m43 Studio portrait RAW-file?

Started 5 months ago | Discussion
gergei1
Forum MemberPosts: 57
Like?
m43 Studio portrait RAW-file?
5 months ago

Does anyone know where I can find RAW-files of studio portraits taken with the m43 system?

Or maybe someone willing to share such a file...?
Thanks!

tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Seems odd to me.....
In reply to gergei1, 5 months ago

gergei1 wrote:

Does anyone know where I can find RAW-files of studio portraits taken with the m43 system?

Or maybe someone willing to share such a file...?
Thanks!

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

TEedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gergei1
Forum MemberPosts: 57
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

Maybe it is. I'm just curious of what the m43 system is capable of in such a controlled setting.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to gergei1, 5 months ago

gergei1 wrote:

Maybe it is. I'm just curious of what the m43 system is capable of in such a controlled setting.

If the setting is controled, the RAW photo isn't going to be any better than the JPEG unless you want to do some special B&W conversion or something realy strange in PP.

RAW is really only beneficial if you are shooting at the extremes of ISO, dynamic range, etc.

None of that happens in a studio if you even just sort of know what you are doing.

TEdolph

Edited 5 months ago by tedolf
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guy Parsons
Forum ProPosts: 14,712
Like?
One difference....
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

One difference in jpeg vs RAW performance under careful lighting conditions (or any conditions)  is that for Olympus at least, even if you have Sharpening set at -2 then some small degree of sharpening still happens in-camera.

So for super-critical evaluation of camera/lens/image quality then RAW is always needed. Plus of course a decent RAW converter to make the most of that RAW file. Plus a properly calibrated IPS monitor etc etc.

Regards....... Guy

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gergei1
Forum MemberPosts: 57
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

Yeah, I get you point TEdolf, but

#1. It also has to do with the quality of the JPG-engine. I've owned a Sigma SD15 and I promise you wouldn't want to shoot that one in anything else than RAW. It's JPG-engine was simply horrible.

#2. I'm still interested in playing around with a m43 RAW-file shot in such a controlled environment.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Moti
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,342
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

tedolf wrote:

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

Theoretically it is true. Practically, as i am using LR as my main wokflow tool, and processing a raw file takes the same time and effort as processing a jpg, I don't see any reason to use jpg at the first place.

I slways shoot and process raw only as part of a workflow weather it is needed or not. It will give me the advantage when i need it and will be transperent when i dont. Life is much easier that way.

Moti

--

http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gergei1
Forum MemberPosts: 57
Like?
Re: One difference....
In reply to Guy Parsons, 5 months ago

I fully agree with you Guy. I for one really enjoy the level of control RAW-files offer.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Re: One difference....
In reply to Guy Parsons, 5 months ago

Guy Parsons wrote:

One difference in jpeg vs RAW performance under careful lighting conditions (or any conditions) is that for Olympus at least, even if you have Sharpening set at -2 then some small degree of sharpening still happens in-camera.

So for super-critical evaluation of camera/lens/image quality then RAW is always needed. Plus of course a decent RAW converter to make the most of that RAW file. Plus a properly calibrated IPS monitor etc etc.

Regards....... Guy

If he is looking for that sort of data, shouldn't he be looking at test charts.

I guess what I am trying to say to the OP is I don't think he is going to get any responses becuse most people doing studio work with modern digital u 4/3 cameras are not shooting RAW.

TEdolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Good luck...
In reply to gergei1, 5 months ago

gergei1 wrote:

I fully agree with you Guy. I for one really enjoy the level of control RAW-files offer.

getting any responses.

TEdolphh

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Well then....
In reply to Moti, 5 months ago

Moti wrote:

tedolf wrote:

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

Theoretically it is true. Practically, as i am using LR as my main wokflow tool, and processing a raw file takes the same time and effort as processing a jpg, I don't see any reason to use jpg at the first place.

I slways shoot and process raw only as part of a workflow weather it is needed or not. It will give me the advantage when i need it and will be transperent when i dont. Life is much easier that way.

would you be so kind as to post a studio example for the OP?

Moti

--

http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)

TEdolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gergei1
Forum MemberPosts: 57
Like?
Re: Good luck...
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

I have got one response from someone willing to share RAW-files, but outside of this thread.

So I am happy.

Are you happy? 

Cheers!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gergei1
Forum MemberPosts: 57
Like?
Re: Well then....
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

would you be so kind as to post a studio example for the OP?

Moti

Exactly! Please, heed the call Moti!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
photo chris
Regular MemberPosts: 281
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to Moti, 5 months ago

Moti wrote:

tedolf wrote:

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

Theoretically it is true. Practically, as i am using LR as my main wokflow tool, and processing a raw file takes the same time and effort as processing a jpg, I don't see any reason to use jpg at the first place.

I slways shoot and process raw only as part of a workflow weather it is needed or not. It will give me the advantage when i need it and will be transperent when i dont. Life is much easier that way.

Moti

+1

LR4 makes raw processing so fast/easy, why would anyone waste time with a compressed jpeg and have to settle for what the camera decides to bake into the image?  I'm talking sharpening and colors since they all add some even when its turned all the way down, yuk and no thanks.  Shoot raw, do your best to nail it in cam and fine tune until your vision is realized.  Plus if you happen to shoot something that's not perfectly exposed you'll have more to recover in post.  The only time I don't is when I'm going to be traveling for an extended period of time and I don't have the storage space, otherwise its raw ... always.  YMMV.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rinsephotographic
Contributing MemberPosts: 934
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to tedolf, 5 months ago

tedolf wrote:

gergei1 wrote:

Does anyone know where I can find RAW-files of studio portraits taken with the m43 system?

Or maybe someone willing to share such a file...?
Thanks!

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

TEedolph

is that a joke? as a professional studio photographer i can tell you that i don't know a single studio pro who doesn't shoot in RAW. honestly, your assertion that jpegs are just fine is so wrong that i don't even know where to begin.

--
dave

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Grumpy...
In reply to gergei1, 5 months ago

gergei1 wrote:

I have got one response from someone willing to share RAW-files, but outside of this thread.

So I am happy.

Are you happy?

Well, not really.

I am pretty much grumpy all the time!

Cheers!

Too bad, I really wanted to see the RAW studio photo.

TEdolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Re: Well then....
In reply to gergei1, 5 months ago

gergei1 wrote:

would you be so kind as to post a studio example for the OP?

Moti

Exactly! Please, heed the call Moti!

Yeah Moti!

Put up or ..........er........whatever.

Tedolph

(P.S. OK, please, it is just a joke, OK Moderators?)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Well then.....
In reply to photo chris, 5 months ago

photo chris wrote:

Moti wrote:

tedolf wrote:

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

Theoretically it is true. Practically, as i am using LR as my main wokflow tool, and processing a raw file takes the same time and effort as processing a jpg, I don't see any reason to use jpg at the first place.

I slways shoot and process raw only as part of a workflow weather it is needed or not. It will give me the advantage when i need it and will be transperent when i dont. Life is much easier that way.

Moti

+1

LR4 makes raw processing so fast/easy, why would anyone waste time with a compressed jpeg and have to settle for what the camera decides to bake into the image? I'm talking sharpening and colors since they all add some even when its turned all the way down, yuk and no thanks. Shoot raw, do your best to nail it in cam and fine tune until your vision is realized. Plus if you happen to shoot something that's not perfectly exposed you'll have more to recover in post. The only time I don't is when I'm going to be traveling for an extended period of time and I don't have the storage space, otherwise its raw ... always. YMMV.

post a RAW studio image for our gazing pleasure.

Tedolph

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tedolf
Forum ProPosts: 15,442
Like?
Sure....
In reply to rinsephotographic, 5 months ago

rinsephotographic wrote:

tedolf wrote:

gergei1 wrote:

Does anyone know where I can find RAW-files of studio portraits taken with the m43 system?

Or maybe someone willing to share such a file...?
Thanks!

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

TEedolph

is that a joke? as a professional studio photographer i can tell you that i don't know a single studio pro who doesn't shoot in RAW. honestly, your assertion that jpegs are just fine is so wrong that i don't even know where to begin.

the Hasselblad studio guys with their Kodak CCD backs are shooting RAW, but not OM-d studio photographers.

He is asking specifically about u 4/3 photographers.

I doubt any body shooting the OM-d in a studio setting is shooting RAW.

Let's see if anyone post a shot, OK?

--
dave

Teedolph

Edited 5 months ago by tedolf
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PenFan2011
Regular MemberPosts: 154
Like?
Re: Seems odd to me.....
In reply to rinsephotographic, 5 months ago

rinsephotographic wrote:

tedolf wrote:

gergei1 wrote:

Does anyone know where I can find RAW-files of studio portraits taken with the m43 system?

Or maybe someone willing to share such a file...?
Thanks!

you have complete control over lighting and contrast in a studio so why bother shooting RAW?

TEedolph

is that a joke? as a professional studio photographer i can tell you that i don't know a single studio pro who doesn't shoot in RAW. honestly, your assertion that jpegs are just fine is so wrong that i don't even know where to begin.

--
dave

But maybe he likes that white balanced 'baked in flavor', lol.  Just kidding.  Raw studio shooting for life here.

--
I am far too busy taking pictures to look for problems with the cameras I use to take them.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads