Cross Forum Learning - 8080, 50xx and D-Thingy

[Hooligans Imagery]

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg. Seems to happen on the D-Thingy.

http://www.StinsonsTerra.RawvJPG.PhotoShare.co.nz

Know that this was shot with the D-Thingy so what I am suggesting is for 8080 owners and 50XX owners to do this test. I am seeing sharper images when converted from RAW.

Look at the two pictures in the gallery. Download them if you like and compare them.

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[nickoly]

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a> D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that> shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg.> Seems to happen on the D-Thingy

An important variable here is the degree of agression in the JPG compression. I never use RAW with my 5060. If I'm going to edit any pictures I use TIFF.
I can't see the point of RAW, it's bit like a dog chasing a car.

I get the impression that things are different in the DSLR world and more post-processing is expected of the user. I don't understand why.

 

[dwit1]

I will always shoot in RAW 'now' unless I'm doing fun stuff (holidays parties etc and I need the write speed)

I find the RAW shots are better all round.

Until I upgraded to PSCS a month or so back I wasn't too impressed but now I have the Adobe Raw Plugin I'm very impressed, you have so much control over the photograph. The resize option in the Raw plugin is awesome you can turn some huge shots out & they appear to be 'almost loss-less'......

IMO ~ the shots are sharper, Raw is great on the 5060, it would be even better if the write time were faster then it could be used for a wider variety of situations.

I think your test results speak for themselves, thanks for sharing.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in 1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

 

[Liquid_Thought]

Think about this. If it takes you 2 minutes per image to go from RAW to Photoshop and we both have 120 images from our trip, then you'll be on the computer for 4 hours just getting ready to post-process!

Multiply those 4 hours by all the times you'll have 120 images in your D-thingy. Let's say that over the next few years you'll the equivalent of 12,000 images. That means that you’ve wasted 400 hours of your life just converting RAW.

Okay, the year is 2008, and you purchase a Nikon D4H. This camera’s so good that even on JPEG it makes your old D-thingy’s RAW look silly. So that means that all 12,000 images you spent 400 hours converting images for a minimal gain in quality wasn’t really worth it by comparison to all the new images you are able to get.

This is why I picked the Fuji S2 over the Nikon D100. I wanted a camera that had excellent out-of-camera JPEGs because I will not spend a bazillion hours in front of my computer for a mere 5-10% enhancement in quality. If I do that, then I will also do things like blend images for wider dynamic range, and now I’m spending even more time in front of the computer instead of taking pictures. Not only that, but I might begin to hate photoshop and all the time it consumes. Now I’m taking even less pictures because I know how much work it is just to process them.

The happiest time for me is when I look at a shot on the computer & say, “Perfect. Don’t need to change a thing.” That way I don’t have to waste time on it. I hate wasting time, unless it’s doing something I like to do. I can’t imagine a routine that encompasses clicking the mouse and waiting for things to happen so I can click the mouse again something I’ll like to do anytime soon.

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a
D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that
shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg.
Seems to happen on the D-Thingy.

http://www.StinsonsTerra.RawvJPG.PhotoShare.co.nz

Know that this was shot with the D-Thingy so what I am suggesting
is for 8080 owners and 50XX owners to do this test. I am seeing
sharper images when converted from RAW.

Look at the two pictures in the gallery. Download them if you like
and compare them.

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[somynex]

with PS and Adobe Raw, i too shoot raw on my 5050 whenever i am shooting that "special" pic and/or have time & memory for it. for the 5050 at least, raw allows for end products with less noise without sacrificing detail, along with the usual greater flexibility in post processing, including dynamic range you can pull out of the picture through Adobe Raw's EV compensation (sometimes important to me when i shoot with my LX or in low light)

also, for the 5050 at least, it is my understanding that all shots are taken in raw anyway, and it is from that raw image that either the camera will convert into tiff/jpg, or you do it in post processing yourself later on.

somy =)

I will always shoot in RAW 'now' unless I'm doing fun stuff
(holidays parties etc and I need the write speed)

I find the RAW shots are better all round.

Until I upgraded to PSCS a month or so back I wasn't too impressed
but now I have the Adobe Raw Plugin I'm very impressed, you have so
much control over the photograph. The resize option in the Raw
plugin is awesome you can turn some huge shots out & they appear to
be 'almost loss-less'......

IMO ~ the shots are sharper, Raw is great on the 5060, it would be
even better if the write time were faster then it could be used for
a wider variety of situations.

I think your test results speak for themselves, thanks for sharing.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

 

[Gecko221049]

Hillarious, but true!
--
Warmest regards
Jeff
C5060
Pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/elgoobero

 

[dwit1]

Think about this. If it takes you 2 minutes per image to go from
RAW to Photoshop and we both have 120 images from our trip, then
you'll be on the computer for 4 hours just getting ready to
post-process!

If it takes 2 mins to get a photo into PS on your computer then you are ready for an upgrade!

Multiply those 4 hours by all the times you'll have 120 images in
your D-thingy. Let's say that over the next few years you'll the
equivalent of 12,000 images. That means that you’ve wasted 400
hours of your life just converting RAW.

As I mentioned I believe RAW has it's place I do not shoot in RAW all the time, I don't think Stinson said he would shoot in RAW all the time either.....you assume too much.

Okay, the year is 2008, and you purchase a Nikon D4H. This camera’s
so good that even on JPEG it makes your old D-thingy’s RAW look
silly. So that means that all 12,000 images you spent 400 hours
converting images for a minimal gain in quality wasn’t really worth
it by comparison to all the new images you are able to get.

hmm,,,,OK lets not try to get the best out of our kit today becasue in 4 years time we will regret it..that is some statement!

Did you look at Stinson's shots, do you think the RAW one was any better?

Davew.

--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in 1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

 

[Liquid_Thought]

Sure it's better. Not by much though, and certainly not enough for me to add another step or two to my process. If Stinson likes it, Stinson can do it. Meanwhile, I'll be shooting a lot more because I won't have to look forward to more work later.

It's ok to disagree you know.

Did you look at Stinson's shots, do you think the RAW one was any
better?

Davew.

--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

I will always shoot in RAW 'now' unless I'm doing fun stuff
(holidays parties etc and I need the write speed)

I find the RAW shots are better all round.

Until I upgraded to PSCS a month or so back I wasn't too impressed
but now I have the Adobe Raw Plugin I'm very impressed, you have so
much control over the photograph. The resize option in the Raw
plugin is awesome you can turn some huge shots out & they appear to
be 'almost loss-less'......

Do you mean changing the resolution number??

IMO ~ the shots are sharper, Raw is great on the 5060, it would be
even better if the write time were faster then it could be used for
a wider variety of situations.

Have you tried a faster card. One of the great features of the D-thingy is a great buffer. With a slow card you can do 5 shots a minute, but with a fast card it's much more.

I think your test results speak for themselves, thanks for sharing.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

BTW you should try Dr. Brown's Image Processor if you want to batch.

http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html

I will always shoot in RAW 'now' unless I'm doing fun stuff
(holidays parties etc and I need the write speed)

I find the RAW shots are better all round.

Until I upgraded to PSCS a month or so back I wasn't too impressed
but now I have the Adobe Raw Plugin I'm very impressed, you have so
much control over the photograph. The resize option in the Raw
plugin is awesome you can turn some huge shots out & they appear to
be 'almost loss-less'......

Do you mean changing the resolution number??

IMO ~ the shots are sharper, Raw is great on the 5060, it would be
even better if the write time were faster then it could be used for
a wider variety of situations.

Have you tried a faster card. One of the great features of the
D-thingy is a great buffer. With a slow card you can do 5 shots a
minute, but with a fast card it's much more.

I think your test results speak for themselves, thanks for sharing.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Think about this. If it takes you 2 minutes per image to go from
RAW to Photoshop and we both have 120 images from our trip, then
you'll be on the computer for 4 hours just getting ready to
post-process!

Not really. My Dell 2.8, 1GB seems to handle this stuff really well and with the Image Processor it works great. Don't get me wrong, shooting lots of NEF's has issues, but this seems to be a way to set it up and let it fly. You come back from a meal and there you have the majority of your work done. You can work on those special ones.

Multiply those 4 hours by all the times you'll have 120 images in
your D-thingy. Let's say that over the next few years you'll the
equivalent of 12,000 images. That means that you’ve wasted 400
hours of your life just converting RAW.

Okay, the year is 2008, and you purchase a Nikon D4H. This camera’s
so good that even on JPEG it makes your old D-thingy’s RAW look
silly. So that means that all 12,000 images you spent 400 hours
converting images for a minimal gain in quality wasn’t really worth
it by comparison to all the new images you are able to get.

This is why I picked the Fuji S2 over the Nikon D100. I wanted a
camera that had excellent out-of-camera JPEGs because I will not
spend a bazillion hours in front of my computer for a mere 5-10%
enhancement in quality.

I have been able to get great out of camera jpgs by making some adjustments like we all did with the OLY's. Biggest one is warming up the WB.

If I do that, then I will also do things

like blend images for wider dynamic range, and now I’m spending
even more time in front of the computer instead of taking pictures.
Not only that, but I might begin to hate photoshop and all the time
it consumes. Now I’m taking even less pictures because I know how
much work it is just to process them.

Agreed except when I am making Monsters

The happiest time for me is when I look at a shot on the computer &
say, “Perfect. Don’t need to change a thing.” That way I don’t have
to waste time on it. I hate wasting time, unless it’s doing
something I like to do. I can’t imagine a routine that encompasses
clicking the mouse and waiting for things to happen so I can click
the mouse again something I’ll like to do anytime soon.

Not experiencing the wait unless I want it, but I see your point. I am still learning the settings that will reduce my computer time.

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a
D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that
shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg.
Seems to happen on the D-Thingy.

http://www.StinsonsTerra.RawvJPG.PhotoShare.co.nz

Know that this was shot with the D-Thingy so what I am suggesting
is for 8080 owners and 50XX owners to do this test. I am seeing
sharper images when converted from RAW.

Look at the two pictures in the gallery. Download them if you like
and compare them.

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[dwit1]

Have you tried a faster card. One of the great features of the
D-thingy is a great buffer. With a slow card you can do 5 shots a
minute, but with a fast card it's much more.

No I have a bog standard CF media in th 5060 nothing special, I will get another 512MB card soon, and this will be one of the newer quicker cards, I will do some comparisons.

Does your Nikon use CF media (dumb question)- if so what make media is it???

The Dr. Brown's Image Processor looks interesting thanks for that.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in 1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Funny thing is this analysis got no play in the D-thingy forum. I think there is a happy medium. I did buy one fast CF card for continous RAW shooting in case I want it. I won't use RAW all the time, but I will know that when I do easy processing can be done with the Image Processor, and for that special shot I have the RAW negative to work with.

Thanks for everyone's point of view.

It's ok to disagree you know.

Did you look at Stinson's shots, do you think the RAW one was any
better?

Davew.

--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Have you tried a faster card. One of the great features of the
D-thingy is a great buffer. With a slow card you can do 5 shots a
minute, but with a fast card it's much more.

No I have a bog standard CF media in th 5060 nothing special, I
will get another 512MB card soon, and this will be one of the newer
quicker cards, I will do some comparisons.

Does your Nikon use CF media (dumb question)- if so what make media
is it???

I bought a Lexar 4x when I bought the camera just cause I couln't wait - 256mb $55. I ordered a Sandisk Ultra II 512mb 40x from Amazon for $108. Prices will drop. I have seen lots of 512's in the 60-70 range, but I figured I spend another $40 on one card to have it when I want it. Like Little League I can shoot away and with the Image Processor it will be easy.

The Dr. Brown's Image Processor looks interesting thanks for that.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

dwit - do you mean changing the resolution value??

I will always shoot in RAW 'now' unless I'm doing fun stuff
(holidays parties etc and I need the write speed)

I find the RAW shots are better all round.

Until I upgraded to PSCS a month or so back I wasn't too impressed
but now I have the Adobe Raw Plugin I'm very impressed, you have so
much control over the photograph. The resize option in the Raw
plugin is awesome you can turn some huge shots out & they appear to
be 'almost loss-less'......

IMO ~ the shots are sharper, Raw is great on the 5060, it would be
even better if the write time were faster then it could be used for
a wider variety of situations.

I think your test results speak for themselves, thanks for sharing.

Davew.
--
'640K ought to be enough for anybody.' -- (Bill Gates on memory in
1981)
Dave White - dwit1 - C5060WZ

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Liquid_Thought]

Hmmm.. interesting. I didn't know you could set a RAW convertor to do a whole lot of images at once. That changes things a bit. Still, it's too slow for my camera I believe. Is that right? Is the C8080 slow on RAW? It's dog slow on TIFF, I can tell you that!

Think about this. If it takes you 2 minutes per image to go from
RAW to Photoshop and we both have 120 images from our trip, then
you'll be on the computer for 4 hours just getting ready to
post-process!

Not really. My Dell 2.8, 1GB seems to handle this stuff really
well and with the Image Processor it works great. Don't get me
wrong, shooting lots of NEF's has issues, but this seems to be a
way to set it up and let it fly. You come back from a meal and
there you have the majority of your work done. You can work on
those special ones.

Multiply those 4 hours by all the times you'll have 120 images in
your D-thingy. Let's say that over the next few years you'll the
equivalent of 12,000 images. That means that you’ve wasted 400
hours of your life just converting RAW.

Okay, the year is 2008, and you purchase a Nikon D4H. This camera’s
so good that even on JPEG it makes your old D-thingy’s RAW look
silly. So that means that all 12,000 images you spent 400 hours
converting images for a minimal gain in quality wasn’t really worth
it by comparison to all the new images you are able to get.

This is why I picked the Fuji S2 over the Nikon D100. I wanted a
camera that had excellent out-of-camera JPEGs because I will not
spend a bazillion hours in front of my computer for a mere 5-10%
enhancement in quality.

I have been able to get great out of camera jpgs by making some
adjustments like we all did with the OLY's. Biggest one is warming
up the WB.

If I do that, then I will also do things

like blend images for wider dynamic range, and now I’m spending
even more time in front of the computer instead of taking pictures.
Not only that, but I might begin to hate photoshop and all the time
it consumes. Now I’m taking even less pictures because I know how
much work it is just to process them.

Agreed except when I am making Monsters

The happiest time for me is when I look at a shot on the computer &
say, “Perfect. Don’t need to change a thing.” That way I don’t have
to waste time on it. I hate wasting time, unless it’s doing
something I like to do. I can’t imagine a routine that encompasses
clicking the mouse and waiting for things to happen so I can click
the mouse again something I’ll like to do anytime soon.

Not experiencing the wait unless I want it, but I see your point.
I am still learning the settings that will reduce my computer time.

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a
D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that
shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg.
Seems to happen on the D-Thingy.

http://www.StinsonsTerra.RawvJPG.PhotoShare.co.nz

Know that this was shot with the D-Thingy so what I am suggesting
is for 8080 owners and 50XX owners to do this test. I am seeing
sharper images when converted from RAW.

Look at the two pictures in the gallery. Download them if you like
and compare them.

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

A fast CF card. Two things matter. Buffer in camera and write speed of card. That is why I got one fast card. All you can do is try. BTW Russell Brown is an original author of PS so lots of good stuff on his site.

Think about this. If it takes you 2 minutes per image to go from
RAW to Photoshop and we both have 120 images from our trip, then
you'll be on the computer for 4 hours just getting ready to
post-process!

Not really. My Dell 2.8, 1GB seems to handle this stuff really
well and with the Image Processor it works great. Don't get me
wrong, shooting lots of NEF's has issues, but this seems to be a
way to set it up and let it fly. You come back from a meal and
there you have the majority of your work done. You can work on
those special ones.

Multiply those 4 hours by all the times you'll have 120 images in
your D-thingy. Let's say that over the next few years you'll the
equivalent of 12,000 images. That means that you’ve wasted 400
hours of your life just converting RAW.

Okay, the year is 2008, and you purchase a Nikon D4H. This camera’s
so good that even on JPEG it makes your old D-thingy’s RAW look
silly. So that means that all 12,000 images you spent 400 hours
converting images for a minimal gain in quality wasn’t really worth
it by comparison to all the new images you are able to get.

This is why I picked the Fuji S2 over the Nikon D100. I wanted a
camera that had excellent out-of-camera JPEGs because I will not
spend a bazillion hours in front of my computer for a mere 5-10%
enhancement in quality.

I have been able to get great out of camera jpgs by making some
adjustments like we all did with the OLY's. Biggest one is warming
up the WB.

If I do that, then I will also do things

like blend images for wider dynamic range, and now I’m spending
even more time in front of the computer instead of taking pictures.
Not only that, but I might begin to hate photoshop and all the time
it consumes. Now I’m taking even less pictures because I know how
much work it is just to process them.

Agreed except when I am making Monsters

The happiest time for me is when I look at a shot on the computer &
say, “Perfect. Don’t need to change a thing.” That way I don’t have
to waste time on it. I hate wasting time, unless it’s doing
something I like to do. I can’t imagine a routine that encompasses
clicking the mouse and waiting for things to happen so I can click
the mouse again something I’ll like to do anytime soon.

Not experiencing the wait unless I want it, but I see your point.
I am still learning the settings that will reduce my computer time.

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a
D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that
shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg.
Seems to happen on the D-Thingy.

http://www.StinsonsTerra.RawvJPG.PhotoShare.co.nz

Know that this was shot with the D-Thingy so what I am suggesting
is for 8080 owners and 50XX owners to do this test. I am seeing
sharper images when converted from RAW.

Look at the two pictures in the gallery. Download them if you like
and compare them.

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[aliendad]

the c8080 is slow to write raw files plus (in my opiniun) the quality in shq mode is very impresive,

in the end are we standing back and looking at a picture, or are we looking closely at a brake-down of the "image" and going too deeply?

I used to be a HI-FI nut, until one day I realised I was listening more for the noise between tracks than listoning to the music!

Think about this. If it takes you 2 minutes per image to go from
RAW to Photoshop and we both have 120 images from our trip, then
you'll be on the computer for 4 hours just getting ready to
post-process!

Not really. My Dell 2.8, 1GB seems to handle this stuff really
well and with the Image Processor it works great. Don't get me
wrong, shooting lots of NEF's has issues, but this seems to be a
way to set it up and let it fly. You come back from a meal and
there you have the majority of your work done. You can work on
those special ones.

Multiply those 4 hours by all the times you'll have 120 images in
your D-thingy. Let's say that over the next few years you'll the
equivalent of 12,000 images. That means that you’ve wasted 400
hours of your life just converting RAW.

Okay, the year is 2008, and you purchase a Nikon D4H. This camera’s
so good that even on JPEG it makes your old D-thingy’s RAW look
silly. So that means that all 12,000 images you spent 400 hours
converting images for a minimal gain in quality wasn’t really worth
it by comparison to all the new images you are able to get.

This is why I picked the Fuji S2 over the Nikon D100. I wanted a
camera that had excellent out-of-camera JPEGs because I will not
spend a bazillion hours in front of my computer for a mere 5-10%
enhancement in quality.

I have been able to get great out of camera jpgs by making some
adjustments like we all did with the OLY's. Biggest one is warming
up the WB.

If I do that, then I will also do things

like blend images for wider dynamic range, and now I’m spending
even more time in front of the computer instead of taking pictures.
Not only that, but I might begin to hate photoshop and all the time
it consumes. Now I’m taking even less pictures because I know how
much work it is just to process them.

Agreed except when I am making Monsters

The happiest time for me is when I look at a shot on the computer &
say, “Perfect. Don’t need to change a thing.” That way I don’t have
to waste time on it. I hate wasting time, unless it’s doing
something I like to do. I can’t imagine a routine that encompasses
clicking the mouse and waiting for things to happen so I can click
the mouse again something I’ll like to do anytime soon.

Not experiencing the wait unless I want it, but I see your point.
I am still learning the settings that will reduce my computer time.

I never had a camera that could shoot RAW until I just got a
D-Thingy. Now I am curious if the 8080 and 50XX users think that
shooting in RAW they get sharper pictures than the finest jpg.
Seems to happen on the D-Thingy.

http://www.StinsonsTerra.RawvJPG.PhotoShare.co.nz

Know that this was shot with the D-Thingy so what I am suggesting
is for 8080 owners and 50XX owners to do this test. I am seeing
sharper images when converted from RAW.

Look at the two pictures in the gallery. Download them if you like
and compare them.

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

--
Paul....

'if something bad happens, it's because something better is going to.'

 

[Hooligans Imagery]

Yes, I don't know if it will matter. I rarely have printed in the past larger than 8x10 for photos. Will that change? Don't know yet. Just trying to understand some limits so I have some clue what paths to take.

the c8080 is slow to write raw files plus (in my opiniun) the
quality in shq mode is very impresive,
in the end are we standing back and looking at a picture, or are we
looking closely at a brake-down of the "image" and going too deeply?
I used to be a HI-FI nut, until one day I realised I was listening
more for the noise between tracks than listoning to the music!

--
Stinson
D-70, C-750, D-40, B-300, Nikon 4T macro, PS CS
http://www.StinsonsTerra.NikonD70Gallery.photoshare.co.nz
http://www.StinsonsTerra.StinsonsC750Gallery.PhotoShare.co.nz
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=64739
ViewExif at http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

 

[Theresa K]

--
Theresa
The Digital Junkie!
http://www.pbase.com/theresa_k
Oly C-5O6O, WC0N-.7C, TC0N-1.7C & FL-4O
+1, +2, +4, +10 diopters, RF-5O ring flash