Night Photos standards? - Page 2

JimThias · 05-23-2014, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary

Remember...I don't shoot in raw. The files are too, too large, and I don't place too much archival value in my digital shots.

There was a time not so long ago that people thought the file sizes you are currently using were too, too large.

Firefighter1019 · 05-23-2014, 02:41 AM

Truth be told im still learning the whole DLSR and RAW format stuff. Ive only had my DSLR since Christmas. Ive only ever shot with point and shoot before that. Still trying to understand the RAW format and how to use it. Doesnt help my laptop is outdated and slow at keeping up with modern photo processing programs.

Chase55671 · 05-23-2014, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

Truth be told im still learning the whole DLSR and RAW format stuff. Ive only had my DSLR since Christmas. Ive only ever shot with point and shoot before that. Still trying to understand the RAW format and how to use it. Doesnt help my laptop is outdated and slow at keeping up with modern photo processing programs.

RAW will certainly save the day when in regards to white balance and color cast correction.

Chase

Firefighter1019 · 06-11-2014, 05:14 AM

disregard this post

JimThias · 06-11-2014, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

disregard this post

No! What did you say???

bigbassloyd · 06-11-2014, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase55671

RAW will certainly save the day when in regards to white balance and color cast correction.

Chase

Especially when shooting lightning. It's amazing how much the white balance can differ between each strike.

Loyd L.

Chase55671 · 06-11-2014, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Especially when shooting lightning. It's amazing how much the white balance can differ between each strike.

Loyd L.

So true! I've seen purple, blue, white, yellow, etc. etc. You wouldn't think it would differ that much, but it does.

Chase

John West · 06-11-2014, 04:47 PM

While I now shoot just RAW, I used to shoot both RAW and JPG (don't ask me why, just cause it was there). On a few occasions I processed a JPG file either by mistake or because it was easier. My guess is that for 99 percent of what we shoot, JPG is just fine. The exception is probably night photography or pix taken in poor lighting, which might require a bit more "fixing" in Photoshop. I think this is especially true if the goal is documentary photography.

bigbassloyd · 06-11-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John West

While I now shoot just RAW, I used to shoot both RAW and JPG (don't ask me why, just cause it was there). On a few occasions I processed a JPG file either by mistake or because it was easier. My guess is that for 99 percent of what we shoot, JPG is just fine. The exception is probably night photography or pix taken in poor lighting, which might require a bit more "fixing" in Photoshop. I think this is especially true if the goal is documentary photography.

I shoot jpeg-only for most of my paid work, with the exception of weddings. I shoot those in jpeg+raw since there aren't mulligans in that line of work.

I shoot all my hobby junk in raw exclusively.

Loyd L.

hoydie17 · 06-11-2014, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I shoot jpeg-only for most of my paid work, with the exception of weddings. I shoot those in jpeg+raw since there aren't mulligans in that line of work.

I shoot all my hobby junk in raw exclusively.

Loyd L.

I shoot RAW for everything, paid or not. I've just found that it's easier to do a batch editing, and then a group export to .jpg if that's what the customer wants.

BTW Loyd, give me a call when you get some time, came up with an interesting idea you may find equally as interesting.

Firefighter1019 · 06-12-2014, 12:16 AM

Since this thread Ive now started shooting RAW.

troy12n · 06-12-2014, 01:53 AM

I just dont see the point to shooting .jpg, why hamstring yourself. Storage is cheap nowadays

JimThias · 06-12-2014, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

I just dont see the point to shooting .jpg, why hamstring yourself. Storage is cheap nowadays

Exactly. Why not have the highest quality possible for a file? It takes like, what, seconds to convert a raw file to jpg for processing?

MagnumForce · 06-12-2014, 04:34 AM

For what I shoot raw requires more work for an acceptable image. Has nothing to-do with storage. If I cared more or wanted the extra tweakability I would shoot raw. But as it is I can just straighten and crop with Jpg while I have to change a whole myriad of things when I shoot raw. If I cared enough I guess I could learn to batch edit.

MagnumForce · 06-12-2014, 04:38 AM

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/raw-...e-visual-guide

A good comparison and what I mean by extra work involved in raw. Heck I would not even crop my jpegs if Jim didn't flip out about 4:3 crops

Firefighter1019 · 06-12-2014, 06:04 AM

So the NS Virginian decided to park in town today. Ended up shooting in RAW and was pleased with the editing ease. Unfort it was overcast day so not even worth uploading with RP standards. None the less still pleased with RAW.

troy12n · 06-12-2014, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

For what I shoot raw requires more work for an acceptable image.

I dont understand this, what are you all using for processing? MS Paint?

Using a real program like Photoshop or lightroom takes zero additional steps for working with a raw file vs a .jpg

JimThias · 06-12-2014, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

For what I shoot raw requires more work for an acceptable image. Has nothing to-do with storage. If I cared more or wanted the extra tweakability I would shoot raw. But as it is I can just straighten and crop with Jpg while I have to change a whole myriad of things when I shoot raw. If I cared enough I guess I could learn to batch edit.

How come your jpgs don't have the EXIF data attached?

bigbassloyd · 06-12-2014, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

I just dont see the point to shooting .jpg, why hamstring yourself. Storage is cheap nowadays

Quote:

Using a real program like Photoshop or lightroom takes zero additional steps for working with a raw file vs a .jpg

Unless you have a version of Elements and Photoshop CS5 that do not recognize your raw files from your new camera. Then you have to convert them to .dng which takes 8 seconds per file.

Not a big deal for the stupid foamer photos I take. Big deal for a wedding weeked with 1500-2000 photos.

And when it comes to wedding photos, I have my bodies setup to deliever ready to use (contrast and sharpening, etc applied in-camera) .jpg files for quicker turn around with clients. Also, batch editing raw files sometimes doesn't work, because of varying light sources and intensities. As I said earlier, I do shoot .jpg + raw for a plan B.

Your mileage may vary, but I will always have a desire to shoot .jpg in certain circumstances.

Loyd L.

MagnumForce · 06-12-2014, 07:17 PM

I use the current version of elements and my exif data is there, look again.

Look at that link I shared, with raw you do a lot your camera already does for you with JPG.

I just don't have a need for it, not talking anyone down because I do believe that shooting in RAW is better. I just do not have the patience for it and don't care enough to do it. I have done it on several occasions before and I just didn't see the point.

Hell I even shoot in Program AE 50% of the time, mock me if you want. I am not the type to set up for a shot and wait, I am very Kamikaze in my shooting and fumbling with camera settings while driving down the road just doesn't work to well. I have blown too many shots because I forget to change my setting from location to location and 90% of the time my camera can figure out what I want anyway, especially when it's sunny. When it is cloudy I always set things on my own.

Firefighter1019 · 06-12-2014, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

How come your jpgs don't have the EXIF data attached?

For some reason when I use Corels PS to edit my photos when I save them it wipes the EXIF data. Ive tried recommended settings but havent been able to find a fix for that. According to some forum sites PS has the issue with Canon Cameras.

Firefighter1019 · 06-12-2014, 08:27 PM

I always upload my pics with the EXIF option But I think its the PS issue causing the problem.

JRMDC · 06-12-2014, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

For some reason when I use Corels PS to edit my photos when I save them it wipes the EXIF data. Ive tried recommended settings but havent been able to find a fix for that. According to some forum sites PS has the issue with Canon Cameras.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019

I always upload my pics with the EXIF option But I think its the PS issue causing the problem.

I have generally found that people refer to Corel PaintShop Pro as PSP. It avoids confusion with Adobe's Photoshop which is the software customarily referred to as PS.

troy12n · 06-12-2014, 10:24 PM

Corel is still in business?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Unless you have a version of Elements and Photoshop CS5 that do not recognize your raw files from your new camera.

I thought adobe had free updates to Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which alleviated that problem?

If not, that's something I have not run into beings my newest camera body is a 40D

hoydie17 · 06-13-2014, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

Corel is still in business?

I thought adobe had free updates to Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which alleviated that problem?

If not, that's something I have not run into beings my newest camera body is a 40D

Yes, but Adobe quits updating ACR and DNG camera profiles as Photoshop and Lightroom releases new versions. So if you're using an older version such as CS3 or CS4, and you have a relatively new body, you may not be able to patch the newest version of ACR or DNG converter into the older version of PS/LR.