Some people jumping right to raw don't know how to make a JPEG to taste in camera

[amalric]

People don't understand that it is a different proposition to operate a dSLR and a mirrorless, because the latter offers WYSIWYG in the EVF.

Really! Mirroless uses EVF and it's WYSIWYG! Amazing, and to think we didn't understand that!

Thanks for the explanation, but . . . it's not WYSISWYG. What you are seeing is your camera's JPEG interpretation of a scene on a limited dynamic range viewing screen with poor color correction, AND the appearances changes with ambient lighting.

That's the explanation! He believes what he sees in the EVF is WYSIWIG! Thus he can't imagine other possibilities and thinks all in camera JPEG is dandy!

Amalric, I am fairly certain that you actually aren't that limited - but it is a dig you could have avoided if you had toned down the name calling in your first post just a bit...

No problem. I suddenly realized that having no experience, or refusing it, of mirrorless you had no idea of the elegance of the solution.

There you go again with the assumptions. And the obligatory result of making a donkey out of yourself.

Mirrorless and EVF may have many nice features. WYSIWIG is not one of them. And just to put it clear, an OVF is not WYSIWIG, either.

Of course an optical VF isn't, LOL. An EVF, a recent one is perfectly WYSIWIG. It is a powerful tool for composition, since it makes settings interactive. If you had one you'd know.

One tries to help so that no undue time is wasted in fiddling with a digital image. But then of course, time is yours.

You are proselytizing. And it is not appreciated, stay out of other people's photography. I am not trying to tell you how to do your photography; kindly show me the same kind of respect.

I am not proselytizing, but simply trying to redress the untrue. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Vertitas

I am not proselytizing, but simply trying to redress the untrue. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Vertitas.

A recent, high quality EVF, is a game changer. And so is a high level processing engine.

--

'Photo & Poetry'

Photo & Poetry

A blog about photography, new cameras and ways of shooting.

amalric2014.blogspot.it

amalric

Explore amalric’s 1,612 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Chris Malcolm]

People don't understand that it is a different proposition to operate a dSLR and a mirrorless, because the latter offers WYSIWYG in the EVF.

Really! Mirroless uses EVF and it's WYSIWYG! Amazing, and to think we didn't understand that!

Thanks for the explanation, but . . . it's not WYSISWYG. What you are seeing is your camera's JPEG interpretation of a scene on a limited dynamic range viewing screen with poor color correction, AND the appearances changes with ambient lighting.

That's the explanation! He believes what he sees in the EVF is WYSIWIG! Thus he can't imagine other possibilities and thinks all in camera JPEG is dandy!

Amalric, I am fairly certain that you actually aren't that limited - but it is a dig you could have avoided if you had toned down the name calling in your first post just a bit...

No problem. I suddenly realized that having no experience, or refusing it, of mirrorless you had no idea of the elegance of the solution.

There you go again with the assumptions. And the obligatory result of making a donkey out of yourself.

Mirrorless and EVF may have many nice features. WYSIWIG is not one of them. And just to put it clear, an OVF is not WYSIWIG, either.

Of course an optical VF isn't, LOL. An EVF, a recent one is perfectly WYSIWIG. It is a powerful tool for composition, since it makes settings interactive. If you had one you'd know.

It can't be perfectly WYSIWYG. It's a question of processor time. It can only show you the results of those settings changes which can be processed fast enough, else there would be an unacceptable lag. So exposure and white balance changes can be seen. But in my Sony A77 dynamic range optimisation settings, or anything involving multiple exposures, such as in-camera HDR settings, can only be seen after the shot.

But I do agree, the EVF WYSIWYG features do make it easier to get the shot settings right in the camera, or closer to right. From a typical shoot I get fewer failures because of settings being too far off, a higher proportion of keepers, and on average spend less time in post processing. At a guess I shoot maybe a third fewer shots and get maybe 50% more keepers. Plus I spend less time in post processing trying to rescue poor exposures.

I also have enough improved confidence in my ability to get jpegs more closely right much more often that I more often shoot just jpegs, reserving RAW for more difficult shots.

--
Chris Malcolm

 

[amalric]

People don't understand that it is a different proposition to operate a dSLR and a mirrorless, because the latter offers WYSIWYG in the EVF.

Really! Mirroless uses EVF and it's WYSIWYG! Amazing, and to think we didn't understand that!

Thanks for the explanation, but . . . it's not WYSISWYG. What you are seeing is your camera's JPEG interpretation of a scene on a limited dynamic range viewing screen with poor color correction, AND the appearances changes with ambient lighting.

That's the explanation! He believes what he sees in the EVF is WYSIWIG! Thus he can't imagine other possibilities and thinks all in camera JPEG is dandy!

Amalric, I am fairly certain that you actually aren't that limited - but it is a dig you could have avoided if you had toned down the name calling in your first post just a bit...

No problem. I suddenly realized that having no experience, or refusing it, of mirrorless you had no idea of the elegance of the solution.

There you go again with the assumptions. And the obligatory result of making a donkey out of yourself.

Mirrorless and EVF may have many nice features. WYSIWIG is not one of them. And just to put it clear, an OVF is not WYSIWIG, either.

Of course an optical VF isn't, LOL. An EVF, a recent one is perfectly WYSIWIG. It is a powerful tool for composition, since it makes settings interactive. If you had one you'd know.

It can't be perfectly WYSIWYG. It's a question of processor time. It can only show you the results of those settings changes which can be processed fast enough, else there would be an unacceptable lag. So exposure and white balance changes can be seen. But in my Sony A77 dynamic range optimisation settings, or anything involving multiple exposures, such as in-camera HDR settings, can only be seen after the shot.

But I do agree, the EVF WYSIWYG features do make it easier to get the shot settings right in the camera, or closer to right. From a typical shoot I get fewer failures because of settings being too far off, a higher proportion of keepers, and on average spend less time in post processing. At a guess I shoot maybe a third fewer shots and get maybe 50% more keepers. Plus I spend less time in post processing trying to rescue poor exposures.

I also have enough improved confidence in my ability to get jpegs more closely right much more often that I more often shoot just jpegs, reserving RAW for more difficult shots.

 

[Mike CH]

Mirrorless and EVF may have many nice features. WYSIWIG is not one of them. And just to put it clear, an OVF is not WYSIWIG, either.

Of course an optical VF isn't, LOL. An EVF, a recent one is perfectly WYSIWIG.

No, it isn't. And your insistence that it is, is evidence of one of two things:

1. you really don't know what you are talking about, but you have found something which works for you and are now absolutely desperate to get other people to follow your light
2. you are perfectly satisfied with the result that a suboptimal JPEG-engine (in which sense the EVF is close to WYSIWIG) gives you, and simply cannot understand why other people don't see it the same way

Common to either is your complete and utter disregard for other people.

It is a powerful tool for composition, since it makes settings interactive.

I don't want to fiddle with settings while shooting. Never mind how interactive.

You can do whatever you want. I really don't care. You can even tie a little pink ribbon about your EVF and provide sacrificial meals of strawberries. But keep your nose out of other people's shooting.

If you had one you'd know.

And if you had the ability to look beyond the reach of your own ego then you'd know that different people have different needs and wants. But no...

And, by the way, I have extensively tested EVFs and found them currently not to my liking. A day may come where I will use them. Or it may not. Who knows?

But does that make me go around trying to push my way of shooting on other people. No it doesn't.

One tries to help so that no undue time is wasted in fiddling with a digital image. But then of course, time is yours.

You are proselytizing. And it is not appreciated, stay out of other people's photography. I am not trying to tell you how to do your photography; kindly show me the same kind of respect.

I am not proselytizing, but simply trying to redress the untrue. Amicus Plato, sed magis amica Vertitas.

Yes, you are. But then the fervent believers always believe what they are doing.

A recent, high quality EVF, is a game changer. And so is a high level processing engine.

Now take a chill pill. And repeat the following:

Ahem: To me a recent, high quality EVF is a game changer. And, to me, so is a high level processing engine. Other people will have different experiences and I will respect those.

And keep repeating it.

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

 

[Beachcomber Joe]

What you can do is strictly system dependent, of course. I have Olympus and it is known to have one of the best autoexposure, WB, and colour gamut in the Industry, so all I have to do IC is watch the EV, although it has 12-13 stops of DR.

To make another example, EVF is priceless when you switch to B&W. It was always v. difficult for me to see in B&W. Now it is a piece of cake because I literally see the shot, and the tones.

It is priceless to YOU. For someone with a bit of experience shooting B&W it is not particularly helpful. It does not show the possible effect of manipulating the color channels in post, assuming you shot RAW and have those channels available. SOC B&W is pretty bland.

As you mention, I have a high number of keepers, what is discarded is not for technical reasons, but for lacking composition and content. Mainly I am a street shooter, so I preset my camera as if it were a trap, and catch the target v. fast. My only problem are high contrast days, but I have a built in relighting feature, called Auto Gradation, which helps with that..

In fact I am v. much with HCB defining the camera as a device for automatic sketches, not more, not less.

I would define what you have described as taking random snapshots, not photography. But that is my definition and I don't insist that you and others share my view.

If you use it as a painting machine, you are entirely free do use another workflow, OC.

Thanks for giving us permission.

 

[Austinian]

My contention is that thanks to the improvement of both sensors and digital interfaces, RAW is not anymore a necessity.

It was never a necessity. Merely highly desirable. Still is, IMO.

 

[CreeDo]

"Jumping right to raw" makes it sound like shooting in raw is some advanced techniques that amateurs should keep away from until they are 'ready'.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Thats like saying "don't jump right into manual" or "don't jump right into lightroom without first learning MS Paint".

Everyone should be shooting in raw right from day one. Unless they are just so strapped for time that they literally need to race straight from take photos --> download to computer --> upload immediately somewhere without any conversion or postprocessing. In which case, my heart goes out to them, that sounds like a very stressful life.

Even if they can't correctly adjust that raw photo, that doesn't mean they should tie one hand behind their back and limit their correction options by shooting in JPEG.

 

[phazelag]

My contention is that thanks to the improvement of both sensors and digital interfaces, RAW is not anymore a necessity.

It was never a necessity. Merely highly desirable. Still is, IMO.

Agreed, not a necessity, but raw is nice to have for sure. I am not about giving up .raw, but I do like to see what the camera can do for a starting point JPEG. If its good I can still spice up a jpeg just fine.

But I do understand that for some keeping a consistent workflow is important. I am able to switch up between different workflows pretty easily, since I take on very little paid work.

 

[amalric]

Pot calling kettle black. As for disregard, I am IT, while you are OT, and flaming.

For more tolerant readers:

http://discovermirrorless.com/hybrid-photography/top-5-reasons-why-i-shoot-jpeg-over-raw/

I must say that there are more and more pros rediscovering Jpeg.

As for the younger generation, using social sites, they probably don't even know what what RAW is, since they are into communication, not into desperate rehashing.

It is difficult to be outflanked, and one's old habits brought to ridicule.

Say just no to Adobe's slave factory, and you'll feel better

--
'Photo & Poetry'
http://amalric2014.blogspot.it/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[mike703]

I must say that there are more and more pros rediscovering Jpeg.

How do you know? Have you asked them all?

As for the younger generation, using social sites, they probably don't even know what what RAW is, since they are into communication, not into desperate rehashing.

Well, if the total ambition of your photographic hobby is to post selfies 500 pixels high on Facebook then I'm not surprised you don't understand why some people like shooting RAW
Best wishes

 

[amalric]

I must say that there are more and more pros rediscovering Jpeg.

How do you know? Have you asked them all?

I just quoted one that you cowardly cut:

http://discovermirrorless.com/hybrid-photography/top-5-reasons-why-i-shoot-jpeg-over-raw/

And I might find quite a few others, since with mirrorless the concept is spreading.

Pros don't need to save their bad stuff from oblivion with dirty tricks, they don't cling to the Adobe slave factory desperately, like you tricky ****

Get a life.

 

[Mike CH]

Pot calling kettle black. As for disregard, I am IT, while you are OT, and flaming.

Can I remind you of this post where you accused everybody of being blind to the scene if they didn't do it your way?

No?

For more tolerant readers:

To which group you certainly do not belong, be it reader or writer.

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

 

[sandy b]

For me, thats it in a nutshell. You never know when you have teken that great shot. and there you are with a 8 bit jpg. Memory is cheap, you can take both and never even look at the raws until or if you ever need it. Cheap insurance.

And for a gig? raw, always.

 

[mike703]

Pros don't need to save their bad stuff from oblivion with dirty tricks, they don't cling to the Adobe slave factory desperately, like you tricky ****

Get a life.

Are you a real human adult? I ask because you are behaving like someone with an actual (or mental) age of about nine.

--

Mike

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/mikeward

 

[Mike CH]

Pros don't need to save their bad stuff from oblivion with dirty tricks, they don't cling to the Adobe slave factory desperately, like you tricky ****

Get a life.

Are you a real human adult? I ask because you are behaving like someone with an actual (or mental) age of about nine.

Really? After reading his posts?

Regards, Mike
--
Wait and see...

 

[mike703]

... and possibly 'nine' was on the generous side.

Best wishes

 

[Mark_A]

I get fine jpegs out of my dslr and am very happy with them.

There are various settings I can use and I often play with them, if I want do PP afterwards I can do that as well. Not all cameras produce good jpegs but if you have one that does it offers a great option and saves on PP work which I don't really enjoy anyhow. Ideally for me is to get the right result straight out of the camera.

Now I might check the video!

 

[amalric]

Just another example:

Loading…

www.thephoblographer.com

 

[CreeDo]

Just another example:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/07/26/getting-rite-camera-important-now-ever/#.U9bEiCj9Lao

 

[amalric]

My earlier mistake is that I didn't consider that the majority here might still be dSLR owners, and therefore missing what is going on with mirrorless and EVF - seeing what happens in the sensor.

That has been the game changer, because it allows pre processing. You don't do it on the LCD, like on a dSLR, but in a high definition EVF which is at pupil distance, and therefore is well equivalent to a computer screen.

Chris Gampat, has different motivations than Giulio Sciorio, but they have something in common too: a pro doesn't waste time, because time si money.

Another important one is to project confidence. A customer is happy to know that you get it right from the start.

Landscape might be a different case, but believe me, I am v. happy to check the details on the spot with a magnified EVF, and see if that are righy. If they are not, I change aperture, correct the EV, the tones and the colours.

Since I have been shooting mirroless for the past 4-5 yrs. it has become second nature to me while it might not to others, with dSLR.

Sciorio and Gampat, like me shoot m4/3, where it becomes quickly self evident that adopting a different workflow allows to save time and to restore confidence. There are also other motivations for storage and online communication.

One they don't mention, and that is important to me, is that I don't re-photograph, with all the temptations involved of beautifying the image, instead of sticking to plain reality.

That might appear a lesser one, but there is a reaction against Photoshop from curators of the best competitions and contests, where no PS or minimal, is allowed.

So there are plenty of good reasons in getting it right from the start, and avoding further interference with the image, but of course you should have the proper technology, allowing to see in real time what happens on sensor.

--
'Photo & Poetry'
http://amalric2014.blogspot.it/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric