Old 06-05-2009, 09:19 PM   #51
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

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.
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 12:19 AM   #52
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

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...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 12:33 AM   #53
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
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.
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 04:54 AM   #54
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,910
Default

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.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 11:43 AM   #55
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Bowman View Post
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
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 03:28 PM   #56
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,910
Default

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!
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 12:12 PM   #57
Cinderpath
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ferndale, MI (Detroit area)
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
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.
__________________
MY RP. Net photos:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4914

Last edited by Cinderpath; 06-07-2009 at 12:18 PM.
Cinderpath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 12:42 PM   #58
TheRoadForeman
Banned
 
TheRoadForeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 640
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
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?
TheRoadForeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2009, 02:25 PM   #59
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
...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.

__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ken rockwell, raw

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 05:43 PM.


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