Don't let RAW pp intimidate you. If you want to spend hours in it, you surely can. But unless you're a primadonna of quality, the result will be the same whether you spend hrs fine-tuning every possible aspect or simply a few minutes (once you get through the learning curve, that is - which shouldn't take more than an hour).
Personally, I work exclusively with RAW and it doesn't require more than 3-5 mins to get the result I want. Rarely, it might take a bit more if the image is very demanding..
Don't let RAW pp intimidate you. If you want to spend hours in it,you surely can. But unless you're a primadonna of quality, the resultwill be the same whether you spend hrs fine-tuning every possibleaspect or simply a few minutes (once you get through the learningcurve, that is - which shouldn't take more than an hour).
Personally, I work exclusively with RAW and it doesn't require morethan 3-5 mins to get the result I want. Rarely, it might take a bitmore if the image is very demanding..
... in which case it would have taken time to get the JPEG right as well, assuming the JPEG could be adjusted suficiently..
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South AustraliaJohn Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.auCanon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10..
As I almost always work on pics out of the cam (PP), I like to shoot all my pics in RAW (as to avoid them running from maybe 8 MB to 1 MB in seconds of PP).In fact I shoot RAW+JPEG (Small/superfine)...
I am not an expert, but the biggest benefit of shooting raw (for me) is consistency during post processing. I like that I can adjust all the in-camera setting for WB, sharpness and color afterwards if it was not perfect, and I can play with different options. Then when I have one image adjusted the way I want, I can apply those same adjustments to the others taken in the same conditions. I know that the same is possible with JPEG, but it is my preference and seems more natural. The shot could look the same as if it was taken out of the camera if something simple like WB just needed a tweak..
I also like that I could find a gem in the photos I took one day, and retain all the options since it was taken as raw. If it were JPEG I could be stuck with any settings used for the shot and if they were wrong, would have to work some Photoshop magic to bring it back. And forget it if somehow the camera was left taking B&W JPEG's..
The only downside to raw is the room they take up and the reduced number of continuous shots it takes before the buffer gets clogged up. This is a decent tradeoff IMHO...
Does working in RAW require any artistic talent? Does the quality ofthe finished image depend on how good a person is at working in RAW?.
How much time do you usually spend in pping a RAW image? Mins, hrs ?I guess it depends on what you are trying to achieve..
Here's why I'm asking: Looking to buy my first DSLR. The one I'minterested in (Oly E-510) is said to produce good, but not excellent,jpeg photos. For best photos, shooting in RAW is often advised..
If you are new to DSLR photography I would recommend using JPEGs to start with until you are familiar with handling the camera, getting exposure right, learning all the basics etc. Using RAW is an additional refinement which gives extra scope to 'tweak' images but, IMO, is not a high priority to start with..
What constitutes 'good' instead of 'excellent' is subjective. It probably means that some reviewer was looking at prints a metre square with a magnifying glass and found marginal, nit-pickingly small differences between the Oly's results and whatever it was being compared with. It's a fine camera that many people are very happy with, and the JPEG image quality of any modern DSLR is excellent (that subjective word again) although no doubt some are slightly more excellent than others. if you like the camera, don't let this issue worry you..
For best photos, shooting in RAW is often advised..
That's true of any camera that allows RAW..
If you use a raw converter that's integrated into your workflow software Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture, for example you'll get the benefits of raw essentially for free. (File sizes are much larger than JPG, but disk is pretty cheap). You'll have the *ability* to make all kinds of adjustments that you couldn't do with JPG, but you'll not be required to do so..
One of the benefits of getting serious about photography in the digital age is that you can freely take a lot of shots as you learn, but unless you can go through them quickly, absorbing why those that worked did and those that worked didn't, the volume is a hindrance..
Lightroom and Aperture are each available for a 30-day free trial, so give them a try. They take time to get comfortable with, so be sure to give them a good enough try to get past the initial learning curve..
Jeffrey Friedl Kyoto, Japan http://regex.info/blog/..