Reading mode: Light Dark

Why shoot RAW ??

Go to last post
looks more punchy and sharper.....has this do to with the processing ?
--
gear: 20D 5DMK2 Ixus 960i 580ex flash Sunpak 5000 flash

50-500 Sigma 17-40L Canon 100 macro f/2.8 Canon 24-70 EXDG Sigma Canon 70-200L f/4 IS Epson V700 scanner Canon Pro9500 printer HP 9180 Printer Epson 1290 Printer. Canon i9950 printer
 
jrtrent said:
Since you chose a different word, I'm sure you know what it means,
but one reason not to be envious is that it's a sin. Interesting
article and links; depressing how I manage to commit them all in so
many different ways (oops! depression is a sin, too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
Click to expand...
Bummer. :-(

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.
 
Now I am depressed :(

go to hell.............do not pass go ........do not collect $200.00.

I had better stop taking Zoloft before God strikes me down or I do something worse ........like buy a Nikon.
--
gear: 20D 5DMK2 Ixus 960i 580ex flash Sunpak 5000 flash

50-500 Sigma 17-40L Canon 100 macro f/2.8 Canon 24-70 EXDG Sigma Canon 70-200L f/4 IS Epson V700 scanner Canon Pro9500 printer HP 9180 Printer Epson 1290 Printer. Canon i9950 printer
 
When I bought my D300 I was an "early adopter" and got a copy of Capture NX thrown in gratis. Of course the D300 RAW files would only open with NX and I was blown away by how much better they looked than the images from my D70 which I'd processed in Capture 4.4. "Oh, the D70 is so outdated and inferior to the D300, I will never use it again" I thought. Anyway a year or so later I was looking for a particular image I'd shot with the D70 and when I double-clicked the file it opened in NX. Imagine my surprise when with very little effort I was able to get a virtually indistinguishable output to that from the D300. It was an extremely eye-opening experience and made me think differently about the whole process of digital capture.

FWIW I'd been shooting exclusively in RAW with the D70 from very early on as frankly its in-camera JPGs are not remotely representative of what that camera is capable of (if I were being blunt I would say "worthless" for what I like to shoot).

But for many modern cameras that have excellent processing, for a lot of purposes JPG is fine. I habitually shoot RAW because growing up with film I'm inclined to take far fewer shots than most so the minimal time required to convert the files is not such a big deal, and I can tweak them to look how I want - reversibly (IMO one of the biggest benefits of RAW apart from having much better data to work with for things like USM, WB, EC, etc.)

Of course, YMMV
Scott
 
Patrick T. Kelly said:
So, many of my raw files are archived on CDs and DVDs.
Click to expand...
I would hesitate to keep the only copy of an important file on optical media. Although it varies by cost and brand, some CD-Rs have lifetimes in the region of five to ten years before they start to degrade and lose data.
 
Adqam said:
Patrick T. Kelly said:
So, many of my raw files are archived on CDs and DVDs.
Click to expand...
I would hesitate to keep the only copy of an important file on
optical media. Although it varies by cost and brand, some CD-Rs have
lifetimes in the region of five to ten years before they start to
degrade and lose data.
Click to expand...
It only took about 4 years for an audio CD-R including my old band's demo to become unreadable. A real bummer, because the disc included my only copy of a version of one of our songs. I no longer trust any optical media to hold any data for any period of time. Multiple copies on multiple hard drives seem to work out better.
 
other than the raw converter. the processing was identical between the raw and the jpeg. also, note that these were 2 separate shots NOT a raw+jpeg. and in a dslr that was setup beforehand to shoot a good quality jpeg image. this last is what is lacking in any of the raw vs jpeg tests that i have seen on thses forums. a raw image by its nature is always massaged in the converter to give its best, but if the user is sticking with the factory defaults on the jpeg settings and not putting the effort and time into the taking of the shot. the jpeg would have a builtin disadvantage in the taking of the shot and the processing of it. then the observer says the jpeg is worse than the raw. under those conditions, why wouldn't it be? yet if the jpeg is shot right and processed correctly(which if shot right the pp should be almost zero except for sharpening) the jpeg can give an image that can be used for any purpose desired. the jpeg disadvantage-it is harder to shoot because of the extra care and skill and knowledge needed. so a lot of users are not willing to put the care needed into the field work, instaed the effort is put into the pc and pping end; but this is exactly where the jpeg does not want the effort it has to be in the field for the jpeg.

looking at the images not the web version on my monitor there is actually more detail in the jpeg than the raw when looking the white peak, and neither image has blownout highlights. my conclusion is that the 2 images are for any practical purpose identical. i am speaking now on a real world basis, not something only a lab can measure.
 
--

The link takes me to the site, but there's no evidence of a "Six Myths of Digital Photography" article, or anything similar to that.

Please point me toward the article, list, or whatever it is.

Thanks - Bill
 
bill hansen said:
The link takes me to the site, but there's no evidence of a "Six
Myths of Digital Photography" article, or anything similar to that.

Please point me toward the article, list, or whatever it is.
Click to expand...
The video is right there near the top of the homepage, under the heading, "6 Digital Photography Myths"...if you have scripts/flash video disabled you'll have to enable it in order to play the video (or you can just enable the video player).
 
GaryDeM said:
other than the raw converter. the processing was identical between
the raw and the jpeg. also, note that these were 2 separate shots NOT
a raw+jpeg. and in a dslr that was setup beforehand to shoot a good
quality jpeg image. this last is what is lacking in any of the raw vs
jpeg tests that i have seen on thses forums. a raw image by its
nature is always massaged in the converter to give its best, but if
the user is sticking with the factory defaults on the jpeg settings
and not putting the effort and time into the taking of the shot. the
jpeg would have a builtin disadvantage in the taking of the shot and
the processing of it. then the observer says the jpeg is worse than
the raw. under those conditions, why wouldn't it be? yet if the jpeg
is shot right and processed correctly(which if shot right the pp
should be almost zero except for sharpening) the jpeg can give an
image that can be used for any purpose desired. the jpeg
disadvantage-it is harder to shoot because of the extra care and
skill and knowledge needed. so a lot of users are not willing to put
the care needed into the field work, instaed the effort is put into
the pc and pping end; but this is exactly where the jpeg does not
want the effort it has to be in the field for the jpeg.

looking at the images not the web version on my monitor there is
actually more detail in the jpeg than the raw when looking the white
peak, and neither image has blownout highlights. my conclusion is
that the 2 images are for any practical purpose identical. i am
speaking now on a real world basis, not something only a lab can
measure.
Click to expand...
I posted some K2000 JPEG shots compared to ACR RAW converter shots. The JPEG's had more DR, better tonality and yes, resolution. I must add, the JPEG engine is Silky Pix based and gives the same results as if Silky Pix were used on RAW files with the same settings as shot. If the camera actually has a great JPEG engine, the advantage of RAW is the ability to make changes to the settings later or to "fix it in the mix."

If the camera is using a better RAW converter, would it still be worthwhile to shoot RAW and convert on your computer?
--
Variance is Evil!
 
"I posted some K2000 JPEG shots compared to ACR RAW converter shots. The JPEG's had more DR, better tonality and yes, resolution. I must add, the JPEG engine is Silky Pix based and gives the same results as if Silky Pix were used on RAW files with the same settings as shot. If the camera actually has a great JPEG engine, the advantage of RAW is the ability to make changes to the settings later or to "fix it in the mix."

If the camera is using a better RAW converter, would it still be worthwhile to shoot RAW and convert on your computer?"

for my raw test i used the converter in pe6, which is what i had at the time. to me it is not which converter you use at all, since the results are so alike between the raw and the jpeg. to restate, i am used to shooting with a max effort in the field, i shot slides for 32yrs. with slides there is no pp it is what you shoot is what you get. therefore when i went to jpeg i shot the way i shot slides. including all the zero error that slides allow. it worked.

to me if the user puts enough into the field work you will get a extremely good image back from a jpeg. this assumes that the dslr is properly setup to shoot the jpeg. anyone who uses the factory settings to shoot jpeg is wasting their time. in that case go with raw.

the problem is that the current crop of shooters are brought up with and living with computers. they think that is what is necessary to have good pics. nothing could be further from the truth. there were no pcs yrs ago, and the images were great. this is because the shooters were suppling themselves with extremely well shot images. they had to there was little way to fix them later. the darkroom could help but you had to get the shot prettry much right first.
 
GaryDeM said:
"I posted some K2000 JPEG shots compared to ACR RAW converter shots.
The JPEG's had more DR, better tonality and yes, resolution. I must
add, the JPEG engine is Silky Pix based and gives the same results as
if Silky Pix were used on RAW files with the same settings as shot.
If the camera actually has a great JPEG engine, the advantage of RAW
is the ability to make changes to the settings later or to "fix it in
the mix."

If the camera is using a better RAW converter, would it still be
worthwhile to shoot RAW and convert on your computer?"

for my raw test i used the converter in pe6, which is what i had at
the time. to me it is not which converter you use at all, since the
results are so alike between the raw and the jpeg. to restate, i am
used to shooting with a max effort in the field, i shot slides for
32yrs. with slides there is no pp it is what you shoot is what you
get. therefore when i went to jpeg i shot the way i shot slides.
including all the zero error that slides allow. it worked.
to me if the user puts enough into the field work you will get a
extremely good image back from a jpeg. this assumes that the dslr is
properly setup to shoot the jpeg. anyone who uses the factory
settings to shoot jpeg is wasting their time. in that case go with
raw.

the problem is that the current crop of shooters are brought up with
and living with computers. they think that is what is necessary to
have good pics. nothing could be further from the truth. there were
no pcs yrs ago, and the images were great. this is because the
shooters were suppling themselves with extremely well shot images.
they had to there was little way to fix them later. the darkroom
could help but you had to get the shot prettry much right first.
Click to expand...
I do not stick with the JPEG defaults but did find the settings that work. What I find amazing is that the JPEG engine with my settings gets things right in a wider range of lighting than ACR can even with considerable tweaking.

Using either ACR RAW or internal Silky Pix, I will still do a check and adjusting of levels and that usually is the extent of my processing work.

One thing I find annoying is the abuse of processing. Hyped color, contrast and sharpening do start to get tiresome after you see it too often.
--
Variance is Evil!
 
I do not stick with the JPEG defaults but did find the settings that work. What I find amazing is that the JPEG engine with my settings gets things right in a wider range of lighting than ACR can even with considerable tweaking.

Using either ACR RAW or internal Silky Pix, I will still do a check and adjusting of levels and that usually is the extent of my processing work.

One thing I find annoying is the abuse of processing. Hyped color, contrast and sharpening do start to get tiresome after you see it too often.
--
i agree given any kind of a chance the jpoeg engine will do very well.

my pp is as follows in pe7(in order, but necessarily evry step)-crop, auto levels, auto contrast, shadows/highlights(really the shadows slider), brightness/contrast(brightness slider), color correction if needed, noise ninja, focus magic(if FM is used then no sharpening, they are mutually exclusive. if no FM then auto sharpen), last save as a tiff. the original jpeg goes in a jpoeg holdall folder till it reaches 4.1gb then is burned to a dvd.
the above process for me is less than 1 minute, usually about 3-4-secxonds.

your last thought. to me if anyone asks "is this too much pping?" then it very probably is. you should not be able to tell if it was pped is my thinking. also, the final image is my memory. it HAS to look as the original scene did, or as close as i can get. i shoot my pics to make the images as real as possible.
 
Thanks Amanda - you were very generous to take the time and trouble to post that scan. I see it now.

Interestingly enough, seen through my copy of Internet Explorer 8.0, that home page does not look exactly like your scan - the little video clip is way off to the side, only the left edge of it visible under any circumstances, and there's no way to view more than the left half of the video itself. The sound does come through though.

In general, I do agree with the points they make. But only "in general". Their "lies" are more like "talking points", bases for discussion, than they are like serious revelations. I have to keep in mind that they are professionals, and the pros can do things which I can't do.

My dogs (and other people's dogs) run in and out of shadows, so perfect WB isn't always possible. Same with "perfect exposure" - not always possible when it changes from one instant to the next. I can't always fill the frame with my subject (quite often have to crop significantly) so 3 mpx definitely would not make a good 13X19 print in all cases.

Some of us have to shoot in poor light, at higher ISOs (1600, 3200) and fast shutter speeds, 1/640 and upwards of that. In those cases, you just can't get proper results from PS 7 alone. DPP, DxO, and a very good noise reduction tool are mandatory if you want those "big prints".

I'm glad I listened to the video. They make good points, and many of us (including me, of course - especially me....) do get too impressed with the megapixel race and with hopes that software can save us from our own limitations. It's very good to be exposed to a contrary opinion.

Bill Hansen
 
I have the same trouble as you Bill, I'm using IE6 and when I open link I only see half of the page which is over the right side of screen.

Carl
 
GaryDeM wrote:
-
GaryDeM said:
i agree given any kind of a chance the jpoeg engine will do very well.
my pp is as follows in pe7(in order, but necessarily evry step)-crop,
auto levels, auto contrast, shadows/highlights(really the shadows
slider), brightness/contrast(brightness slider), color correction if
needed, noise ninja, focus magic(if FM is used then no sharpening,
they are mutually exclusive. if no FM then auto sharpen), last save
as a tiff. the original jpeg goes in a jpoeg holdall folder till it
reaches 4.1gb then is burned to a dvd.
the above process for me is less than 1 minute, usually about
3-4-secxonds.

your last thought. to me if anyone asks "is this too much pping?"
then it very probably is. you should not be able to tell if it was
pped is my thinking. also, the final image is my memory. it HAS to
look as the original scene did, or as close as i can get. i shoot my
pics to make the images as real as possible.
Click to expand...
--

It does depend on how much of each is applied. One must realize that as your eye scans a scene, it adapts as it goes and is sort of like a mental HDR.

My PP works is typically levels and not much more. If needed, I would add cropping and possibly a tweak on the exposure. If I shot with a zoom, I may add a touch of sharpness.

For sunsets, I may shoot a couple exposures and combine a foreground exposure with a sky exposure. I may tweak the curves to brighten the lighter reds and darken the dark blues and greens. I do keep it slight and just enough to make a difference.





Variance is Evil!
 
some of my sunsets. these are scanned in slides. all taken 25-30yrs ago.









note in my previous remarks on my pp flow the 3-4seconds should be 30-40 seconds. emphasize strongly that not parts of the workflow are used on every picture, most are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Canon 90D - shooting RAW - different lenses same location
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Crotonmark
C
DavidMillier
m4/3 vs GFX50: 16 x 12 inch prints - Evaluation
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
DavidMillier
DavidMillier
D
a1 II vs. a9 III Field Comparison
Replies
16
Views
27K
Foxjet
F
C
Why the OM-3 Might Be Just Right For Me - Your Mileage Will Vary
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
Sam Bennett
Sam Bennett
M
From X-T20 to X-T5: why I didn't switch to FF
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
Clive99
C

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