RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   A Warning About Shooting RAW (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9902)

socalrailfan 06-05-2009 09:19 PM

Well I guess I'm the minority and still shoot in JPG. I tried RAW for quite some time and was not impressed with the "flat" look it gave photos. Even when I gave comparisions here people thought the JPG's were RAW images, go figure! LOL

I too lost my backup HD when it fell off my desk. I lost three years of photos. I'm checking out Gillware, but my drive needs a clean room and disk array removal. That gets very expensive.

Ween 06-06-2009 12:19 AM

Quote:

I tried RAW for quite some time and was not impressed with the "flat" look it gave photos.
That's because you weren't processing it properly...

socalrailfan 06-06-2009 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ween (Post 91370)
That's because you weren't processing it properly...


Yeah I'm an idiot! LOL the only thing that came close to making it look "normal" was one version of RawShooter. Anytime, anywhere, anyone wants to compare RAW vs JPG I'll take them on! If I saw something so special with RAW that made me a believer I'd shoot it all the time, but I can do PP work with my JPG's just fine.

Joe the Photog 06-06-2009 04:54 AM

To each their on, Dave. It's hard to argue with the results you, AB(2) and others get shooting JPEGs only. If it works for you guys, go for it.

khalucha 06-06-2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman (Post 91301)
A TIFFs size depends on the size of the photo, as well as what bit it is (8, 16, 32bit), AND, how many layers are saved on it. For example, my 8mp SLR's TIFFs are around 22MB straight from the camera in 8bit mode (XT is 22, 30D is 23). If you start adding more layers it can get larger, I have a few composite images that are as big as 250mb, while the regular work I do to an image usually brings the file size up to 60-80mb. I work in 8bit mode, if I worked in 16 that would double the file size.

My GF's 50D's TIFFs are easily 150-300mb with out much effort.

Thanks. Helps out a lot.

Kevin

Joe the Photog 06-06-2009 03:28 PM

Just to clarify: I can't argue with the results Dave and (2) get shooting on JPG..... but I still think you guys are nuts for not shootinng RAW!

Cinderpath 06-07-2009 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog (Post 91107)
This is a quote from Ken Rockwell. It can be found on an enlightening piece about RAW at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm where he also states


And that's just in the first five paragraphs. Any thouhts?

A) Ken Rockwell is an idiot, and I don't really think he is all that great of a photographer, and B) He makes his living off of his disorganized website, so he tosses out ridiculous claims like "Droves of professional photographers are returning to film", to generate false controversy in hopes 1) creating web-traffic 2) So he won't have to get a real job. The quote above is no different.

C)It is proven time and again, shooting RAW delivers the absolute highest image quality and best dynamic range, anything else is a compromise. For convenience, if you like shooting .jpegs, then shoot them. End of story.

TheRoadForeman 06-07-2009 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinderpath (Post 91439)
A) Ken Rockwell is an idiot, and I don't really think he is all that great of a photographer, and B) He makes his living off of his disorganized website, so he tosses out ridiculous claims like "Droves of professional photographers are returning to film", to generate false controversy in hopes 1) creating web-traffic 2) So he won't have to get a real job. The quote above is no different.

C)It is proven time and again, shooting RAW delivers the absolute highest image quality and best dynamic range, anything else is a compromise. For convenience, if you like shooting .jpegs, then shoot them. End of story.


Wait a second, you mean that I didn't have to throw my DSLR's in the garbage and blow the dust off of my F4s and F6 film bodies and buy 6 brick of slide film?! Damn Ken Rockwell!! Yeah, you nailed it with him being an idiot! He claims that film is the "Real Raw" because you can process the film and get it scanned. Sorry Ken but, 1) The best scan that money can buy is a drum scan and that is extremely expensive. 2) Why the hell would you want to shoot film THEN have it scanned when one could just capture the image digitally in the first place and not have to worry about some jackbag losing your slide or neg in the process?! Did anybody else notice that he "at one time" worked in about every industry in the world?

Joe the Photog 06-07-2009 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cinderpath (Post 91439)
...so he tosses out ridiculous claims like "Droves of professional photographers are returning to film",

SXounds like Danny V, and others when they point to one or two peoople leaving RP and say that "people are leaving left and right" or some such.

:D


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.