No matter how you slice it up, working from RAW requires attention to detail on every image. It's not as labor-intensive as some make it out to be, but it's a whole lot more labor-intensive than shooting nicely-saturated and crisply-sharpened JPG right out of the camera.
The tradeoff is MUCH more control over the finished product, but that only applies if you get to where you know what you are doing and are willing to invest the time in PP.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:11:32 PM · #34 |
Sligthly off topic but also along the lines of the conversation. A good workflow makes RAW more productive and less tedious.
Any Canon Folks using Digital Photo Professional? (No h8ters pls).
I am doing a DPP workflow for Dummies (current version and leaning toward the batch conversion side) for a couple of my bro's. I have a decent rough for the RAW/RGB tabs but personally I don't use the Noise Reduction, CA removal etc... any one use that last tab and have any tips? Maybe start a specific thread or PM me?
We should be able to put a decent tut together.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:29:07 PM · #35 |
Let's put it this way:
If you're the type of person that likes to drop film off at a 1 hour lab and pic up prints for instant gratification and un-aged nostalgia. JPG is probably your best bet.
But, if you are the type that would spend hours in a dark room (if you had access to it) working on one print, RAW should probably be your starting point.
If you need both bulk and flexibility there is RAW+JPG or Lightroom.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:30:10 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
But I can't edit RAW images! What do I do? I'll have to buy the $300 new version of Photoshop, (CS3)... |
surfdabbler will shudder when I say this, but your Canon camera came with a fine piece of software called Digital Photo Professional that can convert your raw files to TIFF or JPEG.
As for why to insert the additional RAW conversion step into your workflow, there are two very good reasons:
1. It allows you to make changes in white balance, sharpening, contrast, etc after the image has been captured. This can be critical if you are shooting for a client in fast changing light conditions. Trying telling a bride her images are all yellow because you left the camera in daylight white balance while shooting indoors and you will never question shooting RAW again.
2. You capture more data per pixel which means you have more latitude for adjustment afterwards. This doesn't mean you can save a poorly exposed image, but it does mean that you can use adjustment like curves and levels far more affectively.
If your exposure and in camera settings are always perfect and you never use curves or levels to adjust your images, no reason to bother.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 12:30:33.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:43:52 PM · #37 |
| I would really like to see post processing of both raw and jpeg plus a print of each. Would be interesting to see the difference in quality. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 12:54:32 PM · #38 |
I shoot RAW most of the time and jpeg sometimes, depending on the situation, intended outcome of the picture, and whether or not I think to change it before I shoot.
If I'm snapping shots of my kids, just because I think they are cute, probably jpeg, possibly RAW if that is what it is already set to.
If I'm shooting a wedding, or family portrait, and it is dark or they have 18 different kinds of lightbulbs, RAW.
When I'm shooting little league sports, jpeg because the RAW takes longer to write to my cards.
Challenge entries, depends on what I shot last. :) |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 02:53:40 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
I would really like to see post processing of both raw and jpeg plus a print of each. Would be interesting to see the difference in quality. |
I guess I should elaborate more.. I have already tried this and my jpeg comes out sharper and less noise, but I am sure I didn't post process correctly and part of that is the fact that it took forever to mess with one raw shot and half the time my computer froze up..so maybe I need a new computer or whatever.
jpeg printed better than raw for me.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 14:55:04. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:42:05 PM · #40 |
The OP and others are using the 300D, which is challenged above ISO 400.
DPP is a good RAW converter, and allows you to use picture styles (there's also a picture style editor).
DSLRs need more PS work than P&Ses do, and RAW needs more than JPG.
A quick workflow if you use DPP is to set the tone curve assist on the main page for all your images to standard or high. Go into the image editor for the selected pictures and make sure the WB is correct. Then, set the exposure correctly, move the histogram sliders to the edges of the data in the histogram (its easier to try this out than explain it) And there are times when you intentionally blow out bright spots to get the rest of the picture correct.
Once you get a good exposure, try the different picture styles. Pick the style you like best, then fine tune the exposure. play with the contrast and saturation. Then zoom the image to 100% and move the sharpness slider till you see some "halos" around objects, then backoff on the sharpness.
If you're shooting at ISO 800 or more on the 300D, then play with the Noise Reduction feature or use Noise Ninja or a similar program.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 03:56:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by hankk:
The OP and others are using the 300D, which is challenged above ISO 400.
|
And that, my friend is the UNDERstatement of the year. :)
the tone curve assist change helped a lot. thanks. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 04:53:32 PM · #42 |
1) You always get white balance perfect
2) You always get exposure (completely) perfect,
3) You will never sell your photos,
4) You only shoot your kids or vacation shots that nobody will ever see
5) You don't really need to use your expensive camera to its full abilities,
6) You are just plain lazy and don't care about the quality of your photos.
If you answered yes to all of these, then you can shoot JPG. However, please first box up your dSLR and send it to me and get a point-and-shoot.
I don't really feel strongly about this, do I? Shooting JPG to me would be like an eagle flying with only one wing or driving a performance car at 25MPH (40 KPH for those on the other side of the pond). |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:08:07 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by ColemanGariety:
But I can't edit RAW images! What do I do? I'll have to buy the $300 new version of Photoshop, (CS3)... |
I use CS2, The way I have to do it is, upload all my photos from the camera and have the computer delete all photos uploaded from my camera.
Then, I turn the camera off, then on again to initiate the auto run, to open the windows camera wizard.
Then, I click on "advanced"
at that moment I can see the .CR2 files, I then copy and paste them into the folder of my choice.
When I open a .CR2 file, it will automatically open it in PS CS2.
additionally, I like RAW as it saves all info I do. If I edit the photo in RAW, then save it, I can always re-open the RAW file (that I saved over) and revert back to the original settings. i.e... crop, exposure, color, brightness, contrast...etc. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 05:15:03 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Because the cool kids do it. :-D |
That's right!! Last night I was watching the Natalie Gulbis show on the Golf Channel. She was doing a shoot with [url=www.fiorenzoborghi.com]Fiorienzo Borghi[/url]. At one point the camera showed the preview from the Hasselblad HD39 he was using. It had a nice big RAW at the top......and he's a cool kid!! LOL |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 07:23:21 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by JopperTom:
1) You always get white balance perfect |
most the time, yes, but something you can fix with a jpeg file in cs2!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
2) You always get exposure (completely) perfect, |
Something else you can fix in cs2 very easily!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
3) You will never sell your photos, |
I sell my pictures to local hotels and they love them and clients love the prints of their families!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
4) You only shoot your kids or vacation shots that nobody will ever see |
nope!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
5) You don't really need to use your expensive camera to its full abilities, |
Just a mean comment!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
6) You are just plain lazy and don't care about the quality of your photos. |
and another mean comment..if you have kids you want to spend time with them not the computer all day. If you love the outside world then you don't want to spend all your time on the computer messing with a pictures that are just as good in jpeg form than raw.
Originally posted by JopperTom:
If you answered yes to all of these, then you can shoot JPG. However, please first box up your dSLR and send it to me and get a point-and-shoot. |
NO!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
I don't really feel strongly about this, do I? Shooting JPG to me would be like an eagle flying with only one wing or driving a performance car at 25MPH (40 KPH for those on the other side of the pond). |
I guess I don't understand why you are so dead set on raw? give me samples, give me reason to switch, because what i have tried was not good enough. Don't just spit words out to hurt others to express your OWN opinion.
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 19:24:25. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 07:51:31 PM · #46 |
RAW benefits
Ditto
Also for those who mentioned not being able to process RAW images - either just go the whole hog and buy Lightroom or you should be able to get your hands on RawShooter Essentials at download.com or similar (it just wont register - but will still work)
That or you can try other RAW software like Capture One i think the "Light" edition is like $100, and remember reading something about a bundle with Extreme III cards from SanDisk if you fancy getting a bigger/faster card any time soon.
I wont put my views forward on RAW vs Jpeg because that is already being discussed. It is a contentious issue, but i will say: just shoot what you are comfortable with it is your photo.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:02:01 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
RAW benefits
Ditto
Also for those who mentioned not being able to process RAW images - either just go the whole hog and buy Lightroom or you should be able to get your hands on RawShooter Essentials at download.com or similar (it just wont register - but will still work)
That or you can try other RAW software like Capture One i think the "Light" edition is like $100, and remember reading something about a bundle with Extreme III cards from SanDisk if you fancy getting a bigger/faster card any time soon.
I wont put my views forward on RAW vs Jpeg because that is already being discussed. It is a contentious issue, but i will say: just shoot what you are comfortable with it is your photo. |
Thank you for that first link..I now know the difference. I need to get a better computer to work with the big files and program. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:13:00 PM · #48 |
| Picasa reads NEF files from Nikon, and I use that for my quick and dirty edits and to cull. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 08:15:10 PM · #49 |
wow...such a busted post if there ever was one...
Message edited by author 2007-12-20 20:18:58. |
|
|
|
12/20/2007 09:00:38 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Sonifo:
Originally posted by JopperTom:
1) You always get white balance perfect |
most the time, yes, but something you can fix with a jpeg file in cs2!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
2) You always get exposure (completely) perfect, |
Something else you can fix in cs2 very easily!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
3) You will never sell your photos, |
I sell my pictures to local hotels and they love them and clients love the prints of their families!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
4) You only shoot your kids or vacation shots that nobody will ever see |
nope!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
5) You don't really need to use your expensive camera to its full abilities, |
Just a mean comment!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
6) You are just plain lazy and don't care about the quality of your photos. |
and another mean comment..if you have kids you want to spend time with them not the computer all day. If you love the outside world then you don't want to spend all your time on the computer messing with a pictures that are just as good in jpeg form than raw.
Originally posted by JopperTom:
If you answered yes to all of these, then you can shoot JPG. However, please first box up your dSLR and send it to me and get a point-and-shoot. |
NO!
Originally posted by JopperTom:
I don't really feel strongly about this, do I? Shooting JPG to me would be like an eagle flying with only one wing or driving a performance car at 25MPH (40 KPH for those on the other side of the pond). |
I guess I don't understand why you are so dead set on raw? give me samples, give me reason to switch, because what i have tried was not good enough. Don't just spit words out to hurt others to express your OWN opinion. |
1 ) You can't always fix bad white balance in CS2. Really bad white balance, especially a warm shift 9daylight under tungsten light) can cause issues such as clipping and banding on the red channel that can't be fixed.
2 )Yes, you can adjust exposure a bit in PS, but with only 8-bit info from the jpG file, you don't have the same amount of info to start with as you would in RAW.
3) Your clients won't be able to tell the difference, if both photos are good, but your chances of an outstanding photo are better with RAW.
4) ok
5) not really a mean comment... you are throwing out 4-6 bits of info to start, plus complete contol of the product.
6) ok, maybe a bit mean, but the reason MOST people use jpg.
7) There is no 7.
It's like any other tool and to quote Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility". You have more control, but with that control comes the possibility to produce good and bad images. The great part is, if you mess up, you still have the ability to adjust settings and try again.
|
|
