| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2004 10:18:05 AM · #1 |
I've noticed on some of the galleris some of you shoot in "FINE" format.
Which sparks the question Have any of you shot in "FINE" format and had prints made?
How did they turn out? |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 10:22:22 AM · #2 |
| Sure. Fine. Under (good) many circumstances there is hardly no visable difference though RAW can sometimes give you better results (expecially under diffucult circumstances). |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 10:25:00 AM · #3 |
I'm shooting a wedding this week for my cousin!
I wanted to try and get by shooting in "Fine"! |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 10:30:38 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by c2creations:
I'm shooting a wedding this week for my cousin!
I wanted to try and get by shooting in "Fine"! |
Ahhh, wedding. You only have one change there. Well if the lightning conditions are good and you are carefull about all settings of your camera then it should be alright.
Is it a question of memory space? Can´t someone you know lend you a memory card/cards? |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 11:11:55 AM · #5 |
With RAW, you can change the whitebalance during conversion, a feature not available in jpeg mode. If your wedding venue has a number of different lightings, and you use 'fine', you'll need to be on your guard continuously against whitebalance problems.
There are ways to overcome whitebalance errors after the event, including one in our own tutorials by Moodville. However, any alterations to jpeg reduce quality.
I'd go with RAW and a few extra memory cards. |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 11:37:25 AM · #6 |
if you have a well controlled invironement and proper lighting conditions, HQ Jpegs are most good. I've learned this from Dr.Jones, who only uses raw (nef) where conditions demand it.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 12:51:36 PM · #7 |
Which one do you like better? Example 1, straight from the camera with the camera's AWB, or Example 2 with two clicks of the mouse prior to converting from RAW...
Example 1
Example 2
This example should answer your questions. I never shoot anything but RAW, even if that means I have to miss some shots because I don't have enough memory cards, it sucks, but the extra data captured in RAW format has helped me out more then being able to shoot more images in JPG (Fine) mode.
Allow me to add one thing. I believe that there are very few brides that could forgive having her white wedding gown appear yellow in her wedding photos... I would really keep that in mind.
If memory cards are an issue for you, do yourself a big favor and bite the bullet and beg, borrow or put on credit a handful of additional Memory Cards.
Message edited by author 2004-09-23 12:55:44. |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 12:56:18 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 01:56:00 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Koriyama:
... There are ways to overcome whitebalance errors after the event, including one in our own tutorials by Moodville. However, any alterations to jpeg reduce quality. ... |
Editing a jpg image does not reduce the quality, saving to jpg again does. If there is no noticable difference in the look of the fine and RAW files before editing, there will be no difference after one final save to jpg.
However, if you have a choice when shooting a situation where one shot is all your going to get (and weddings are full of them), shoot in RAW. That allows you to keep your attention on your subject that much more; and on your camera that much less.
David
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 02:24:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Which one do you like better? Example 1, straight from the camera with the camera's AWB, or Example 2 with two clicks of the mouse prior to converting from RAW...
Example 1
Example 2
This example should answer your questions. I never shoot anything but RAW, even if that means I have to miss some shots because I don't have enough memory cards, it sucks, but the extra data captured in RAW format has helped me out more then being able to shoot more images in JPG (Fine) mode.
Allow me to add one thing. I believe that there are very few brides that could forgive having her white wedding gown appear yellow in her wedding photos... I would really keep that in mind.
If memory cards are an issue for you, do yourself a big favor and bite the bullet and beg, borrow or put on credit a handful of additional Memory Cards. |
well, if your shooting in AWB..I can only asume that your "lighting conditions" are not controlled. I've never even used AWB since it slides the spectrum around way to much. The idea is to find the setting closest to your actual lighting...and again the use of RAW will be a plus in conditions where you KNOW you will have to tweak...but in studio for example...there is no need to tweak the WB.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 03:02:08 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
well, if your shooting in AWB..I can only asume that your "lighting conditions" are not controlled. I've never even used AWB since it slides the spectrum around way to much. The idea is to find the setting closest to your actual lighting...and again the use of RAW will be a plus in conditions where you KNOW you will have to tweak...but in studio for example...there is no need to tweak the WB. |
The original poster is talking about shooting a wedding. Not shooting in a controlled lighting environment of a studio. Based upon the given circumstances, it might be best if the original poster shoots in RAW.
Unless you know of a way that will cause any bride with a white dress to be happy to see her dress appearing yellow, blue or some other shade in her final prints...
My example was put together from some shots that I recently took that were easily fixed inside the RAW Conversion software with but two clicks of the mouse. It was meant as an example of how shooting RAW can help to easily save images and in the case of the original poster, stop whatever grief may occur from being unable to easily 'fix' such issues, if they come up.
You shoot however you want to shoot. If you are a master of Photograhpy, White-Balance and your camera, then you should get good to amazing shots regardless of the FINE, RAW or what-have-you setting on your camera.
If you aren't under controlled cirsumstances and or you aren't extremely well versed in White-Balance controls (ie. setting, controlling, deciding upon which setting to use in a given location...) shooting RAW may save some images, regardless of how awesome or poor a photographer you may be.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 03:14:56 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by Gil P:
well, if your shooting in AWB..I can only asume that your "lighting conditions" are not controlled. I've never even used AWB since it slides the spectrum around way to much. The idea is to find the setting closest to your actual lighting...and again the use of RAW will be a plus in conditions where you KNOW you will have to tweak...but in studio for example...there is no need to tweak the WB. |
The original poster is talking about shooting a wedding. Not shooting in a controlled lighting environment of a studio. Based upon the given circumstances, it might be best if the original poster shoots in RAW.
Unless you know of a way that will cause any bride with a white dress to be happy to see her dress appearing yellow, blue or some other shade in her final prints...
My example was put together from some shots that I recently took that were easily fixed inside the RAW Conversion software with but two clicks of the mouse. It was meant as an example of how shooting RAW can help to easily save images and in the case of the original poster, stop whatever grief may occur from being unable to easily 'fix' such issues, if they come up.
You shoot however you want to shoot. If you are a master of Photograhpy, White-Balance and your camera, then you should get good to amazing shots regardless of the FINE, RAW or what-have-you setting on your camera.
If you aren't under controlled cirsumstances and or you aren't extremely well versed in White-Balance controls (ie. setting, controlling, deciding upon which setting to use in a given location...) shooting RAW may save some images, regardless of how awesome or poor a photographer you may be. |
I totally agree that RAW will give you more post options, no argument there, however I'm not big on AWB because form shot to shot there is no constent, it's best to find the closest setting to the reality of the environement and go from there.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 04:28:20 PM · #13 |
There's an article on this in the September 2004 issue of Outdoor Photographer, but it's not available on-line. Check your library or news-stand if interested ...
Basically says there are situations where JPEG is more than adequate ... some comfort to those of us who can't use the RAW format anyway : ) |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 04:52:42 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 05:38:47 PM · #15 |
if your doing a RAW vs JPEG, obviously RAW will win. What I'm saying is that in some situations, Jpg will have some advantages:
I was asked to shoot some candid shots of a national meeting which lasted 5 days, this was to be shown as a slide show during the farewell breakfast...over 400shots.. so by shooting at med-res jpg, the files were light and still full screen on the projections...and I could just run a windows slideshow.
or if your doing web oriented studio work.
Message edited by author 2004-09-23 17:39:36.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 06:18:36 PM · #16 |
i shot my first wedding last week as an assistant with another pro .
the pro is using jpeg all the time and spend only 2 hrs in photoshop for the entire album. i used to belive in raw . but after working with him , looks like jpeg is not bad for weddings when you want to take lots of pictures .
we first went to location and adjusted our camera and took it from there. 90% of the results were good.
but still , i will shoot next wedding in raw just to check out and not to worry about white balance
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 06:38:51 PM · #17 |
I shoot JPG fine all the time and my prints are great.
I very rarely print bigger than 8x10 so RAW for me is not really worth it.
Many people even question what camer I use, I say its digital and I get the dear in the head lights look from them, or a "wow really ..its digital???"
it really depends on how critical you are.
Do a test, shoot the same subject in RAW, then JPG fine, do some post processing and print both in 8x10. Then you can make the decision if RAW is for you.
James
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 06:44:35 PM · #18 |
i think james you are right. i had the simillar experience. JPEG fine is okay in most of the conditions.my first wedding shoot
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 06:45:41 PM · #19 |
One of the main reasons I use RAW is because it gives me the flexibility to create different versions of the same image without much compromise. RAW is like an unprocessed negative to me and I can process it slightly differently everytime.
What follows then with Photoshop is like trying to get a decent print.
- Just the way I approach it. |
|
|
|
09/23/2004 07:28:11 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
two clicks of the mouse |
I don't really know what you mean by two clicks of the mouse. So, you put it on your computer and click where, in what program, or just on the explorer window of the image to open it?
I don't know much about RAW. I shot in it once, and couldn't view any of the photos with windows explorer (that's how i organize all of my photos... i look at them in thumbnails and move them into their appropriate folders and then burn CDs of them once a week or so). So, out of convenience, I haven't used it due to 'no thumbs'. However, i know that's a poor excuse. I really just don't print too often to be honest.
For a wedding, i could totally see where it's best to have the HIGHEST quality possible, but I don't really understand the tweaking of the white balance in RAW after you take the photo. I never learned how or when or what to do...
|
|
|
|
09/23/2004 07:34:54 PM · #21 |
RAW conversion software is what Nelzie stated. You can change the white balance to be more pleasing before converting from RAW.
If you use Photoshop CS, the fileviewer shows thumbs for raw files. Zoombrowser will also show you the thumbs for RAW files. You can move photos around in there as well, albeit a little slow.
Tweaking of the white balance may be necessary after the photo is taken if 1) the wrong WB was used originally; 2) auto WB just didn't cut it or 3) you want to try something creative.
Obviously, if you've got the WB bang on when you shoot you won't have to do this.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2004 07:26:16 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by mirdonamy:
Originally posted by Nelzie:
two clicks of the mouse |
I don't really know what you mean by two clicks of the mouse. So, you put it on your computer and click where, in what program, or just on the explorer window of the image to open it?
I don't know much about RAW. I shot in it once, and couldn't view any of the photos with windows explorer (that's how i organize all of my photos... i look at them in thumbnails and move them into their appropriate folders and then burn CDs of them once a week or so). So, out of convenience, I haven't used it due to 'no thumbs'. However, i know that's a poor excuse. I really just don't print too often to be honest.
For a wedding, i could totally see where it's best to have the HIGHEST quality possible, but I don't really understand the tweaking of the white balance in RAW after you take the photo. I never learned how or when or what to do... |
In the Canon FileViewerUtility 1.3, which allows you to view, tweak and convert RAW to TIFF format, there is a White-Balance tool called "Click White Balance". With one Mouse click, you select that tool, with the second Mouse Click you select what is supposed to be white in your image. That's two clicks.
The utility has a handful of other settings that can be used to tweak an image before conversion to TIFF for whatever final edits you may wish to perform. For instance, you can change the Exposure Compensation by up to two full stops. That's a very powerful ability. Since you have the Canon 10D, get that application installed, shoot something in RAW and bring it into that application. Experiencing that application is far better then I would ever be able to describe it.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2004 08:06:21 AM · #23 |
In the end, I think both Formats have their Merits.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2004 08:34:04 AM · #24 |
There's definitely some situations in which JPG does a good job, and without careful scrutiny you'd never know the difference. There are some points to consider I didn't see in this thread yet though.
JPG does its sharpening in-camera. This is not (necessarily) the same quality as USM mask because it doesn't have controls for as many aspects (amount, radius, threshold) so it tends to be noisier at high settings or not as well suited to a shot with many fine details (low radius/high amount) or no fine details such as a sky shot (big radius, low amount, high threshold). So, you'll almost always get better sharpening results using USM in your favorite editor. No big deal, you can turn off in-camera sharpening.
Another thing to note, specifically with Nikons, is that Nikon uses a proprietary anti-aliasing algorithm in the NEF conversion which works differently than in-camera JPG sharpening, and different than USM. The end result is a smoothing of the sharpened borders to avoid jaggies at high magnification (or enlargements). It's a very effective feature which unfortunately is not carried through in tools like dcraw due to it being a non-open process.
Regarding WB, this is a big advantage with RAW, but need not be a show-stopper for JPG. In most cases you can make a huge improvement in the image by getting your camera off auto WB and setting to what it ought to be - tungsten, cloudy, sunlight, etc. It's not as tweakable as RAW, which can be adjusted in a preview, but it does avoid the previous example of the yellow background. I don't know how common the feature is, but my D70 allows for fine-tuning the temperature of each WB preset, so with some test shots and consistent conditions you can make JPG quite good for WB.
On the other hand, sometimes you *want* to shoot something in a WB other than reality. This would be the software equivalent of a warming filter - a great touch for autumn foliage shots. With RAW you can warm up an image for effect without loosing image quality. Another reason I prefer RAW for landscape work.
I find that when I'm working on fine-art landscapes I prefer the flexibility of RAW for re-interpreting an image. When I'm shooting at a zoo, or working wildlife in the field I tend to shoot JPG because I don't have as much control over what I'm shooting. You can't tell a bird to turn a little to the left :) As a result, there's usually some other aspect of the shot which detracts more than the quality loss of shooting JPG, so I just use the more convenient JPG with in-camera sharpening turned off. Maybe someday I'll be good enough to remove this argument and shoot all RAW, but for now that's how I choose between the two options.
Hope this helps!
|
|
|
|
09/24/2004 08:55:30 AM · #25 |
I was reading this recently, might be useful :)
|
|
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: 09/20/2025 06:36:03 PM EDT.
