| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2007 12:26:30 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by piaffe529:
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? |
You should never be editing in JPG anyway. It is a "lossy" format and every time you save/reopen a file you are compressing/de-compressing it. You should be doing your work in TIFF or PSD format and only creating JPG files from the finished/resized image.
So my workflow is shoot in raw, basic processing in the RAW converter (usually RSE, I don't like Photoshop's RAW conversion), save as 16-bit TIFF, run Tone Mapping if needed in Photomatix, open in Photoshop, save as PSD (photoshop native file) and process as desired from there, with JPG only produced as a final step from the finished, resized PSD file.
If you want to shoot in JPG, then you'd open in PS, immediately save as PSD, archive the original JPG, and take it fromt here.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:26:45 PM · #52 |
Nards you dont have to convert to print to Jpeg at all. TIFF, PNG, (hate to say it BMP) All Lossless with the PNG's and Tiff's being about the same size as a RAW.
Both PNG and TIFF offer 16 Bits per Channel.
For the rest of the argument an 8 bit PNG versus an 8 bit JPEG both coming from an original RAW. The PNG allows for lossless data compression so th eonly step down is from 12 bits per channel in the raw to 8 bits per channel. But the step down to jpeg actually causes color loss. You can see it at any print size. That green pixel isnt he same color green.
People speed thousands on calibration equipment just to display the correct color now you want a file that stores the wrong colors?
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 12:29:45. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:28:29 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Nards you dont have to convert to print to Jpeg at all. |
Understood. But most people do, I speculate.
And now we come to the point in the conversation where everyone seems to be trying to convince me of how wrong I am.... See? It takes balls.
Okay, guys, gals, whoever, remember this... My stuff looks BETTER to me when I do it in JPEG. All that crap about RAW and quality and lost information and whatever means nothing if the result is that my pictures look worse. Follow me? I may be starting with a higher quality file and the bride may think I'm lazy (if she has the slightest clue of the difference) and YOU may be able to make a RAW produce higher quality output than a JPEG, but if it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work for me, okay?
I also happen to enjoy myself a lot more. That's crucial.
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 12:32:22. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:49:25 PM · #54 |
why is it that some people have the impression that those who shoots RAW are better photographers? I think those who can set their White Balance and exposure correct the 1st time are even better in their judgment than those who rely on "extra room for mistakes/correction"
just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:54:19 PM · #55 |
Who's to assume that everyone who shoots RAW is shooting that way to leave extra room for mistakes/corrections.
I don't shoot in a studio or with any light other than natural light. In most situations the DR is beyond what the sensor can capture. RAW lets me correct for that. Having 16 bits/channel to play with for any processing is better than 8. (to me anyway) |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:56:05 PM · #56 |
Hi. I'm Brad and I'm a jpeg addict.
"Hi Brad"
I've used RAW and found that it comes down to splitting hairs.
Unless printing freaking huge, I don't need it. I can do basically ANYTHING I need to or want to do in the jpeg format.
I have 24x36" prints from jpeg and am more than happy with them and so is DPCPrints.
True, RAW will yield better due to it being pure, uncompressed data, but I relate it to an artist choosing between two paint brushes he is buying. One is from a cultured, pedigreed, pampered, hand-fed horse, the other from a horse with no name. Both get the job done just fine, and doubt many would really be able see enough difference in the final product to justify it, especially when the images are viewed on the web, which is 99% of what I do anyway.
Now is there a 12-step program out there for me or do I really need one??
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 12:59:28 PM · #57 |
| I use raw and I believe in Jpeg too. I don't usually shoot in jpeg, sometimes I do, but I always print from a jpeg. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:01:42 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Unless printing freaking huge, I don't need it. I can do basically ANYTHING I need to or want to do in the jpeg format.
I have 24x36" prints from jpeg and am more than happy with them and so is DPCPrints.
True, RAW will yield better due to it being pure, uncompressed data, but I relate it to an artist choosing between two paint brushes he is buying. One is from a cultured, pedigreed, pampered, hand-fed horse, the other from a horse with no name. Both get the job done just fine, and doubt many would really be able see enough difference in the final product to justify it, especially when the images are viewed on the web, which is 99% of what I do anyway.
|
Brad, you don't think this image would have benefited from having extra latitude that RAW offers?
Your blowouts would have been mitigated - at least somewhat. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:03:17 PM · #59 |
Maybe, but that was part of what I liked about it actually. I didn't edit it, just converted to b&w.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:07:03 PM · #60 |
For the record I have an image of a blue disk indoor lighting withthe white balance on auto.
The file is a JPEG and the white baalnce is off.
If you try to adjust it the disc gets funky neon colored and the papers edges turn dark.
One example of how a RAW would have saved that image. The raw not having rendered the white balance data into an image would allow to make up for not setting the tungsten preset |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:07:58 PM · #61 |
I don't know if this still makes sense in the thread (didn't read it all) but:
If you could choose between polaroid or film-negative, for f.e. photos for an exhibition, the choice would be obvious, right?
RAW is our digital positive. Get out of it what you can (but don't neglect the technics). |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:10:15 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by biteme:
I don't know if this still makes sense in the thread (didn't read it all) but:
If you could choose between polaroid or film-negative, for f.e. photos for an exhibition, the choice would be obvious, right?
RAW is our digital positive. Get out of it what you can (but don't neglect the technics). |
A RAW is like a Negative
A JPEG is like a Print
DO you reproduce your 35mm Photos from the negative or the print? |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:10:33 PM · #63 |
I took 5,000 RAW shots while on vacation (7 months ago) and they are still waiting to be converted :(
I'm also glad I did because the weather conditions were not the most photo friendly. If I shot jpeg I would've came back with more but probably less keepers.
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 13:13:01. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:12:44 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I took 5,000 RAW shots while on vacation (7 months ago) and they are still waiting to be converted :( |
Can open all 5,000 of them in a viewable thumbnail or slideshow fashion using Lightroom Beta 4. No conversion options need to be selected just open them all up at once. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:13:55 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I took 5,000 RAW shots while on vacation (7 months ago) and they are still waiting to be converted :( |
Can open all 5,000 of them in a viewable thumbnail or slideshow fashion using Lightroom Beta 4. No conversion options need to be selected just open them all up at once. |
Pentium II :( |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:14:56 PM · #66 |
OUCH, well as long as your not on dialup if youd like lol ill help you process them into TIFFs.
But i know id neevr let anyone else process my images. God only knows what setings they used. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:16:45 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I took 5,000 RAW shots while on vacation (7 months ago) and they are still waiting to be converted :( |
Can open all 5,000 of them in a viewable thumbnail or slideshow fashion using Lightroom Beta 4. No conversion options need to be selected just open them all up at once. |
But with that technology, one must upgrade to Windows XP, then because it's such a resource hog, now I have to buy/upgrade to new computer equipment. btw - I like to play the Devil's Advocate if it hasn't been noticed.
jpegs & Irfanview for me!!
Message edited by author 2007-01-25 13:40:39.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:17:47 PM · #68 |
| Brad P well windows 2000 would be the likley on a P2 like theirs. But WIndows XP versus Windows 98SE on a Celeron 400 with 512mb of ram guess what. XP actually benched better. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:25:06 PM · #69 |
I know I'm going to be scoffed at and sneered upon for this statement, but here goes.
Perhaps WB isn't a huge issue with me, but I have never seen that WB conversion from the RAW was hugely different from doing it in PaintShopPro on a jpeg. It's not a lot easier, and for me not a lot more effective.
That being said, like I mentioned earlier, underexposure is more my thorn. WB is usually close. (Until I started shooting for the minimalistic challenge, then nothing I could do would get it . . .Fixed that issue today) |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:34:56 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by idnic:
I never use RAW when I'm shooting in studio. I use a light meter to get proper exposure so RAW becomes just a waste of time & storage. Now out & about is different though, I still make tons of mistakes when I'm shooting in changing light, so RAW is my friend there. |
Cindi, do you use custom parameters or one of the presets?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:37:53 PM · #71 |
I justttt made a post on my website about the power of RAW.
//davynextdoor.com/?p=96
Personally, I will always shoot in RAW given the chance now. I never knew how good it was at preserving highlight and shadow details until a few weeks ago. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:40:56 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Curious question is, would anybody else here be so brave as to admit that you DON'T use RAW? |
I quit using RAW some time back. I do know what the benefits of shooting RAW are, but I choose to shoot JPG because I don't believe the benefits outweigh the additional resources required to deal with RAW images. I also make large prints. Telling a difference between a large print from a JPG and one from a RAW is quite difficult, if not impossible in some cases.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:44:54 PM · #73 |
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?
|
In some situations, yes.
With Nikon Capture 4.4 or NX you can bring back about half a stop of information in the highlights that were lost.
This is important in the situation where your basic exposure is all balanced out but you still loose highlights. So for your Jpeg or your RAW you think you have made a good tradeoff of shadows vs highlights. Shoot in jpeg and you can never retrieve the detail at the right of the histogram, shoot NEF/RAW and you can to some extent.
Sure you can stop the lens down half a stop, use a higher shutter speed, but no matter what you do, there is half a stop more dynamic range that can be pulled from the right side of the histogram with a Nikon NEF.
Interesting btw, that what all these converters rate as 1EV compensation differs enormously. 1 stop exposure compensation in Nikon Capture is like 2 stops exposure compensation in Rawshooter. Compared to Rawshooter Nikon can compensate 4 EV. Rawshooter is not honest here.
Another thing that I find useful about raw EV compensation is that when I accidentily underexpose I can compensate a lot faster than with curves or levels.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:47:59 PM · #74 |
For me, raw+jpg creates a combined file size of approximately 8-10mb... that means that 100 shutter clicks takes up about a gigabyte of storage space. 1 gigabyte of hard drive space costs about 40 cents. 1 gigabyte on a dvd-r costs significantly less (less than 10 cents). i archive both the raw and the jpgs, look through the jpg files to select my favorites, and then load those raw files into adobe lightroom.
for the most part, i use the original jpg to create email versions for friends and website images, and the raw files are used when i want to get 100% out of the image. i don't see how the storage of raw becomes an issue with respect to cost. the only real downside is if you need to take more than 100 pics but only have a 1gb card... to solve that, i have a 4gb card (cost is fairly low, and is a one-time expense) which i use to shoot jpg + raw, which would get me approximately 400 images. if that fills in one outing (hasn't happened yet), i have a second 512mb card which i will shoot in just jpg (can get ~150-200 more images). |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 01:51:32 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Originally posted by rainmotorsports:
Originally posted by faidoi:
I took 5,000 RAW shots while on vacation (7 months ago) and they are still waiting to be converted :( |
Can open all 5,000 of them in a viewable thumbnail or slideshow fashion using Lightroom Beta 4. No conversion options need to be selected just open them all up at once. |
But with that technology, one must upgrade to Windows XP, then because it's such a resource hog, now I have to buy/upgrade to new computer equipment. btw - I like to play the Devil's Advocate if it hasn't been noticed.
jpegs & Irfanview for me!! |
Actually running XP :) |
|
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: 04/19/2024 08:22:30 PM EDT.
