| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2006 03:22:00 PM · #51 |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 03:24:02 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Judi:
RAW all the way!!! |
You're a good example of shooting in the RAW ;-)
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 03:25:12 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by Judi:
RAW all the way!!! |
You're a good example of shooting in the RAW ;-) |
Hahaha...well I can't help it if I don't like clothes....so why should my images be anaything but RAW....lmao!!
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 03:45:47 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by margiemu:
just out of curiosity - do most of the 'big guns' here, who ribbon on a regular basis, shoot in raw or jpeg? |
If there isn't *much* of a difference at huge print sizes, like 20x30...then it's really not going to matter at all when viewed at 640 pixels...I think what they shoot is really irrelevant, although I'd be willing to bet that if you added up all the ribbons, more would have been shot in jpeg than in raw.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 04:13:16 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by margiemu:
just out of curiosity - do most of the 'big guns' here, who ribbon on a regular basis, shoot in raw or jpeg? |
I ribbon on a "regular basis" (once a year, jejeje) and I shoot exclusively in RAW unless it's social-obligation shooting, where I rip off jpg's and give 'em to people on disk. Those I don't usually even process :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 05:14:05 PM · #56 |
the main options are there for 16bit files, no?
levels, curves, clone, brightness/contrast, color balance, hue/saturation, channel mixer. the biggest thing is not being able to duplicate a layer or use a layer mask IMO. so careful attention needs to be paid to each step in the PP sequence so as not to foul things up.
this was edited in 16bit mode.
Originally posted by Philldigishooter:
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? |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 06:49:47 PM · #57 |
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. |
David, just do what you think is best because imo you're good at it. :)
For the D70 there is another item of interest in jpeg vs nef and that is anti-aliasing / moiré / bayer interpolation algoritms. The camera really makes a mess of that, a program like Rawshooter Essentials tries and Nikon Capture is a good solution. I've started a discussion about this in December of 2005 with several samples. It also includes the handling of sharpening to some extent. Here it is:
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=319088
I'm no RAW messias. I choose to shoot raw, that's just my choice.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 06:55:43 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by margiemu:
just out of curiosity - do most of the 'big guns' here, who ribbon on a regular basis, shoot in raw or jpeg? |
If there isn't *much* of a difference at huge print sizes, like 20x30...then it's really not going to matter at all when viewed at 640 pixels...I think what they shoot is really irrelevant, although I'd be willing to bet that if you added up all the ribbons, more would have been shot in jpeg than in raw. |
In my experience another of the main advantages of shooting raw is the huge amount of clean uncluttered detail that you can retrieve* out of the shadows. That is one of the main things that you can also see at 640px.
* shadows/highlights, digital dee, d-lighting, curves, etc
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 07:24:45 PM · #59 |
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? |
I shoot Raw+small JPeg. It is easier than converting everything to see what I have. I know some browsers view RAW files but they can be a bit slow to upload if you have a whole card of shots.
See my earlier post in this thread.
Edit to add: It doesnt cut down the number of shots on my 1Gb card that much. The convenience is worth it.
Message edited by author 2006-05-06 19:25:32.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 07:28:41 PM · #60 |
| RAW was something new to me when I got the 350D. I used JPEGs, then one day switched to RAW + JPEG by accident or for a test, can't remember which. The Canon produces 2 files for each shot, one RAW the other JPEG. I played with one RAW file, adjusted white balance and exposure compensation if needed, and then converted to JPEG using the Canon supplied s/w. From that day on, I choose to shoot RAW in all circumstances. It's a breath of fresh air. Since I am eternally learning, it is a very forgiving format because it allows me to correct more errors than when I shot JPEG exclusively. My $0.02c. Coming from a digital point and shoot background, which seems to be JPEG only, it is easy to get sidelined in that format when one upgrades to a DSLR. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 08:55:00 PM · #61 |
You know what...if I had NC, I may shoot RAW...I wonder if I can install another 30-day trial of it because I'd like to give that another shot...
I always read how good that program is, but never really used it because I had photoshop.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 09:04:36 PM · #62 |
Well just to add...now that I have the new computer up and running I also upgraded my software. PI 11 handles RAW files and so far I am impressed with the new abilities in the software. I can't see shooting jpeg unless I have to for some reason.
What I really like is all editing can be done directly on the Raw File - no need for a tif conversion unless you want to run it through Neat Image or something like that.
Message edited by author 2006-05-06 21:27:57. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 10:12:37 PM · #63 |
For those that shoot JPG, do you shoot large and minimum compression or small JPG and hi compression? Probably Large fine, right? Why?
Do you buy the cheapest lenses or the good stuff? Why?
The answer to both is Image Quality. You want the best image quality, right? So why are you shooting JPG?
Seems to be because 'it's good enough'.
Go back and look at some image you took 2 or 3 years ago. Is it 'good enough' today? Knowing what you know now, I bet you'd have done something different to make it better.
Same thing with RAW - do the best you can today. You'll thank yourself tomorrow.
eidt:typo. always a type/o
Message edited by author 2006-05-06 22:13:07.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 10:54:37 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
For those that shoot JPG, do you shoot large and minimum compression or small JPG and hi compression? Probably Large fine, right? Why?
Do you buy the cheapest lenses or the good stuff? Why?
The answer to both is Image Quality. You want the best image quality, right? So why are you shooting JPG?
Seems to be because 'it's good enough'.
Go back and look at some image you took 2 or 3 years ago. Is it 'good enough' today? Knowing what you know now, I bet you'd have done something different to make it better.
Same thing with RAW - do the best you can today. You'll thank yourself tomorrow.
eidt:typo. always a type/o |
For the record, I don't think it matters what people shoot, as long as they, and the people they shoot for (if anyone), are happy with the result.
Let's not become RAW elitists, that just smacks of bad taste. |
|
|
|
05/06/2006 10:56:28 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
For those that shoot JPG, do you shoot large and minimum compression or small JPG and hi compression? Probably Large fine, right? Why?
Do you buy the cheapest lenses or the good stuff? Why?
The answer to both is Image Quality. You want the best image quality, right? So why are you shooting JPG?
Seems to be because 'it's good enough'.
Go back and look at some image you took 2 or 3 years ago. Is it 'good enough' today? Knowing what you know now, I bet you'd have done something different to make it better.
Same thing with RAW - do the best you can today. You'll thank yourself tomorrow.
eidt:typo. always a type/o |
dude...there are billboards shot in jpeg with 4mp d2h's...now come on...just how much more quality are you getting from your RAW's?
Let's face it...most people use it as a band-aid.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2006 11:08:44 PM · #66 |
shoot jpegs then, and pipe down. a billboard is not a photograph.
i won't shoot soley jpeg ever again.
Message edited by author 2006-05-06 23:12:34.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 01:03:36 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by soup:
the main options are there for 16bit files, no?
levels, curves, clone, brightness/contrast, color balance, hue/saturation, channel mixer. the biggest thing is not being able to duplicate a layer or use a layer mask IMO. so careful attention needs to be paid to each step in the PP sequence so as not to foul things up.
this was edited in 16bit mode.
|
Soup, Thank you for your input! I will keep working with raw to improve my post processing. |
|
|
|
05/07/2006 02:39:17 PM · #68 |
I did a HS senior shoot outdoors friday. cust WB is not an option - flash, no flash, shade, sun, cloudy, reflectors in white, gold and silver and mixes of them all from shot to shot. RAW is really good stuff. Auto WB was NOT accurate.
Easy as pie to change this afterwards in RAW. Click click.
the 30D and 5D and Picture styles. Again, in DPP you can change them later if you shot in RAW. In JPG...umm, no way.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 03:08:22 PM · #69 |
I never shot RAW before I seriously started to decide on going completely digital.
Before, JPEG was "good enough" and I rarely miss exposure or white balance (at least not enough that a little PP couldn't fix). Ofcourse, most of my professional work was done with film, so I wasn't concerned about RAW immediately.
In my conversion to working with digital in my work, RAW became the only alternative. JPEG doesn't have the flexibility or dynamic range to produce the quality of image I want to give to my clients, especially since I often work in less than optimum situations. Working with a 12 bit file can save your ass in post process.
I'm not talking about bad exposure or white balance either. I'm talking about being able to bring details back out of shadows, save blown highlights, along with other things that just don't work as well on an 8-bit JPEG.
I won't go back, I've worked both sides and memory cards are just too cheap for storage space to be considered a reason not to shoot RAW. As far as taking more time to PP images, BS! You can batch process to TIFF (even JPEG). Most of your photos shouldn't need THAT much attention and if they do, you definitely need not shoot JPEG.
Message edited by author 2006-05-07 15:10:08.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 03:15:34 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I did a HS senior shoot outdoors friday. cust WB is not an option - flash, no flash, shade, sun, cloudy, reflectors in white, gold and silver and mixes of them all from shot to shot. RAW is really good stuff. Auto WB was NOT accurate. |
See, that's my point...why is selecting your white balance just not an option? I haven't taken a shot in probably my last 3,000 in auto white balance.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 06:16:20 PM · #71 |
I like RAW it gives you alot more options. It is something that takes some time to make the most of though, initially the post processing takes quite a while until you get used to the way it works. This is something you have to learn, there are some great tutorials around.
I generally use Raw Shooter Essentials - it allows you to easily apply changes to a whole series of images easily, and its quite fast in preview mode. Once you have made all your adjustments you can then add the images to a queue and it will bulk process them, you don't have to sit there and wait for it to do each one individually. It's fairly quick on my PC anyway.
I guess it comes down to preferences. If you are confident you can always get the exposure, white balance etc spot on AND you shoot in controlled (studio) lighting so you don't have a problem with blown highlights or shadow detail use jpeg. You won't need to post process.
If you're shooting in more challenging lighting though the extra dynamic range can be invaluable (similar to using negative film rather than slide film for the traditionalists.) RAW captures much more info at the light and dark ends of the spectrum. You can then choose if you want this included in the final version of the shot rather than the camera deciding for you. The sensor captures 12 bits of data per color per pixel. A jpeg has 8 bits. The camera throws away those 4 bits of information if you shoot in jpeg and you cannot get them back!
Its similar to the difference between using auto and manual metering - you make the decision, not the camera.
Here is another link on the advantages of RAW, he also has some great tutorials on curves and some stunning pics!
Linky
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 06:57:37 PM · #72 |
because it's a fast paced situation and you don't have time to worry about the WB needed for the changing lighting. it saves a step during shooting. yeah under a stagnant light choose your WB, but with changing light RAW cuts you some slack. download - ctrl/click all the similarly lit shots - adjust color temp for those - convert to TIFF - done. repeat.
no need to worry about - hmm i have a flash - i have a gold reflector - i have sunlight - what WB would work best...
i am not going to argue with your JPEG choice - but once you realize the latitude of RAW you'll bite your tongue ;}
did you try my earlier suggestion?
not once have i used auto WB.
Originally posted by deapee:
See, that's my point...why is selecting your white balance just not an option? I haven't taken a shot in probably my last 3,000 in auto white balance.
|
Message edited by author 2006-05-07 19:00:24.
|
|
|
|
05/07/2006 10:37:37 PM · #73 |
JPG is a lossy compression. You lose dynamic range and resolution. The dynamic range issue has been addressed, and the resolution issue is not that important unless you are going to greatly crop the image or greatly enlarge it. JPG also "casts in stone" the camera parameters, including the picture style. You can correct this in PP, but its time-consuming.
RAW keeps all the bits the sensor "saw". Its easy to re-create the JPG the camera would have. With Canon's DPP, conversion is pretty easy. If you're happy with the out of camera result, just select all the photos and kick off the batch processing. And if you forget to change the picture style, etc, you can change it with one click on that photo in DPP.
One more specialized advantage to RAW is that if you are shooting with the intention of makeing HDR images (eg your inside a dark room and there's a window onto a bright garden) RAW can help. My camera only allows auto-exposure bursts of 3, limited to 2 stops + or - maximum. By using RAW, and taking shots at 0, +2 and -2, you can use the extra stop or two of the RAW converter to get 0, +3 and -3, or (if you push it) 0, +2, +4, -2 and -4.
If you have one RAW file of an image with a lot of dynamic range, you can produce three JPGs, and then use photoshop to do the HDR, or use RawShooter Pro which allows you to set the levels to get a photo that uses the entire dynamic range captured. |
|
|
|
05/07/2006 11:10:43 PM · #74 |
I'm glad this question generated so much response. Thanks for your replies.
KS |
|
|
|
05/08/2006 12:54:14 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I did a HS senior shoot outdoors friday. cust WB is not an option - flash, no flash, shade, sun, cloudy, reflectors in white, gold and silver and mixes of them all from shot to shot. RAW is really good stuff. Auto WB was NOT accurate. |
See, that's my point...why is selecting your white balance just not an option? I haven't taken a shot in probably my last 3,000 in auto white balance. |
Shade is one WB
cloudy is another.
throw in a reflector and the color changes.
fill flash will change it too - flash is daylight, not cloudy or shade.
So you take a few shots, then move. then turn the flash on, then off, then toss in a reflector. Each has a different WB, some custom. Sure you can change your WB, or set a custom one for each set of shots. There is certainly some merit to that last one.
You are charging my the hour. Or more precisely, the client paid for an hour of photography. Perhaps you get 30 shots i get 70 in that hour. I may spend a few more minuted in PP than your, BUT i have more images they might buy. and if you guess wrong on WB, you're gonna spend a lot longer than me to fix it.
So lets go indoors - custom WB or you can guess on the bulbs and then mix in some flash - most likely the only fix is in PP. For RAW it's easy, for JPG not to easy.
My senior shots //cpphoto.home.comcast.net/maria/ from Friday. See the light - it changed, sometimes in mid-shot (clouds and sun do that).
But then to each their own. If it works for you, go for it.
|
|
