| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2007 10:20:40 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved. |
Hard drive, not memory card. Yes, double the size for the raw, then once again for the JPEG that results from conversion. That's three.
|
Remember the 100 dollar difference. Heres what 150 and less can do for your storage needs.
WD 500GB HD - 150.00
Maxtor 500GB SATA Hard Drive - 149.99
Hitachi 320GB HD - 79.99
WD 250GB Hard Drive w/ISS - 39.99 after rebate
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:21:17 AM · #27 |
Now that I think about it. I have recently shot in Raw.
I did Raw + Jpeg small. Uploaded the jpegs first to preview and picked the keepers then I selected only those raw files for upload after that I reformatted the card in the camera to delete the unwanted raw files. I still haven't processed the Raw files however. Which is one of the main reasons I mostly shoot jpeg.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:21:18 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW? |
I've got the cojones ... I've NEVER used RAW.
Not that I'm opposed to it or anything; just that I don't own photoshop and my post-processing skills are pretty elementary (but getting better) at the moment. I expect I will one day. But the challenges for me are one offs, and the challenge is going out and finding a shot that meets the topic in an interesting or unusual way. JPeg is fine, for me, for that. RAW to me seems like something I would use more for images that really mean something to me artistically or emotionally, whether something I planned to go out and capture, or stumbled upon through blind luck, and wanted to maximize my chances of capturing it to the max.
Admittedly speaking from ignorance, but it works for me, and saves me from that hesitation in pressing the shutter button I remember from my film days! |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:25:54 AM · #29 |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:27:10 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FWIW, I shoot both.
For weddings, most paid work, or my own personal work, I shoot RAW. I need and want the flexibility and quality that RAW gives.
For family snaps, ebay shots, shots of test setups, etc. I shoot jpeg. I simply don't want to waste time fooling around with RAW. |
Ditto, Raw is for the important images, jpg, for just out taking snaps of stuff... although I must admit, in the past I preached against Raw because the software for it sucked...
Once the software improved I switched and I was hooked... Just something about Raw is nice... so very nice
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 10:28:44.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:28:14 AM · #31 |
seems to be 2 different things being said here:
1 - RAW is a longer process and not always needed ... i agree with that
2 - There's very little difference between RAW images and jpg images ... i disagree with that
The extra exposure of RAW is enough reason for me to use it, but for snapshots or "unimportant stuff" ... i don't bother. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:29:11 AM · #32 |
lol You just struck a nerve with me.
in the past 3 weeks I have gotten a ticket for driving after expiration, I forgot to renew my license. I also got a ticket for a burnt out brake light. Got those problems taken care of, 3 days later got a parking ticket at my kids school.
our washing machine broke down a week ago and one of our kids has a major ear infection which requires an antibiotic that cost $110 a bottle. Insurance covers some of it but we have a co-payment to make every 9 days which is how long one bottle lasts she has to take it for 4 weeks. I just bought a new light kit a few weeks ago which has caused my wallet to not only empty out but it has inverted. Wont even accept bills anymore I think it's dead.
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I would gladly upgrade all my 2Gig cards for 8 Gig or bigger but first I need to upgrade my wallet from empty to overflowing and busting at the seams.
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved. |
|
Trust me I feel you I was suppsoed to be buying a D50 next week, but car problems, accidents, and tickets that all occured in the same month. (my hell month). Im broke and will have to wait till December to get my camera. Upside is instead of a D50 im aiming for a D200 this time. I guess it all works out. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:31:06 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by hopper:
The extra exposure of RAW is enough reason for me to use it... |
Just curious - do you feel that using RAW allows you to achieve an "exposure control" that the camera is otherwise incapable of? What I mean is... Are you saying that you can adjust the exposure 1/2 stop in RAW conversion, but the camera couldn't be set to make the same adjustment? |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:36:29 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
lol You just struck a nerve with me.
in the past 3 weeks I have gotten a ticket for driving after expiration, I forgot to renew my license. I also got a ticket for a burnt out brake light. Got those problems taken care of, 3 days later got a parking ticket at my kids school.
our washing machine broke down a week ago and one of our kids has a major ear infection which requires an antibiotic that cost $110 a bottle. Insurance covers some of it but we have a co-payment to make every 9 days which is how long one bottle lasts she has to take it for 4 weeks. I just bought a new light kit a few weeks ago which has caused my wallet to not only empty out but it has inverted. Wont even accept bills anymore I think it's dead.
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I would gladly upgrade all my 2Gig cards for 8 Gig or bigger but first I need to upgrade my wallet from empty to overflowing and busting at the seams.
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Your storage needs tripled? Okay Quadrouple your memory card size..... problem solved. |
|
Trust me I feel you I was suppsoed to be buying a D50 next week, but car problems, accidents, and tickets that all occured in the same month. (my hell month). Im broke and will have to wait till December to get my camera. Upside is instead of a D50 im aiming for a D200 this time. I guess it all works out. |
|
Im 21 and struggling.... have plenty fo time but times running out for a place to live lol
Let me just throw my situation in 2005 ended okay i was an assitant manager for a McDonalds, I left he company for Arby's and was shortly fired. My fast food career was over.
My Toyota was stolen, I bought the truck off my mother. I was lucky to have the oppurtunity but it got worse from there.
I Had neevr had an accident and had not had a speeding ticket in 3 years. 1 Month is all it took I rear eneded 3 Cars, got 2 18 MPH over tickets, and one driver spinning wheels.
All three bank accouns overdrawn by atleast 100 dollars. My server bill went unpaid My Phone bill unpaid and a 200 dollar bill for what i wont mention.
Im only 21 2006 was my year to get my life together and move out of parents house AGAIN. That year destroyed me I have neevr felt out of control of my life ive never hit the bottom and wouldnt stand up. Im young my mothers been through worse, so how do i do it.
Good news is 3 months later i work at a Ford dealership im back in collage, my bills are paid. My camera will just ahve to wait. I move out in two weeks back on my own. And for alot of kids they have the choice to stay home, my fathers kinda like get the hell out lol.
Ill have to shoot in mostly JPEG for awhile lol.
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 10:37:45. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:53:21 AM · #35 |
no, i'm saying in high contrast situations ... a RAW image can capture more image information than jpg ... so blowouts won't be as blown out, or the too dark parts won't be as dark as jpg.
i should have said exposure latitude ... not just exposure
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by hopper:
The extra exposure of RAW is enough reason for me to use it... |
Just curious - do you feel that using RAW allows you to achieve an "exposure control" that the camera is otherwise incapable of? What I mean is... Are you saying that you can adjust the exposure 1/2 stop in RAW conversion, but the camera couldn't be set to make the same adjustment? |
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 10:54:13. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:53:45 AM · #36 |
I am sadly not good enough to shoot in JPEG (and I like the tricks that RAW offers - RawShooter is still my favourite postprocessing prog by far for quick workflow).
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:01:48 AM · #37 |
| For weddings where light is constant and lots of pics being taken, I shoot JPG. If I'm out and about and shooting for stock I shoot RAW. I've found that the processing of RAW is pretty quick to get it to a TIFF level. I store all in TIFF, save the original in RAW and sell all in JPG. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:11:59 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
For weddings where light is constant and lots of pics being taken, I shoot JPG. If I'm out and about and shooting for stock I shoot RAW. I've found that the processing of RAW is pretty quick to get it to a TIFF level. I store all in TIFF, save the original in RAW and sell all in JPG. |
You can also save in PNG. It probly wont matter and the size will be about the same. PNG like TIFF supports up to 16 bits per channel and uses lossless compression. For the most part if your already using TIFF stick with it i personally like PNG's less options less fuss.
The minor disadvantage in PNG is Adobe's horrid handling of the compression. Its slow lol. But most programs do it 2 to 4 times faster.
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 11:14:33. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:18:05 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I am sadly not good enough to shoot in JPEG ( |
I find that ironic :) I'm not good enough to shoot in RAW. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:24:25 AM · #40 |
I find it ironic that a camera that cost over 3G doesn't take satisfactory jpegs right out of the box compelling one to use raw to compensate. lol jk had to say it though.
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I am sadly not good enough to shoot in JPEG ( |
I find that ironic :) I'm not good enough to shoot in RAW. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:26:09 AM · #41 |
I admit that I use JPEG often. I will shoot in RAW sometimes too.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:39:49 AM · #42 |
I sometimes wonder if the problem is not with not actual RAW files but with what we use for conversion. Basically PhotoShop sucks at converting RAW files. It's not a program made for converting RAW files and results show... heck, I'd still be using JPEGs if I didn't know actual programs specifically made to convert RAW files.
It's down to the point where my studio is almost point-blank refusing to hand out RAW files to clients because 90% of them open them in PhotoShop.
In our business (product/commercial photography) colour accuracy can kill our business. For example, if we print an add and the light-orange T-shirt on model X actually looks dark-orange would bring complaints from buyers. The add is THIS colour but the t-shirt I bought is THAT colour... our studio looses the contract, good bye.
I know, sounds ridiculous. I mean orange is orange... right?! But, in the end, at least for us, RAW files make the difference - not to mention cross-the-board screen calibrations (in studio, at the advertising agency, at the clients and at the printers) and printer calibration/quality.
But it's not ONLY the RAW files... it's also the programs that we use as photographers.
Haven't seen anyone mention PhaseOne in here. Not to sound like an add promo, but I now swear my life by PhaseOne. It reads RAW files directly as I shoot them straight to the computer, has in-built white balance, adjustments (levels, curves, saturation,...), and conversion. The conversion with PhaseOne is by far better than with PhotoShop. By far. I can stretch a RAW file 250% with almost no noticable distortion.
I do the same in PhotoShop and no only can I notice distortions in the stretched image but the image is flat. Thing is, RAW format conversion is only a recent addition to PhotoShop. PhotoShop CS doesn't convert RAW files, only CS2.
In the end we all do what's important to ourselves. I don't believe in shooting in JPEG, even in my free time. But that's me and my needs. It's like the difference between a 30D and a PhaseOne P45 digital back in a way... not everyone needs that much power.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:40:14 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
I find it ironic that a camera that cost over 3G doesn't take satisfactory jpegs right out of the box compelling one to use raw to compensate. lol jk had to say it though. |
You can find it ironic if you like, but those cameras are designed to produce images (RAW or JPG) that are expected to have further processing done to them.
So the 1 & 5 series canon cameras aren't actually supposed to produce final JPEGs out of the camera. The expectation is that additional post-processing is going to be done to them, JPEG or RAW. As a result they tend to produce more conservative JPEGs than say a pro-sumer 300D or 400D. The files aren't sharpened as much, they don't have as much contrast or saturation added in camera - no matter what settings you use.
So, if I have a camera that produces files that are supposed to be tweaked after the fact, in either RAW or JPEG, then it makes sense to use the format that is more easily tweaked. I use RAW for just about everything other than weddings or sports, where I'm shooting high volumes that need to be shared quickly with minimal editing. For those I just batch the JPG files.
I find using lightroom that RAWs are quicker and easier to work with than JPEG. I almost never adjust the exposure on RAW files and usually have the white balance pretty close to what I want these days in camera.
So the reason I use RAW is so that the sharpening is more controlled and happens after any adjustments I make, rather than before. I also like the extra latitude in the dynamic range that 10 or 12 bit images give over 8 bit, helps avoid posterisation in smooth tonal regions.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:47:55 AM · #44 |
paraphrased from an article in 'rangefinder'
would you book a wedding for $x.00 and then tell the bride that you're too lazy to process RAW files so are just gonna throw half the data that's captured away?
i don't think this would go over too well.
so i'm on your side here
Originally posted by dwterry:
I've met with some fairly well paid wedding photographers who absolutely swear by jpeg and think that raw is a waste of time. I listen to them talk. I take it all in. And then I go ... "nah, it's not for me, I can't do it". So I'm still shooting raw. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:56:16 AM · #45 |
I use JPEG for "quickshots" that really doesn't matter to me. It's very handy to have the option to output jpeg's.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 11:59:06 AM · #46 |
I suppose it also boils down to why you shoot. If you are looking to make 75K this year on your pictures, it is a bit different than if you are just shooting your husband's cousin's teeny tiny wedding as a wedding present.
For me, I can take it or leave it. As the Queen of UnderExposure, I have a tiny bit more leeway in adjusting *brightness* in RAW, but I usually have to do so much that even RAW doesn't help me a lot. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:01:22 PM · #47 |
you really need to break that habit !!! ;}
Originally posted by karmat:
As the Queen of UnderExposure, I have a tiny bit more leeway in adjusting *brightness* in RAW, but I usually have to do so much that even RAW doesn't help me a lot. |
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:03:26 PM · #48 |
I always shot in JPEG until a few months ago, now I try to use RAW so I can learn how to process them better. My only thing is when I load RAW is PS5, I don't get as many tools as I would a JPEG. Now I convert my RAW in another program and edit it in JPEG in PS. I'm still learning to use PS, so maybe I can do it there, I just havent found out how yet.
So here's my question if I shoot in RAW and covert to JPEG then edit, is it the same as just taking the picture in JPEG to begin with? |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:05:05 PM · #49 |
I've been trying for 5 years. :(
I have a fear of blown highlights I think. That and when I had my 707, the lcd was totally off and it would look "perfect" on the lcd and be way too dark in reality. If it was bright on the lcd, though, it was way too bright. I learned to compensate by basically underexposing, and that habit still exists.
Fortunately, I have a histogram now, and that helps a little bit, when I let myself trust it. :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:13:53 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by soup:
paraphrased from an article in 'rangefinder'
would you book a wedding for $x.00 and then tell the bride that you're too lazy to process RAW files so are just gonna throw half the data that's captured away?
|
That might be a paraphrase from a popular, well-liked magazine, but I just don't believe it's right (the magazine, not the paraphrase).
Saving at high quality JPEG does NOT "throw away" half the data. Sure, the 16 bit vs. 8 bit issue is involved, but you're lying to the bride if you say you DON'T throw it away, because you're still very likely to print from either 8 bit TIFF or JPEG.
This is an elitist mentality that's furthered by the CF card and hard drive manufacturers :) "If you're gonna do this, you gotta buy this."
I'm not saying there's not a difference. But if you tout yourself (figuratively speaking - not directing this at Soup) as being twice as good because you use RAW instead of JPEG, you're falsely advertising and the picture quality AT NORMAL PRINT SIZES will not be near as much better than "mine" as some would like to claim.
ESPECIALLY if you're converting to JPEG to print anyway. You just threw away some of the same information that you say I did :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 10:26:03 AM EDT.
