Dro on the A700 , must i shoot jpeg only

I have touched on this before, but this is a different idea. I like shooting with the Dro +2 or +3 but am I only going to be able to shoot in JPEG. My Photoshop Elements wont see the DRO, If I shoot in raw. If I must use the sony program, it never works correct. It says i dont have enough memory(just added a gig of ram), and I dont like the interface while working with raw. so another words , to enjoy the help of DRO on the cam, should i just shoot ex. fine jpeg and forget using raw and the Sony program? Thanks for your help. Fgaz

Hi,

I did an experiment to see how much effort it takes to produce output roughly equivalent to the in-camera dro output starting from RAW and using Lightroom. You may find this of interest since you don't need to use the sony program (which runs too slow and is too cumbersome to operate for me to really like). However, slow as the sony program is, it probably does this conversion faster than it takes to do it in LR.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=28126599
--
Steve W
weather photos: http://home.comcast.net/~scwest/atmo/

Hey Steve, thanks for quick reply.

Also, I have enjoyed reading all of your info. I guess since i dont do this for a living,and dont print everything_ I want this to be fun, not a chore. I dont like to do hours of post processing- So i am to believe that since i wont use the sony program to work on a raw file, my raw pic opened up in Elements or any other extermal edit wont show the effects of DRO or. If that is the case i will just shoot xfine jpeg . and enjoy the benefits of DRO> Sounds correct? Thanks again,Fred

And actually, the Sony program does not seem to implement the same "DRO Advanced +" that the camera has. Comparing the JPEG to the Sony IDC view of the same file doesn't look anything even similar. You may be able to get in the ballpark with various techniques, but the JPEG DRO+ is pretty hard to beat.

I don't understand why they can't make the software application produce identical output to the JPEG when you load it up so that one could shoot raw and not have to worry about shooting a JPEG proof.

The answer is always the same with regards to "why don't they fix [insert silly oversight or goofed up feature here]" -

because they don't have to.

Fgaz

I bought the A700 because of DRO (and fast focusing). I have played with RAW in the past and tried the SONY A700 SW for a day or two. After many test shots and (Steve West's thread) I have settled on in-camera DRO, 12MP, x-fine, HIGH ISO NR=LOW, aRGB, SAT =+1, SHARP = +1. I run NeatImage (batch mode) to clean up ISO noise. In-camera sharpening = +1 does as good a job as I was able to achieve in various sharpening programs.
FWIW, my 3 memory settings are:

1. 3 for full sun: A mode, Auto ISO(200-800), DRO+2
2. 2 for flash: A mode, ISO=400, DRO bracketing Hi
3. 1 Overcast days: P mode, ISO Auto(200-800), DRO Advanced Auto (for wife too)

I am sure that many competent PP photographers can squeeze a little extra IQ by PP in CS3 etc. However, I am a firm believer in the "Pareto principle" except, instead of 80-20, I believe I get 99% IQ with 1% effort.

Bert

freddygaz said:

I have touched on this before, but this is a different idea. I like
shooting with the Dro +2 or +3 but am I only going to be able to
shoot in JPEG. My Photoshop Elements wont see the DRO, If I shoot
in raw. If I must use the sony program, it never works correct. It
says i dont have enough memory(just added a gig of ram), and I dont
like the interface while working with raw. so another words , to
enjoy the help of DRO on the cam, should i just shoot ex. fine jpeg
and forget using raw and the Sony program?

Click to expand...

Yes if you want the full value of DRO (and the in camera jpeg processor) you need to set it to ex fine and just jpeg. Though the egos of the raw shooters keep them saying something else.

Photoshop Elements and every other graphics program sees the DRO, the DRO of the in camera processed jpeg is not suddenly removed.

I expect that more and more raw is on it's way out in the future. Features like DRO will become more common and more desirable in high end DSLR's. If you shoot properly, use the correct settings there is little need for raw now the camera processors clearly have the processors to do the job. If you are a sloppy shooter who does not know his camera, well then you can "save it in raw", but that's not the best way to do it. Shooting jpeg requires you know your camera and photography better, and that's a worthy goal.

Walt

Steve,

I've been shooting with my A700 since Sep. 07. In that time I've never used the dro setting; but then I shoot only raw.

I'm not trying to dispute your findings, if it works for you and you're happy, great. I would disagree that similar results are difficult to obtain in pp. I used your no dro jpeg example as a starting point.



simply adding a exposure adjustment layer in CS3, with gamma set a bit below -2 and a slight negative offset.



I'm sure better results could have been achieved with the original raw, and the shadow/highlight adjustment could have been used as well. My time spent in pp was less than 10 seconds.

My only point in posting was to encourage folks to experiment. I'm sure dro is a godsend to folks who hate pp, but it's not the only way.

--
Regards,
Graham

'I am not young enough to know everything.'
Oscar Wilde

Graham Best said:

My only point in posting was to encourage folks to experiment. I'm
sure dro is a godsend to folks who hate pp, but it's not the only way.

Click to expand...

And of course your settings in pp will do what any and all shots are like whenever DRO is used. I strongly doubt it unless your standards are very low. Stick with your raw if it makes you comfortable, but you will be left behind where this is going. DRO and other future such additions to in camera processing are where the future is going. Only real need for raw now is for folks who are incapable of setting their cameras correctly when taking photographs. The "I'll fix it in raw" crowd.

Try reading and researching DRO a bit and you will find just how far you are from what it can do.

Walt

Yeah, but the whole scene is lighter now, including the sky. The building is washed out too.

Can you really get similar, or equivalent results to DRO Advanced+ without resorting to layers and masks?

WaltKnapp said:

And of course your settings in pp will do what any and all shots are
like whenever DRO is used. I strongly doubt it unless your standards
are very low. Stick with your raw if it makes you comfortable, but
you will be left behind where this is going. DRO and other future
such additions to in camera processing are where the future is going.
Only real need for raw now is for folks who are incapable of setting
their cameras correctly when taking photographs. The "I'll fix it in
raw" crowd.

Try reading and researching DRO a bit and you will find just how far
you are from what it can do.

Click to expand...

Well thats a little bit strong, isn't it?

My experience is that the more DRO, the more underexposure I need.
--
Math

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mathschlosserfotografie/
http://mathschlosserfotografie.googlepages.com/home

Although it may be sometime in the not so near future, the implementation of in-camera Jpeg-XR raises the question in my mind: will in-camera processing be applied to lossless mode, would it be optional? Personally, I would like to have the choice.

WaltKnapp said:

Graham Best said:

My only point in posting was to encourage folks to experiment. I'm
sure dro is a godsend to folks who hate pp, but it's not the only way.

Click to expand...

And of course your settings in pp will do what any and all shots are
like whenever DRO is used. I strongly doubt it unless your standards
are very low. Stick with your raw if it makes you comfortable, but
you will be left behind where this is going. DRO and other future
such additions to in camera processing are where the future is going.
Only real need for raw now is for folks who are incapable of setting
their cameras correctly when taking photographs. The "I'll fix it in
raw" crowd.

Try reading and researching DRO a bit and you will find just how far
you are from what it can do.

Walt

Click to expand...

Walt,

Thanks for the condescending, patronizing reply.

I didn't suggest people only shoot jpeg, and pointed out if they're happy with this, great. For the folks who want to expand their skill set, give pp a try. I can list a number of reasons for using raw and very few for not using at least a combination of jpeg and raw capture.

Of the many opinions expressed on the subject, I think you're the sole person expecting the demise of raw. I guess you thought poloroid signled the end of negatives. My use of raw has little to do with rescuing incorrect exposures, but the ability to more fully extract the full tonal range captured.

With the cheap prices of flash memory, the only reason I can think of to shoot jpeg only is the ability of A700 to go up to jpeg fine only with raw.

For any who wish to read a short article of raw v jpeg: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

--
Regards,
Graham

'I am not young enough to know everything.'
Oscar Wilde

I just finished reading an article on this very subject.

Here is the URL:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/01/advanced-dro-the-a700s-magic-bullet/

Sounds like if you want the effects of DRO, you have to use the .jpg produced by the camera.
--
Kent
Tucson, AZ

I can tell you DRO sucks big time for low light shooting and RAW is a god send for the same
--
http://www.ryanhollowayphotography.com

http://www.flickr.com/rsplatpc

chrishurley said:

Yeah, but the whole scene is lighter now, including the sky. The
building is washed out too.

Can you really get similar, or equivalent results to DRO Advanced+
without resorting to layers and masks?

Click to expand...

Chris,

I actually love the many tools available for recovering the full dynamic range of an image. My reason for shooting raw only is if I depend on dro, and don't like the results, I don't have a lot of recourse for change.

If I shoot in raw, I can process the image in a program like Photomatix, using the tone mapping feature, with greater input on the parameters. Photomatix can be used as a standalone program or as a plugin for Photoshop. If you only purchase one, I'd recommend the stand alone version. You can open native ARW files (at least A700 ARW's) I can also use the Ansel plugin in Bibble Pro, with much the same results.

As I have the original negative, I'm set to process the image in a future program, perhaps with better results than whats on the market today. I don't like having only one option. By shooting raw, I feel I have the greatest flexibility in pulling what I want from an image.

I'd suggest you download the free (it leaves a watermark on the processed file, but it does have full functionality) photomatix program. There's several sites on the web that have a discount code available if you decide to purchase. I thought the program was well worth the $100 cost. You also might explore the ansel plugin for Bibble Pro.

Again, I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way. If you're completely satisfied with your current methods, why switch.

--
Regards,
Graham

'I am not young enough to know everything.'
Oscar Wilde

I'm not saying that there aren't better/other ways. I thought you said something about doing something similar in 10 seconds.

Fortunately, we can shoot DRO JPEG and raw.