Author | Thread |
|
05/05/2006 10:25:59 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by deapee: Based on your opinion he's wrong. |
Yup. That little winky thing means I'm only half serious. |
|
|
05/05/2006 10:27:18 PM · #27 |
Oh is that what it means? ;)
|
|
|
05/05/2006 10:35:25 PM · #28 |
Ken Rockwell has made up his mind about RAW as have a few others.
As has been stated, each person has to decide for themselves whether to shoot RAW or not. Just reading articles on one side of the argument (IMO) is not going to give you enough information. There are lots of articles out there that present arguments that appose Ken Rockwell. Read both sides, then evaluate how you shoot, what you shoot, how you intend to post process, etc. then decide. If you find jpeg suits your purpose, then shoot jpeg.
RAW can be used as a learning tool regarding best exposure etc. If you find that you are always increasing exposure or other parameters in the RAW converter, try altering the parameters in the camera next time.
|
|
|
05/05/2006 10:35:45 PM · #29 |
Dudes, it's not life or death :-)
I pride myself on being pretty objective; I'm an engineer, I need to be. What I'm offering is still opinion. I think what Sander offered is the best statement made yet, an objective example. Now for more of my opinion...
Yes, sharpening the JPEG more would make it appear closer to the processed RAW file, but it would also have far more artifact at that point. Bottom line is, there's no substitute for a good algorithm, and the in-camera algorithms are compromised by the need to do the entire RAW conversion in less than a second on very limited processing power. It's no wonder a full-blown 'pooter does a better job digging out detai.
|
|
|
05/05/2006 10:41:48 PM · #30 |
RAW files give you so much more (as has been stated before). Buy more memory---it will be worth it. You might as well get all you can out of that file!!! |
|
|
05/05/2006 10:42:48 PM · #31 |
i ll have a go at this one as well
i only shoot jpegs. well maybe not only. ifn i do shoot raw, i shoot raw+jpeg. i am ot a big an of the exra (necessary) steps involved. i prefer to be out shooting as i mostly shoot nature and that is where i love to be.
however,
there are those advantages of raw that have been mentioned.
the way i see it is this. raw is not a magic button that you can forget your camera settings. it can help you ifn you are a little off. but it certainly is not a miracle brought to your photography. you still have to have a pretty good idea your exposure. wb is completely adjustable (which is a bonus in tricky lighting), and there are some other cool things that a "good" raw converter can help with.
pse 4 is not gonna give you any advantages to a raw file. ifn you want to download a raw converter that gives you the ability to actually fix things in raw then you can get some good out of it other than wb. ifn you are only gonna use a "hobbyist" program not gonna happen.
i have recently downloaded the gimp and got a raw converter in it that is gallons better than pse4. i am gonna be looking into raw again myself to see ifn i can justify the added 20 minutes a pic for pp.
hope this helps
|
|
|
05/05/2006 10:53:10 PM · #32 |
I didn't read this whole thread so I will keep it simple. I used to shoot in jpeg only for simplicity, storage space, etc. I now shoot in Raw exclusively and would never go back. Too many advantages that are already listed and then some. Just can't get any better than when you're in the raw! |
|
|
05/05/2006 10:54:56 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by tngrndream: i have recently downloaded the gimp and got a raw converter in it that is gallons better than pse4. i am gonna be looking into raw again myself to see ifn i can justify the added 20 minutes a pic for pp.
hope this helps |
another really great converter (and it is free) is Raw Shooter Essentials. They also have a paid version which has a lot more bells and whistles which is called Raw Shooter Premium.
Raw Shooter Essentials
I started shooting Raw+Small JPeg about a year ago and havent found it to be a hassle at all. I use the small JPegs to view and make smaller files for the web and even smaller prints (up to an 8x10 on occasion), and if I have a really great shot I will convert it from Raw if I need a larger file for stock or whatever. DVDs are cheap as are compact flash cards and lets face it, if we have a really fabulous shot which someone wants to print on a billboard (an opportunity that comes along very rarely for sure but still pays maga bucks) it is worth having that Raw file dont you think? LOL
Just MHO of course.
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:15:31 PM · #34 |
in the simplest of terms, quality issues aside, the recorded data is the key.
12(16bit) vs 8 bit. the color range of a 16bit file is exponentially greater than that of an 8bit file. nothing more to be said. if you want the most DATA shoot RAW/NEF. if you have more information at hand you have more to work with...
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:23:43 PM · #35 |
All of the millions of dollars that camera makers and developers have spent on research, development and software to include the RAW capabilities is all for nothing. It's all just a conspiracy between them and memory card manufacturers to increase sales.
There is absolutely no benefit for shooting RAW over jpeg, no better control over subtle color and tonal differences in the shot.
A 16 bit Tiff is just the same from a jpeg as from a raw file.
Jpeg artifacts are highly underated anyways.
All that "extra" data that the camera throws out has nothing pertaining to the actual photo.
The brains of a camera is much more powerful than a $3000 computer.
A true photographer never makes any mistakes in a shot to be corrected later. If a photo is taken with the wrong color temperature or is slightly over-exposed, then he is crap and should get rid of his equipment and take up knitting.
The thousands of professional photographers that shoot RAW exclusively everyday for the highest quality images that the camera will put out are all wasting their precious time.
*I say all this with extreme sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. If you want more control with the best possible output for your photos, shoot RAW. If you want to take photos that look "ok" to the average viewer straight out of camera, shoot jpeg. It takes some getting used to, and not for everybody, but once you really see the difference it's amazing!
Here's a neat little tidbit on Mpix about RAW vs. Jpeg. |
|
|
05/05/2006 11:36:17 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Telehubbie: *I say all this with extreme sarcasm in case you couldn't tell. If you want more control with the best possible output for your photos, shoot RAW. If you want to take photos that look "ok" to the average viewer straight out of camera, shoot jpeg. It takes some getting used to, and not for everybody, but once you really see the difference it's amazing! |
No fun at all when you put a disclaimer in there! It's much more entertaining to be misunderstood then sit back and watch the resulting flame war :) |
|
|
05/05/2006 11:38:40 PM · #37 |
OK ... that mpix link convinced me...I'm going to give raw a shot for a while, and if I like it I'll stick to it.
|
|
|
05/05/2006 11:47:35 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by bfox2: It's much more entertaining to be misunderstood then sit back and watch the resulting flame war :) |
Darnit, where's my priorities? :-) |
|
|
05/05/2006 11:48:30 PM · #39 |
Well well well....I finally started a thread that seemed to interest some people! Thanks for all the opinions and links. I've decided to set my D70 to RAW tomorrow. I'll be shooting some lake scenes...sking, jetski, ducks, people etc....
I'll post a few Sunday.
Thanks again for everyone's opinion on this.
Kenskid |
|
|
05/06/2006 12:01:48 AM · #40 |
Look forward to the shots... |
|
|
05/06/2006 01:22:04 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Alienyst: Look forward to the shots... |
Ditto that... and if ya need in help with Post processing ...start another thread :-)
Tommorrow, we can talk about curves ;-)
|
|
|
05/06/2006 01:30:39 AM · #42 |
i see options on the camera to shoot raw plus jpeg. anyone know what
this means? if i select it, i have less memory on the card, less than
if i select raw? |
|
|
05/06/2006 01:30:59 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Tommorrow, we can talk about curves ;-) |
I look forward to it.
: ) |
|
|
05/06/2006 01:33:48 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by goodman: i see options on the camera to shoot raw plus jpeg. anyone know what
this means? if i select it, i have less memory on the card, less than
if i select raw? |
It shoots both RAW and JPEG... which is kinda handy if you want the convenience of each format ... memory withstanding.
|
|
|
05/06/2006 02:22:56 PM · #45 |
Just ran some tests...I can't tell a difference...but I like the jpeg's better. So I guess I stick to my original opinion this time.
|
|
|
05/06/2006 02:53:15 PM · #46 |
shoot a solid color wall - say blue or orange with indirect light ( so you get a tonal variation in the image ) - in both JPEG and RAW.
then do some levels or curves adjustments. tell us which one gets banding with less adjustment. i'll bet its the JPEG file. the reason being, there are more shades of color in the RAW file - so it isn't as susceptible to clipping when adjusting the image - which is what is causing the banding to occur.
Originally posted by deapee: Just ran some tests...I can't tell a difference...but I like the jpeg's better. So I guess I stick to my original opinion this time. |
Message edited by author 2006-05-06 14:53:51.
|
|
|
05/06/2006 02:55:33 PM · #47 |
just out of curiosity - do most of the 'big guns' here, who ribbon on a regular basis, shoot in raw or jpeg? |
|
|
05/06/2006 03:06:13 PM · #48 |
I for one shoot RAW 100% of the time. There's a lot more "leeway" in terms of processing that are considered "in-camera".
Plus, if I get a validation request, I know the CR2 file is just right there. No need to worry about a jpeg file being "accidentally" modified. It happened to me before and it sucks :P
Achoo at one point only shot in jpeg. I somehow talked him into trying RAW. Now he just shoots RAW most of the time ;) |
|
|
05/06/2006 03:09:21 PM · #49 |
i'm not a big gun... yet... but i shoot soley in RAW - and now RAW + JPEG cuz i have no choice ;}
|
|
|
05/06/2006 03:20:31 PM · #50 |
Just started shooting in RAW. In the process in learning the conversion post processing. I like the processing control that RAW offers. Using both Canons and PS Elements 3.0 software.
In an earlier thread it was stated 12 bit/channel Canon software offers 8 and 16 bits/channel, however in PS elements some of the processing options are not offered until the photo is changed to 8 bits/channel. Why save at a higher bit/channel if you can only edit in 8 bits? |
|