Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Hi,
Would be interesting to hear how cameras are used.
Best regards
Erik
Would be interesting to hear how cameras are used.
Best regards
Erik
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Usage of raw or JPEG and color profiles
- Thread starter Erik Kaffehr
- Start date
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
I need to choose two. 
Stan Disbrow
Veteran Member
Hi,
Me, too. I always shoot Raw and use Photoshop. Sometimes I use Adobe's profiles, sometimes film emulations. And, many times for the same image to obtain a different looking print.
So, I voted for Adobe Profiles since I had to pick one.
Stan
Me, too. I always shoot Raw and use Photoshop. Sometimes I use Adobe's profiles, sometimes film emulations. And, many times for the same image to obtain a different looking print.
So, I voted for Adobe Profiles since I had to pick one.
Stan
Rodenmg
Veteran Member
I shoot jpg and raw but unlike most people raw is mostly used for my backup. I’m trying to learn better processing techniques but for the most part I struggle to get my processed raw files to match slightly massaged jpg’s. Especially when it comes to high iso noise reduction.
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Hi,
It seems that I didn't came up with enough options.
It is interesting to see that quite a few responders use their own profiles.
Best regards
Erik
It seems that I didn't came up with enough options.
It is interesting to see that quite a few responders use their own profiles.
Best regards
Erik
Paulaner_RRS
Forum Enthusiast
Barry Twycross
Veteran Member
There doesn't seem to be an option for raw+jpeg. I shoot raw+jpeg, often with in camera film simulation, as it doesn't matter how mangled the jpeg is, I can always use the raw.
If the jpeg is suitable for my needs, I use that, otherwise I use a raw processor, not on your list. Either Affinity, or SilkyPix. SilkyPix has versions of the in camera film simulations for Fuji raws (and other simulations for non Fuji raws).
If the jpeg is suitable for my needs, I use that, otherwise I use a raw processor, not on your list. Either Affinity, or SilkyPix. SilkyPix has versions of the in camera film simulations for Fuji raws (and other simulations for non Fuji raws).
The right exposure for the JPEG is hardly ever the right exposure for the raw.
Barry Twycross
Veteran Member
Its close enough for me, particularly with the Fuji which has a lot morel attitude than my other system.
JamieUK
Member
I make my own profiles, I must be the only person that does not like Fuji colors!
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Don't know. I make my own profiles, but I know little about other users.
Best regards
Erik
I use Adobe profiles and make my own.
Rob de Loe
Veteran Member
For black and white I've been using Adobe Monochrome. I've tried just about every way of getting to black and white in Lightroom, and I think this is still the best and most flexible.
I'm dipping my toes into colour more often these days, and wasn't happy with the Adobe profiles, including their version of the Fujifilm film simulations. I tried Cobalt profiles, a product that was getting lots of good press on another forum. These are developed by some folks in Italy. I like their neutral and standard profiles a lot more than the Adobe versions.
Out of curiosity I tried some of their film simulations, but so far results are mixed. Some of them offer interesting starting points, but I'm skeptical about the whole film simulation concept. I'm leaning to "let film be film and let digital be digital". But I'm open minded.
I'm dipping my toes into colour more often these days, and wasn't happy with the Adobe profiles, including their version of the Fujifilm film simulations. I tried Cobalt profiles, a product that was getting lots of good press on another forum. These are developed by some folks in Italy. I like their neutral and standard profiles a lot more than the Adobe versions.
Out of curiosity I tried some of their film simulations, but so far results are mixed. Some of them offer interesting starting points, but I'm skeptical about the whole film simulation concept. I'm leaning to "let film be film and let digital be digital". But I'm open minded.
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
Yes, I would agree on that. I would think that it may make sense to achieve accurate rendition and doing some tweaking to make it pleasant.
Best regards
Erik
In a bit of a sophistic manner I'm inclined to ask; Why are smartphones/computational photography threatening to make the traditional photography industry a thing of the past?
Erik Kaffehr
Veteran Member
I don't think that is the case.
Smartphones replace compact cameras and they seem to be present where needed.
At this time, smart phones are not competent enough for shooting a lot of things. In part that is a limitation of size.
If we go back to the film era, I guess that SLR sales were like 8 million a year. With digital the market exploded. Now it may be back at around 8 million ILC (Interchangable Lens Cameras).
I would think that computational photography has it's limitations. Why do you think that NASA puts the James Webb telescope in space if that job could be done using synthetic aperture on half a billion smart phones on earth?
Best regards
Erik
Jared Willson
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 1,713
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1,894
Well, I don’t think, “thing of the past” is accurate since there are things that smart phones can’t do well—and never will be able to do well simply because of there laws of physics. However, they are certainly replacing DSLR’s and compact cameras in lots of situations, and that has lead to a steep decline in camera sales.
I think the reasons are clear:
1) Smart phones are always with us, and the controls are familiar. As a result, they are much more convenient than cameras
2) Smart phones have gotten “good enough” for an awful lot of uses; 12 megapixels is ample for Instagram or even an A4 print. Noise is well controlled in good light. Computational photography has extended the envelope where cell phones work well by stacking for better SNR or dynamic range, simulating depth of field control, allowing the “decisive moment” with stills from brief movie clips, etc.
3) Cell phones are by far the easiest, most effective means of sharing photos—pictures are instantly available to be emailed, texted, or posted to Instagram without the need for a computer and an import. Heck, it’s even easier to print a cell phone picture (depending on your home printer).
4) Availability of inexpensive, easy to use software filters to smooth skin, remove cellulite, brighten and enlarge eyes, remove pounds, and generally create a desired “look”—for better or worse—is unmatched by traditional cameras
So, for doing street photography, family pics, documentary photography, travel snapshots, and almost anything you would want to quickly capture and post to Instagram a cell phone is actually the single best tool available.
mplkn
Forum Enthusiast
I shoot RAW and JPEG, and split them between the two cards.
I process the RAW in Capture One, although I'm beginning to regard it as "NagWare" with its constant assertions of new versions. D76 and Dektol never get in my face that way...
I store, archive, and print TIFFs, employing the LOCKSS protocol (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe - remember, I'm recovering from a career in Information Science)
The JPEGs, those I render or those from the camera, I drag around to various destinations where handy little quick takes are what are called for.
I keep a flask of glacial acetic acid around for when I need a fix...
I process the RAW in Capture One, although I'm beginning to regard it as "NagWare" with its constant assertions of new versions. D76 and Dektol never get in my face that way...
I store, archive, and print TIFFs, employing the LOCKSS protocol (Lots Of Copies Keep Stuff Safe - remember, I'm recovering from a career in Information Science)
The JPEGs, those I render or those from the camera, I drag around to various destinations where handy little quick takes are what are called for.
I keep a flask of glacial acetic acid around for when I need a fix...
Last edited:
Well as part of Web 2.0 as they call it camera and Internet capable devices were setup the interact with cloud based social media, photo/video sharing apps on a massive scale and now more cameras are sold, photos are taken and shared; and shared more widely than ever before. But the traditional camera companies didn't find a way to hook in and profit from that photo driven trend, instead they are taking a beating. Adobe did go cloud however and has good mobile editing software for the Shoot, Edit, Share world we live in. I do think that the Zeiss concept camera has merit and that they(digital camera companies) should have gone that way years ago. Photography is more popular than ever now.
Last edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum