Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW mode really rocks! Let me tell you why from my experience

Go to last post
McCracken ..sometimes people dont have time to check the lcd in such detail after every shot!! RAW means you don't have to, you can fire-and-forget, and if the camera screws up and gets the WB and exposure messed up, it's a doddle to fix it, - especially in C1 with a decent PC - as mingming has pointed out and given good examples of.

If you like jpeg, thats great, I think jpeg is cool too, and i like RAW even more.

Dom
mckracken said:
after a shot.
Its easy spotting a wrong WB this way.

Bad Whitebalance lighting situations always get solved on the spot,
with a custom. Better results as with raw. (tho only slightly so)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dom277
There are 40 people in the world and five of them are hamburgers
 
if you dont have those 2 seconds to look at the color, then be my guest and waste double the space on a CF.

Each their own.

However, it doesnt exactly look to me like the poster was in an awful rush of any sort :)

So thats not a valid point or good argument for raw. He just made an accident, something that would be easily be correctable by gasp losing 2 seconds at the LCD.
 
mckracken, please read my reply 3 lines above
mckracken said:
if you dont have those 2 seconds to look at the color, then be my
guest and waste double the space on a CF.

Each their own.

However, it doesnt exactly look to me like the poster was in an
awful rush of any sort :)

So thats not a valid point or good argument for raw. He just made
an accident, something that would be easily be correctable by
gasp losing 2 seconds at the LCD.
Click to expand...
--
Carpe Diem!
http://www.pbase.com/carpe_diem
 
as this beautiful shot,



I think these are simply awesome... (hope u dont mind me linking them).. they are full of atmosphere and subtle emotion, and this first one is very sensual.







Many more great shots in your galleries.
Some of them are as good as anything in the top fashion magazines ..to my eyes.

Cheers,
Dom
mingming said:
--
Carpe Diem!
http://www.pbase.com/carpe_diem
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/dom277
There are 40 people in the world and five of them are hamburgers
 
McKracken you are an entertaining guy, and you are also a wind-up merchant! I can spot one a mile off , because I am one myself! On this occasion though, I don't think you're gonna catch any fish!

;-) cheers, Dom
mckracken said:
if you dont have those 2 seconds to look at the color, then be my
guest and waste double the space on a CF.

Each their own.

However, it doesnt exactly look to me like the poster was in an
awful rush of any sort :)

So thats not a valid point or good argument for raw. He just made
an accident, something that would be easily be correctable by
gasp losing 2 seconds at the LCD.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
A nice image. Good work. It succeeds for many reasons, but it's
skillful lighting is a big plus.

I thought, however, that you said this image originated as a raw
file. The filename itself uses the "IMG" prefix, which is reserved
for JPG files.
Click to expand...
You couldn't upload a file in RAW which most people could download and view. You have to convert it to jpeg.
Member said:
Either way, it works. I shoot raw exclusively.

M
mingming said:
I used to feel reluctant to shoot in RAW as it saves slow, file
size is huge and converstion is a pain in the a** on my PIII 500
laptop. I even once read that a famous national geography
photographer say he only shoots in JPEG.

Well, now I got a P4 2.26, so I think I should give it a try.
Here's my experience:
I took some portraits with 50/1.8 and Sigma EF500 DG Super bounced.
So lighting is kinda mixed with ambient light. Saving raw file is
much faster on a kingston 256MB than a simpletech 256MB.

Before converting all files, I tried Canon FileViewUtility,
Photoshop CS and C1 DSLR pro. I immediately fall in love with C1 as
it's perfectly for setting white balance! You can tune one pic and
then copy the same setting to all selected pics. Its batch
conversion feature is also cool.

Exposure compensation is another reason for shooting RAW. I used to
read an impress article on http://www.luminous-landscape.com . A -1.5EV
underposed RAW can be rescued to look almost the same as a properly
exposed JPEG.

Then I output as 16-bit TIFF (36.4MB per file) and continued the
major retouching job in photoshop.

Here's my favourite one from yesterday: M mode, EF500 bounced,
1/60s, F2.8, ISO 400
with Curve, Healing tool, USM in PS



--
Carpe Diem!
http://www.pbase.com/carpe_diem
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
TonySD
 
I get the feeling you might be pulling the leg of the RAW zealots? :)
mingming said:
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
I thought, however, that you said this image originated as a raw
file. The filename itself uses the "IMG" prefix, which is reserved
for JPG files.

Either way, it works. I shoot raw exclusively.

M
mingming said:
Here's my favourite one from yesterday: M mode, EF500 bounced,
1/60s, F2.8, ISO 400
with Curve, Healing tool, USM in PS



--
Carpe Diem!
http://www.pbase.com/carpe_diem
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Carpe Diem!
http://www.pbase.com/carpe_diem
Click to expand...
 
yeah the models are stunning. Equally stunning is that you captured them so well - for your first serious portrait sessions.

My first proper portraits on 35mm print film were pretty good, but its been all downhill from there! I struggle to get nice results with the lesser contrast available on digital. I guess I need a decent flashgun, for a start, and then more practice - but as a consequence of my 300d results so far - my girlfriend is now a difficult model and usually gives me a snarl when I point the slr in her direction!

Dom
mingming said:
Oh, Dom, that's really a nice compliment!
To tell you the truth, it was the first time I did serious portraits.
I think a good model is the key!

--
Carpe Diem!
http://www.pbase.com/carpe_diem
Click to expand...
 
mingming said:
Now let me show you a lesson I've learned from bad white balance in
jpeg:
This picture is poorly exposed and white balance is accidentally
set to 'flash' I think which cast strong blue tone:

Click to expand...
I don't understand why some people think JPEG is a lost cause if it happens to be a wee bit off. An extra 2 minutes in Photoshop can get the colour to almost anywhere you like usually...



Or if you think it is a little too warm...



Whatever you like basically.
 
Tony,

When you convert from RAW to .jpg and then save, it will normally keep the same filename "CRW_XXXX" and use the ".jpg" extension. Jpegs shot in the camera are named "IMG_XXXX".

This is why he figured it was originally shot as jpg and not RAW. Unless he intentionally renamed the raw file to IMG_XXXX, which isn't likely.

-Rob
Tony SD said:
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
A nice image. Good work. It succeeds for many reasons, but it's
skillful lighting is a big plus.

I thought, however, that you said this image originated as a raw
file. The filename itself uses the "IMG" prefix, which is reserved
for JPG files.
Click to expand...
You couldn't upload a file in RAW which most people could download
and view. You have to convert it to jpeg.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pinciuc.com/photos/
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
 
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