Old 03-09-2009, 10:15 PM   #26
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNavyDoc View Post
Kind of like baking a cake. RAW is all the materials that go into the cake, but you can still change the recipe. Once the camera "bakes the cake", i.e. does its JPEG thing to the data, you can't go back and change any of the ingredients or their amounts. Sort of.
As we all know, you certainly can postprocess JPEG files using PS or PSE or any one of probably dozens of other programs. The key is that to end up with a decent image, the original has to be close on exposure and the changes required need to be relatively minor. A JPEG that is badly underexposed or overexposed will really suffer in an attempt to correct the problem. There is some latitude for underexposure and very little at all for overexposure, so if you're going to miss the mark, better under than over.

No question, this means that if you really blow the exposure on a shot, you're done. Those of us who continue to shoot JPEGs understand this, we endeavour to be good at a judging exposures and we live with the consequences of a mistake.

I my case, I would need to do some research as to what I might do with a RAW file from my D40x or D90....I use both. My understanding is that (unbelievably) the RAW formats from these two Nikons are not the same. I have PSE 6, but I don't know if anything within that package is capable of reading and or processing either of the RAW formats. If not, then I guess I won't be experimenting with RAW for a while yet.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 10:50 PM   #27
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
My understanding is that (unbelievably) the RAW formats from these two Nikons are not the same.
I don't think that's unique. My XT and 40D both put out .CR2 RAW files, but the XT's RAW can be read by ACR in CS2 while the 40D's cannot.
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 11:27 PM   #28
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
Hmmm..... looks like somebody is really grasping for straws here. Thats like saying we shouldn't use all these fancy medical technologies and medicines because it allows people to have unhealthy life styles

Seriously though, its extremely hard (aka, just short of impossible) to make a serious case why NOT to shoot RAW, on the same level as why shoot a Point and Shoot over SLR. If you are serious about your photography and not shooting RAW format, you're (excuse the pun) shooting yourself in the foot. Even on here the only really arguments JPEG shooters have are "I'm too lazy to change." Maybe the only argument that has any legs is "I don't have enough hard drive space or a fast enough computer," but with technology so dirt cheap today even that is pushing it.

I have met only one 'professional' photographer who shoots only JPEG and that was on school yearbook shots where he knew the biggest print would be 8x10. His reasoning was he was too lazy to convert them later and no parent would notice anyway.

Great points.

It's like, why shoot with L glass (Canon) instead of another lens? The cheaper lens will make you work harder at shooting in the best lighting conditions and pay more attention to focus, and start using a tripod for every shot. Why shoot with a 12mp camera instead of a 6mp camera? The 6mp camera will make sure your composure is spot on with no need to rotate or crop. These points don't make sense, so if you have it use it.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2009, 11:40 PM   #29
John Fladung
JohnFladung.net
 
John Fladung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
Great points.

It's like, why shoot with L glass (Canon) instead of another lens? The cheaper lens will make you work harder at shooting in the best lighting conditions and pay more attention to focus, and start using a tripod for every shot. Why shoot with a 12mp camera instead of a 6mp camera? The 6mp camera will make sure your composure is spot on with no need to rotate or crop. These points don't make sense, so if you have it use it.
One reason comes to mind...

$ $ $ MONEY! $ $ $

Can't disagree with Canon but not sure if my lens will be the "L Series".
John Fladung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 12:23 AM   #30
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fladung View Post
One reason comes to mind...

$ $ $ MONEY! $ $ $

Can't disagree with Canon but not sure if my lens will be the "L Series".
I should have made it clearer. My fault. I just meant if you already have a raw capable camera, use it. If you already have L glass, use it.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 02:56 AM   #31
ssw9662
Senior Member
 
ssw9662's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fladung View Post
One reason comes to mind...

$ $ $ MONEY! $ $ $

Can't disagree with Canon but not sure if my lens will be the "L Series".
Haha! That's the exact reason why I still shoot JPEG and why I'm still using my kit lens instead of upgrading to better glass. Although I would like to try shooting RAW sometime in the near future, my computer is on its last legs and I barely have any HD space on it. I know that isn't the best "excuse," but nonetheless it forces me to shoot JPEG until I can get my hands on a better PC. Hopefully whenever I get a job I'll be able to not only get a new computer but also look into acquiring some better glass.

I will admit that at first I was leery of switching to RAW anytime soon, but that's mostly because I've always had a "photography before processing" mentality. I rarely spend that much time in Photoshop and I was under the impression that the only real benefit of RAW is that you could screw up a photo and still save your butt with the help of Photoshop. Now that I see there's a little more to it, I'll be giving it a shot whenever I make the aforementioned PC upgrade.
__________________
Austin
Canon EOS 7D
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
My Railpictures.net Photos
flickr

Last edited by ssw9662; 03-10-2009 at 03:00 AM.
ssw9662 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:12 AM   #32
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
I will admit that at first I was leery of switching to RAW anytime soon, but that's mostly because I've always had a "photography before processing" mentality.
So before digital, did you only shoot Polaroid? Afterall, no processing involved (except maybe a couple of shakes)...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:41 AM   #33
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
If you plop down the money for a dSLR, the lens system, and invest the time, shooting JPG over RAW is like racing at Daytona with a restrictor plate. Why limit the potential (and in the case of photography, you can't use the safety argument like they do in racing)?
Good example, but I think you've got it wrong. Shooting RAW for the purpose of posting images on the internet is like driving a NASCAR stock car around the neighborhood at 25 mph. It's overkill.
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 03:48 AM   #34
TheRoadForeman
Banned
 
TheRoadForeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
So before digital, did you only shoot Polaroid? Afterall, no processing involved (except maybe a couple of shakes)...
So... You did all your own slide processing and your own developing, enlarging, dodging/burning, printing, etc....??!! I REALLY doubt that... His point is that shooting JPEG is more "nail the shot, first time around" rather than, "oh well, I'll adjust later"....

Last edited by TheRoadForeman; 03-10-2009 at 03:52 AM. Reason: Wording
TheRoadForeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:18 AM   #35
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman View Post
So... You did all your own slide processing and your own developing, enlarging, dodging/burning, printing, etc....??!! I REALLY doubt that... His point is that shooting JPEG is more "nail the shot, first time around" rather than, "oh well, I'll adjust later"....
No, never shot slide/film/Polaroid...I'm a digital baby. I think I saw this when I took the SAT though:

Polaroid : JPG :: Slide : RAW

__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:21 AM   #36
John Fladung
JohnFladung.net
 
John Fladung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
No, never shot slide/film/Polaroid...I'm a digital baby. I think I saw this when I took the SAT though:

Polaroid : JPG :: Slide : RAW

NO WAY!!! I saw that too!
John Fladung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2009, 04:35 AM   #37
lock4244
Senior Member
 
lock4244's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The City Below Vaughan
Posts: 1,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssw9662 View Post
Haha! That's the exact reason why I still shoot JPEG and why I'm still using my kit lens instead of upgrading to better glass. Although I would like to try shooting RAW sometime in the near future, my computer is on its last legs and I barely have any HD space on it. I know that isn't the best "excuse," but nonetheless it forces me to shoot JPEG until I can get my hands on a better PC. Hopefully whenever I get a job I'll be able to not only get a new computer but also look into acquiring some better glass.

I will admit that at first I was leery of switching to RAW anytime soon, but that's mostly because I've always had a "photography before processing" mentality. I rarely spend that much time in Photoshop and I was under the impression that the only real benefit of RAW is that you could screw up a photo and still save your butt with the help of Photoshop. Now that I see there's a little more to it, I'll be giving it a shot whenever I make the aforementioned PC upgrade.
Get an external HD to store them, even if you don't plan to or can not edit them right now. My RAW files never rest on my computer's HD because they are too large and my plan from the start of digital was to store them externally (Jpegs are stored on my PC's HD). I shoot with a Nikon D200 (secondary camera) and a D300 (primary). My Photoshop CS can edit the D200's RAW files but not the D300. Even so, I still shoot RAW + Jpeg on both. So what I can't edit the RAW's from the D300 right now, I will be able to someday when I get around to it.

I can't understand why anyone would purposely not shoot RAW if they have the capability to do so. I can take the bus to work, but I own a car so I use it to drive to work. You've paid for RAW capapbility (ok, not the primamary motive for buying a DSLR I suppose), so use it. Even if you don't want to edit them now, you never know what the future holds...
__________________
Mike Lockwood

Insert witty comment here

Hot girl on girl action here!

More Pics Here
lock4244 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 09:13 PM   #38
dejv
Senior Member
 
dejv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 160
Default

No doubt one can get from raw processing great result. But it doesn't mean that jpg's are uneditable. See my shots from last summer, which I shot with unfamiliar camera in moving train. First and thirds are just downscaled originals and the other ones edits...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	00129-small.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	313.9 KB
ID:	3921   Click image for larger version

Name:	00129-6-1.jpg
Views:	90
Size:	646.4 KB
ID:	3922   Click image for larger version

Name:	00136-small.jpg
Views:	93
Size:	140.0 KB
ID:	3923   Click image for larger version

Name:	00136-4-1.jpg
Views:	88
Size:	709.2 KB
ID:	3925   Click image for larger version

Name:	00136-2-2.jpg
Views:	102
Size:	817.6 KB
ID:	3926  
__________________
-- David Jaša

Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by dejv; 03-11-2009 at 09:15 PM. Reason: wrong attachment
dejv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2009, 10:16 PM   #39
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by dejv View Post
No doubt one can get from raw processing great result. But it doesn't mean that jpg's are uneditable
I don't think anyone is saying jpg's are uneditable (although I would convert them to tif before major editing). What people are saying is that jpg's out of the camera have less detail than raw because of compression, and some processing was done before they came out of the camera. For a whole lot of purposes jpg's work just fine, expecially if the primary purpose is the posting to the web. If you like to do 11x14 prints to hang on the wall, maybe you should consider raw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssw9662 View Post
I've always had a "photography before processing" mentality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRoadForeman View Post
His point is that shooting JPEG is more "nail the shot, first time around" rather than, "oh well, I'll adjust later"....
There is no "wrong" way so long as it works, and certainly trying to get the exposure right from the gitgo is a darn good start. But I do find these comments interesting. Back in the bad old days of chemicals and dark rooms, a lot of great photographs were made in the dark room. Ansel Adam's most popular image "Moonrise" was largely created in his dark room.

One important factor is the human eye has a wider dynamic range that virtually any film or electronic medium.....our eyes can deal with shadows and highlights better than your camera. So even a spot on exposure is not going to deal with the shadows and highlights as well as your eye can. So in some cases post processing is needed to take that spot on exposure and make it into something that looks similar to what your eye might have seen.

FWIW.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here

Last edited by John West; 03-12-2009 at 12:19 AM.
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.