| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2006 02:01:40 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by deapee:
When you bought your camera, did you tell them to give you the version of the 300d without the processing software and so on and to give you a discount, all you're going to do is shoot in RAW? |
No, I bought a camera that would let me be in control of the final product. If you look at my average score here as a baseline, my scores were better with the OLY P/S camera. Would I go back because I have to do the work instead of the camera? Never... |
Why do you think you have to do the work instead of letting the camera? That's absurd man, seriously. One of the reasons the 300d is more expensive than what you had was because a lot went into developing a program that makes the best possible JPEG's from the camera's RAW data.
--
That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that certain situations benefit greatly from shooting RAW. Just for example, an architectural shot that will be printed 10 feet wide, that you will be selling for a thousand dollars or two. That type of file is going to get a lot of attention, and in that case, it is beneficiary to shoot in RAW and to work in 16-bit for as long as possible.
That being said, it is unlikely that 99% of what most people shoot in RAW is being improved from shooting in RAW. If RAW is being used as a band-aid for huge white balance or exposure errors, then it's being used incorrectly. Your money can be better spent on a book, rather than 6 gigs worth of memory cards and a DVD burner just to back everything up.
Likewise, if you're shooting RAW, and using some type of built-in, batch converter, I'd say your attempts are being wasted. The only way I, personally, see RAW as a benefit, is if each and every single image is going to get a lot of personal time into processing the RAW into a JPEG, the photographer or editor will be working in 16-bit mode as long as possible, and/or the photo will be printed larger than 30 inches on the longest side.
Of course, I know there are always die-hard RAW fans out there who will just always shoot in RAW. Believe me, I've listened to your side of the story, both long and hard. I've even tried shooting from your side of the fence, but unfortunately, for me, I see it as a waste of time for 99% of what I shoot, and for 99% of what most of the people here at DPC shoot.
Thanks for listening, I just ask that you hear my side of the story. There's really no need to get personal or start telling people to buy a point and shoot camera just because they choose to let the camera do the work and spend their time getting the settings right, before the shot, now is there?
EDIT: typo
Message edited by author 2006-02-19 02:02:05.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 02:19:02 AM · #27 |
My take is that if you do any amount of work in PS after you shoot jpg then there is likely no extra time involved in the workflow when using RAW.
I normally use RAW Shooter Pro version to review my shots, delete the bad and sort the good. Then I do any tweaking needed to WB, exposure, curves, crop, straighten, noise reduction if needed, etc. This was the same thing I did when shooting jpg. Actually this all seems much quicker using RSP.
I still use PS to resize, save for web or apply any special filters when needed.
So basically I think there is room for both RAW & jpg and it does not make anyone better or worse for it. |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 02:52:02 AM · #28 |
Since I started using RAW exclusively, my total processinf time per image has dropped significantly. I can quickly and intuitively fine-tune the basics in the RAW converter, then export to PS and do whatevr else needs to be done there. The RAW converter is a better place to review and toss shots, so it saves tiem there. All the basic adjustments can be done in a single, interactive window where with PS I had to open 3-4 different adjustment layers to accomplish the same thing.
And of course with RAW you can MUCH more easily make adjustments to flawed WB and exposure, when they occasionally happen.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 03:46:42 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Since I started using RAW exclusively, my total processinf time per image has dropped significantly. I can quickly and intuitively fine-tune the basics in the RAW converter, then export to PS and do whatevr else needs to be done there. The RAW converter is a better place to review and toss shots, so it saves tiem there. All the basic adjustments can be done in a single, interactive window where with PS I had to open 3-4 different adjustment layers to accomplish the same thing.
R. |
That's pretty much where I sit on the issue, for what it's worth. The main difference is often that I don't follow up with any spot editing, so the whole process is much quicker. Another advantage is that the RAW file is left untouched. If I worked only in jpeg, I know that at some time I would overwrite my original files, as I'm too disorganised.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 06:35:30 AM · #30 |
Robert, I find the same thing. When I first started working with RAW I was a bit slow but now I find it much faster and actually find going back to working on JPEGs slow and frustrating.
I quite often shoot in situations where I don't get the exposure or WB right (or, in the case of WB, don't want to waste time setting it when it takes seconds to do it in the RAW convertor instead). If you shoot candids and wildlife faffing about with the camera can mean missing the shot.
Exposure isn't such a problem usually, I've been working with an SLR for over 2 decades, but even there, I come across harder situations - I found the blue ice and white snow of the Antarctic challenging and the harsh light in the Galapagos also difficult as we were often landing during the middle of the day not in the best early morning or late afternoon light.
RAW is not for everyone but nor is JPEG suitable for many of us and many of us DO get better end results working with RAW and DO have valid reasons for starting off with 16 bit colour depth...
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:25:59 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
I quite often shoot in situations where I don't get the exposure or WB right (or, in the case of WB, don't want to waste time setting it when it takes seconds to do it in the RAW convertor instead). |
Believe me Kavey, I am not trying to single you out here or call you out or anything, I have an honest question. I'm just curious how much time do you think it takes to set your white balance? I realize it only takes a second to do it in your RAW converter, but (at least on the d70) you just hold in a button on the back of the camera and twist a dial -- so probably less than a second. Besides, once it's set, it's set.
--
And I want to reiterate that I don't believe RAW to be a useless tool for everyone. Only a waste of time and space for most. It's quite obvious that a lot of folks are just really comfortable working with RAW and know what fine-tuning an individual image needs in order to tweak it to the way they want it to be processed.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:47:51 AM · #32 |
It's worth mentioning that I use an idiot-proof RAW converter: Canon's EOS Capture utility. I am still runnin a Windows Millennium Edition machine, and I can't use RSE or Canon's Digital Pro or any of that "good stuff". I do have Bibble Lite, but it seems like a waste of time to me to use it.
The EOS Capture, which somes bundled with the 350xt and the 20D, could not be simpler. I can't imagine anyone finding it "hard to use". And here's the interesting thing: whatever parameters are set in the camera are the default parameters at which the converter displays the image. So, for example, if I shoot in daylight WB then that's what I SEE when I open the image up. But I have the option of choosing any other white balance, including setting degrees kelvin.
I LOVE this flexibility. I leave my camera set at a bunch of neutral settings; low contrast, low color saturation, auto WB, normal sharpness, and so forth, most of the time, and that's what is displayed in the RAW converter. I look at the image and the RGB histogram, adjust exposure and contrast as needed to normalize the histogram, tweak the color saturation if it looks like it needs it, and off to TIFF I go. It's very fast.
And I always have this original RAW in reserve, so in future I can go back and do anything I want with it. It's a very attractive workflow for me. Especially isnce the utility displays a nice-size thumb of every image in the folder, and I can bulk-delete all the throwaways at a single click of the button, instantaneously.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:50:46 AM · #33 |
Deapee, it's fairly quick yes, to use one of the preset WB settings but that's often not what I want. When I change WB settings in the RAW convertor I can achieve the exact balance of colour I want... I can either go for an accurate depiction or warm it up as though I'd shot the scene with a warm-up filter. Much more control than using one of the preset WB settings.
Like I said, not everyone wants or needs that level of control but for those of us that do, it's a real bonus.
No one is suggesting that those of you who do not require that control, or simply don't see an advantage in it, should shoot RAW. It's a personal decision.
Message edited by author 2006-02-19 10:51:31.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 10:53:07 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Deapee, it's fairly quick yes, to use one of the preset WB settings but that's often not what I want. When I change WB settings in the RAW convertor I can achieve the exact balance of colour I want... I can either go for an accurate depiction or warm it up as though I'd shot the scene with a warm-up filter. Much more control than using one of the preset WB settings. |
I understand...makes sense.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:39:52 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Kavey:
I quite often shoot in situations where I don't get the exposure or WB right (or, in the case of WB, don't want to waste time setting it when it takes seconds to do it in the RAW convertor instead). |
Believe me Kavey, I am not trying to single you out here or call you out or anything, I have an honest question. I'm just curious how much time do you think it takes to set your white balance? I realize it only takes a second to do it in your RAW converter, but (at least on the d70) you just hold in a button on the back of the camera and twist a dial -- so probably less than a second. Besides, once it's set, it's set.
--
And I want to reiterate that I don't believe RAW to be a useless tool for everyone. Only a waste of time and space for most. It's quite obvious that a lot of folks are just really comfortable working with RAW and know what fine-tuning an individual image needs in order to tweak it to the way they want it to be processed. |
Don't forget that lighting conditions can change as the photgrapher moves around (outdoor to indoor, different mixes of artificial ighting etc.), so setting the white balance might not be a once-only affair and, indeed, one may forget to change white balance as the lighting changes.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 11:54:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Don't forget that lighting conditions can change as the photgrapher moves around (outdoor to indoor, different mixes of artificial ighting etc.), so setting the white balance might not be a once-only affair and, indeed, one may forget to change white balance as the lighting changes. |
I had this issue yesterday. I had to shoot a show in a department store. There were flourescent lights, incandescent lights, and my flash. The ceiling and the walls were cream, the large banner on the 'stage' was stark white. The white balance depended on which light was dominant for that shot and whether the ceiling, the banner or the clothes racks (yes clothes racks) were the predominant back drop for that shot.
In general, my camera did a pretty good job with automatic white balance. But, they still looked better if I tweaked the temp in RAW editor. I find the 300D really sucks up warm colors so I almost always have to cool it down.
I shoot 99% in RAW. Probably don't need to for 50% of what I shoot, but I like the control I have with RAW. I also have a bad habit when saving and would probably save right over the original jpegs all the time. I can't do that with RAW... :)
While I have been shooting for a while, I still don't have the confidence in my skills to assume I can get it right in camera. Shooting RAW is insurance against my lack of forethought... :) |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 12:17:04 PM · #37 |
| This is all interesting. Glad I read it. I usually shoot in RAW (w/ no jpeg) and now after reading this I'm thinking of doing the RAW w/ a jpeg. That way if I don't need to do any post processeing I really don't have to! It will take up a lot of space tho- I wonder if medium jpeg will be big enough for printing at a decent size? But I will always have the raw file... |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 04:59:05 AM · #38 |
I started shooting RAW+ jpeg a while ago. My main complaint about this set up is that on the D70 you ccan only save the jpeg in the lowest quality, so they are basicly useless. I ended up shooting only RAW. I end up taking snapshots in RAW which is a seriousl overkill but if I start switching back and forth between RAW and fine quality jpegs I'll end u pforgetting about it and potentially losing some photos due to my lack of skill when it comes to exposure and WB adjustments...
Sticking to RAW for now. Wish I could save HQ jpegs at the same time. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 07:36:41 AM · #39 |
| Back to the initial question: you're not saving your converted images in Adobe 98 profile, are you? If you do, that could be one reason why they look dull and flat onscreen. Converting to sRGB might help. |
|
|
|
02/20/2006 08:09:17 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by nards656:
Just because I CAN tweak something doesn't automatically mean the end result is going to be better :) |
Then sell your camera and get a P/S type... If you don't like having control then you have the wrong equipment... |
That's BS if I've ever heard it. Completely useless, uninformed, and WRONG advice.
Sorry, I'm not here to fight, but you really twisted me wrong with this statement. I just happen to prefer my control to be done in the camera, okay, and there is NOTHING less professional about using JPEG. It's NOT a "rookie" mistake, it's not a "wannabe" thing. Using JPEG does not make us less than human, neither does it mean that I'm an idiot who doesn't know what I'm doing and doesn't deserve a real camera. I'm not going to use RAW just because some techie tells me to or just to be hip, and I'm pretty confused as to why PS vs. DSLR even comes into play here, since most PS's now have RAW and most DSLRs still have JPEG.
I hate being talked down to, can you tell? :)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 09:00:17 AM · #41 |
well, i shoot always in RAW and i'm using Rawshooter premiom 2006 software, it's really great
workflow is easy and intuitive ... but everyone has it's own preferences i know
anyways ... my workflow goes completely in RSP, just minor corrections and stuff , sometimes a border (respectively not) in photoshop cs2 ... and the whole process is really really quick.
my2c
peace
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 02:35:01 PM · #42 |
Turns out my problem wasn't the fact that I was shooting RAW, it was that specific day, the weather was sucky and even the jpgs (i shoot raw with small jpg) were flat. I have since shot in better condtions and the pictures look just fine. I love being able to set the white balance and to adjust the exposure as needed. I am gonna stick with RAW.
There is no point in arguing what's best, we should just use the format that works best for us and quit bashing those who use something different that ourselves. Just my 2 cents.
June
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 04:01:30 PM · #43 |
Yeah I was kind of surprised coz I figured you'd know your way reasonably well around PS, certainly enough to be able to apply the kind of basic saturation boost, sharpening and contrast adjustment that would allow your RAW to match your JPEGs...
Glad to hear you've figured out the cause!
And yes, my point above - RAW works for some and gives advantages to some and for others it's just not useful. Don't see why it has to be a "one size fits all" kind of thing!
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 08:51:44 AM · #44 |
Just to be the guy that eats crow, I've decided I'm going to give RAW one more "shot", no pun intended.
Of course, there are still going to be situations where JPG is required, simply 'cause I can't afford 6 gigs of memory yet, but anyway :)
I want to do everything I can to improve my photography and not get stuck in any ruts just for the sake of being stuck.
So, I still agree with DeaPee to a certain extent, but props to TooCool for making me think about it :)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 09:24:17 AM · #45 |
| I normally use Rawshooter Essentials (Now new 2006 version) and have never had a problem. I just bought Photoshop CS second hand cheap and have had a quick play with it's RAW conversion and it all works sweet! |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 09:41:10 AM · #46 |
Shoot in Raw + Jpeg (High)
Ofcourse it is alot more safe to shoot in Raw than jpeg.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2006 12:22:49 PM · #47 |
| Interesting thread. I've just figured out how to work with RAW under Linux, so I'm going to start shooting RAW + JPeg to compare the differnces between me and the camera. After playing around for a while, I will probably shoot JPeg to save space unless I have a situation where I think the white balance will be off, or it's an important picture. |
|
|
|
02/27/2006 12:33:52 PM · #48 |
I think either mode has it's pluses and minuses. It just about how you use it. Personally, I use jpg for things like snaps, quicky ebay shots etc. Raw is for times when I want to fine tune the result.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2006 09:49:40 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:
This is all interesting. Glad I read it. I usually shoot in RAW (w/ no jpeg) and now after reading this I'm thinking of doing the RAW w/ a jpeg. That way if I don't need to do any post processeing I really don't have to! It will take up a lot of space tho- I wonder if medium jpeg will be big enough for printing at a decent size? But I will always have the raw file... |
Just use DPP. Its default seems to be the camera settings, so (I think) you get the same output from DPP you would from the camera's JPG. And its easy to change the WB on all pictures when one forgets to set that--now if only they had a way to correct the focus :-)
RSP (and RSE) seem to start at neutral photo settings (unless you change the default) which has less contrast and saturation than DPP's default (at least when my camera is set to "parameter set 1").
|
|
|
|
03/21/2006 10:05:33 PM · #50 |
I can't seem to open a raw file in Adobe ps cs.
Can anybody spell it out for me? The raw files from the 20d have a cr2 extention and I've tried everything I can think of. I've gotta be missing something stupid. :( Thanks. |
|
