Reading mode: Light Dark

Why are you still shooting jpegs?

Go to last post
Yiotis said:
at the of the month i'll have my D2Hs yeah pro body so that i can
tell
Click to expand...
You're a real guy too - not only JPG shooters are real guys, but also "pro" camera owners are real guys...

...and yes, Sigma owners are real guys too - because they have the longest ones...
 
vadims said:
especially compared to that of Nikon -- which, in turn, is very
short of being a crippleware specially designed to force Nikon
shooters to use Nikon's RAW conversion SW (sold separately).

WB issues arart (quite rare these days anyway), I personally see
no reasons whatsoever to resort to RAW. DR has never been a problem
at all (again, for me).
Click to expand...
So you don't want the larger color gamut it affords for your prints?

--
'I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated.'
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
a simple and valid point ( JPEG vs RAW ) ,and it turns into a stupid fight. ppl insulting others, calling sissy, bsbs and so on.

That's what we get in this forum. lovely. That's why almost all pro photographers moved and only wanna be's stay. Clearly time to move on.

Ppl here should change opinions, not free insults.
--

Goncalo Proenca - Lisbon,Portugal, Europe
 
I wouldn't dream of short-changing my clients, but then I'm a good pro
Stovall said:
Anyone who is doing serious professional work should be using this
and providing the best possible quality image to a customer.
Click to expand...
 
Stovall said:
So you don't want the larger color gamut it affords for your prints?
Click to expand...
Everything comes at a price.

Even though I wouldn't mind wider color gamut, safe WB, etc. that are available to RAW shooters, I'm not prepared to pay the price -- lack of "unlimited" storage (when you have 2 or 4Gb CF card and shoot JPEG, you're kind of having "unlimited" storage and quite simply may not worry about it anymore), and more complicated (even though more powerful) workflow.

Once again, I'm talking about myself. Your mileage may vary.
 
who is a wedding shooter. He started to play on his time with raw. and in a short two weeks had changed his work flow to include raw because of the improvement of his final product to the customer and then there responce.
He has told me that he will never go back.
--
jag1
 
David Mazeau said:
fuzzytalz said:
...and would rather use ACR.
Click to expand...
I haven't heard anybody else complain about C1 image quality.

Plenty of complaints about the price... but I hadn't heard anything
about image quality.
Click to expand...
that the algorithms used by C1 are derivatives of those optimized for very high resolution digital backs with their larger pixels, which are Phase One's core business, because C1 is largely incapable of rendering precise details from the files of small-format digital captures, particularly high-resolution 1.5/1.6/2x cameras which have such fine pixel pitches that it appears to confuse C1. Every other RAW processor I've tried produces superior details. I wouldn't gripe about C1's price at all, except that it doesn't deliver results commensurate with its cost premium over competing products.

As for color, C1 does a better job with reds than ACR, but nothing touches Canon's latest version of DPP for color accuracy and fine detail reproduction, which I find cleaner and more realistic than with anything of the alternatives (stands to reason, though, since it is Canon's camera). Too bad it doesn't lend itself well to a speedy workflow, but for quality, I use DPP as much as I can.

My $0.02 only, of course.

--
Garland Cary
 
T3 said:
fuzzytalz said:
...and would rather use ACR.
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite. I detest ACR's output. C1 with Magne Nilsen's
profiles deliver practically unmatched color output.
Click to expand...
see my response above
T3 said:
T3 said:
That said, I shoot RAW almost
exclusively, but there are times when JPEG makes more sense. And if
I generated a higher volume of work, I'd surely develop a method of
shooting accurate JPEGs in camera (along with RAW files, I think).
Click to expand...
Again, I'm the opposite. JPEG is good for low volume work, but if
you're shooting, say, a portait shoot consisting of strings of
hundreds of images under similar lighting and exposure conditions,
RAW works better. Just custom tweak the first image in that series
to your liking, then apply that "recipe" or "formula" to all the
other images in that series. And that's true even for situations
where you thought you had everything perfect, or near perfect, at
the time of shooting. RAW lends itself very well to very minor
tweaks of large quantities of photos (I like to call them
"optimizations" of almost ideal exposures). It's not just good for
major tweaks of photos.
Click to expand...
Still, getting it right in-camera with a JPEG means I have no pp work at all to do, even if its only batch processing. And if I'm in a studio environment, or even on location with enough time to optimize my lighting, there's no reason I shouldn't nail WB and exposure to produce an ideal JPEG. Just edit the shoot and upload to the client's FTP.

--
Garland Cary
 
Because you lose the color gamut you have with 16bits, Raw and working in the ProPhoto color space.

But maybe you don't care about having the finest possible print you can produce?

--
'I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated.'
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
Stovall said:
But maybe you don't care about having the finest possible print you
can produce?
Click to expand...
Unless you're using a medium format Capture One back, or a large format camera with film, you must not care about having the finest possible print that can be produced. It's pretty funny when people want to pick and choose what's reasonable in another person's workflow.
 
I just checked my 5D. With a 2 gig card, I can get over 1000 shots in small-jpg format (maybe much more..the counter stops at 999.) Plus, I won't have to worry about post-processing at all, because they'll be too darn small to see any resolution to begin with. How many shots will a 4 gig card hold? I can finally quit hanging my head in shame about my manhood. And, the customer won't notice any difference anyway. It's still better than a Walgreens photo machine.
--
Visit me at

http://www.give-zine.com/
 
NeilJones said:
But if you have ever shot a wedding reception then you will know
that light and WB conditions can change in a split second. Bands
and DJ's use lights. Those lights can drastically change a shooting
situation very quickly.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I obviously don't know what I'm taking about and I've never shot in difficult lighting situations

I bow down to your superior knowledge...You must know a lot more about photography than me

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
 
Stovall said:
Because you lose the color gamut you have with 16bits, Raw and
working in the ProPhoto color space.

But maybe you don't care about having the finest possible print you
can produce?
Click to expand...
But may be you work is always going to go in a magazine or through the print process, then jpg is more than enough
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=280578
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top