snubbr.com

Are there any photograhers here that use JPEG? (2 images)
I have always used JPEG in the past.I'm very happy with it, as it takes less time to pp anything..

However, all I hear about is how much better RAW is..

There are so many time contraints with regard to RAW. That's my biggest compalint as well as space for storage..

I know I evenutally have to step up to RAW photography, but in the meantime. does anyone still use JPEG only?-.

Thanks..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comments (117)

I think you'll find the answer is yes. Without splitting pixels/atoms, the chief advantage RAW has over JPEG is that you get all the information recorded by the sensor..

So, if your initial exposure didn't get all the highlights or shadow detail, you may be able to pull it out with an image processing software..

And there are "photographers" who will spend hours layering composite images (exposed for highlight and exposed for shadow detail and exposed for mid-tones) in computer..

I don't print most of my stuff and have no wall space (or a desire for a big printer), so I can't say whether there are printers that actually print RAW files, or if you have to convert to JPEG anyway..

I treat RAW as glorified bracketing, or with my D200 shoot RAW and JPEG combined.'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

Comment #1

I set my camera to do both when in manual mode.....

Comment #2

Howdy Melissa,.

FWIW, Ken Rockwell advocates using only JPEG. Opinions on him seem to be mixed, but I do enjoy reading his stuff..

As for me, I shoot in RAW all the time b/c I tend to screw up something so I don't quite trust myself to shoot JPEG. But I'm a beginner with little experience so your question may not have been targeted at someone like me. However, I do plan on continuing to shoot RAW even once I get better. I just like the flexible and "insurance" RAW affords, plus I don't mind the post processing too much and it gives me some practice with it. But you are right, it eats up a ton of space. I generally have the downloaded RAW, then a sub-directory where I put the RAW file I alter, then yet another "developed" directory for the output JPEG.

Then again, space is pretty cheap these days..

But the bottom line is if you are getting what you need from shooting just JPEG, may not need to move to RAW..

Just trying to learn.

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..

Comment #3

Thanks everyone..

At this point, I seem to get the photo I am trying for in JPEG. What doesn't work out, I delete. A few other photographers that I admire greatly, shoot only in JPEG. It's a matter of seeing and capturing that image rather than adjusting it to what you want. (As I have found with RAW, it's a matter of adjusting your photo to your preferences.).

I don't care to do too much post processing either. Perhaps cropping or straightening. In my estimation, converting RAW too much tends to lead away from true photography to another form of art..

From what I understand, RAW requires a lot of post processing and then to save that as JPEG and keep the original RAW intact. Therefore, the "RAW" file is manipulated to what the photographers eyes sees or what he wants us to see -showing their expression - showing their vision of the expression. I look at it as not the true "as is" photo..

Just my opinion..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #4

Riceowl wrote:.

Howdy Melissa,.

Just trying to learn.

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos//photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #5

I've only been shooting jpeg thus far but at some point (when time permits) might give raw a try. I tend to underexpose a bit to avoid loosing highlights.Duncan Bristowhttp://www.pbase.com/duncanbristow..

Comment #6

Melissa926 wrote:.

From what I understand, RAW requires a lot of post processing andthen to save that as JPEG and keep the original RAW intact.Therefore, the "RAW" file is manipulated to what the photographerseyes sees or what he wants us to see -showing their expression -showing their vision of the expression. I look at it as not the true"as is" photo..

As far as zoombrowser RAW editor goes, the variables it uses to make the jpeg image from the raw file are pretty much the same as what the camera uses. Minus the exposure-compensation and tone..

White-balance, B-A/G-M, sharpness, contrast and saturation are all used by the camera the same way the zoombrowser raw editor uses them, and you can adjust these variables in-camera..

So the difference is just a matter of adjusting the variables either before the exposure (JPEG) or after (RAW editor)...

Comment #7

I shoot almost exclusively jpeg..

The key is to know when to switch to raw to avoid problems that jpeg is just not that good at dealing with.....like color balance or extended dynamic range.I'm guessing that for every 300 jpegs I shoot 1 raw..

I find that shooting jpeg is very similar to shooting slide film in my 35mm. Fairly narrow dynamic range.....but I like that and don't mind clipping either the highlights or lowlights. It just depends on how you think a picture should look..

This one is blownout and squashed.....but I like it..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/8790142@N02/A member of the rabble in good standing...

Comment #8

Excellent photo. It really shows that highlights and shadows are not something to always fear...

Comment #9

I like it.! Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #10

Melissa926 wrote:.

From what I understand, RAW requires a lot of post processing andthen to save that as JPEG and keep the original RAW intact..

At the very least, you can batch-process RAW files to JPG files..

True, you wouyld get the same result (mostly) as you just shot JPG, but for the one picture you do need to tweek, RAW would come in handy..

When I shoot action photo's, I use JPEG for 2 reasons1. FPS - Raw slows down the whole frame rate and burst length.

2. With action photo's, people are not looking for gallery-quality prints. A certain amount of highlights/shadows is acceptable.

Warm regards,DOF..

Comment #11

Melissa926 wrote:.

From what I understand, RAW requires a lot of post processing andthen to save that as JPEG and keep the original RAW intact.Therefore, the "RAW" file is manipulated to what the photographerseyes sees or what he wants us to see -showing their expression -showing their vision of the expression. I look at it as not the true"as is" photo..

What exactly is an "as is" photo? Everything always has, and always will be, processed to some degree. I consider my RAW processing my digital darkroom. It takes about 30 seconds or less to adjust my file before I conert it to .JPEG. This gives you the control over your processing. Your camera does it's own processing with .JPEG. So, really there is no "as is" photo..

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with shooting .JPEG if that's what you prefer. But don't be afraid of RAW processing. It's easy.  .

-D..

Just my opinion..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Darren Cassesehttp://www.dnjphotography.net..

Comment #12

Melissa a lot of people have strange ideas about RAW and often paraphrase what they have read elsewhere instead of giving advice on what they have actually tried and tested.We shoot RAW and jpg in our studio all the time..

We produce prints (and only prints from the work shot. The sizes go up to anything as large 40" across. Therefore every shot taken must have that ability.95% of our images printed and sold are taken from the jpg, not the RAW.Surprised? I hear the crowd oohing in disbelief. Nay RAW IS BETTER they cry!!!No it's not. Not if you get your exposure correct! That's the catch..

But....if you do get your exposure slightly wrong and have burned out or under exposed areas, that is when that RAW file that you shot will save your bacon and you can retrieve information..

So don't let me hear that RAW is better. Just stick to RAW can be better..

But yes shoot it always, but don't bother go to the extra work of using it if you don't need it because you are wasting your time..

...and if I don't get barrage of brainwashed dissenters to this I will be surprised..

Jules.

Melissa926 wrote:.

I have always used JPEG in the past.I'm very happy with it, as it takes less time to pp anything..

However, all I hear about is how much better RAW is.There are so many time contraints with regard to RAW. That's mybiggest compalint as well as space for storage..

I know I evenutally have to step up to RAW photography, but in themeantime. does anyone still use JPEG only?-.

Thanks..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #13

Well, I won't be flaming anybody, but I've been shooting RAW and manual pretty consistently and I like doing so. I find it is a good thing to practice for newbies (but also has advantages for anybody else) it makes one concentrate on photographic skill as well as on photographic imagination..

With RAW I actually spend more time thinking through exposure, and looking deeply at the scene recognizing highlights, issues with tonal range... etc., primarily because I know I will be working with those things later in post processing. It doesn't render me less careful when shooting, it helps me think through the photographic process of making an image..

I like the flexibility to correct exposure creatively (not just because I made a mistake in metering). But then again, I am inclined toward an artistic view of some of the photography I do..

Perhaps the biggest drawback for some is the time it might take and the learning curve, but I find it is relatively easy to make the adjustments needed. Choice of RAW processing software also helps..

Try it Melissa, I expect it will prove troublesome at first, but I bet it will be a great learning experience that will make you a sharper photographer even if you never shoot RAW again..

NK..

Comment #14

Melissa, try to find some non-weirdo photo that someone has taken using both a RAW original file setting and a decent JPEG setting paying attention to white balance, contrast settings, etc..

See if you can tell any difference that matters..

I've never been able to..

For weirdo shots let's say you are inside a restaurant with the sun bouncing off a green colored building across the street, there are quaertz lights shining down on the table where your food is, and there are incandescent lights illuminating the art work ont he walls. RAW is not a bad iidea under these circumstances..

BAK..

Comment #15

If I remember right, you asked this question a few months ago and I already gave you my opinion. That might have been someone else, so I'll post my two cents again..

I shoot RAW and I love it. If you do need to do a lot of modification to the image, it will save the day. If you don't, it's still handy..

When I process files for a client, I look at every image, one by one. For that, using Photoshop CS3 + camera raw works out great for me. The controls for the raw images are usually enough to suit my needs. I spend from a few seconds to a minute per image, and I only open and tweak the few that need more help. It's a great timesaver for me..

I'll often shoow RAW + small Jpeg because jpegs load so much faster for previewing, and are good enough for posting on the internet and such.Anything I print starts from the RAW image..

Storage space is cheap cheap cheap. If you look at newegg.com you can get a 500GB hard drive for $100. Most computers have space for another hard drive, so you don't even need to deal with the hassle of moving your current files. Slap in the new hard drive and make it your photo drive..

I plan on 20GB for a wedding (though it usually doesn't take this much space) so that's $4 in storage space. That's almost nothing. It costs more in gas to get to the event than this..

Even for personal photos, it's dirt cheap. Let's say you go on vacation and take 20GB of photos. So what? The vacation cost you at least hundreds of dollars, if not thousands. What's another $4 to archive it properly?.

The only time you should use only jpeg is if you are running low on card space. If you run low on card space a lot, consider buying more card space. Cards are pretty cheap too, depending on what you get. You most likely don't need the ultra fast cards, so pick up a slower card with more space. (Most slower cards are still faster than your camera, it only affects the download speed for most users. In fact, many users' computers can't handle the ultra fast download speed so in that case there's NO benefit to the faster card!)..

Good luck and happy shooting!-Porter..

Comment #16

FYI multi colored lighting is a challenge no matter what the recording method. RAW won't bail you out of that issue but it may make it a little easier. For a true challenge, challenge the camera. For example, I find that the coloring isn't very accurate in ultra low lighting on my camera. In this case I sometimes make a huge change in color, and RAW helps a lot..

If you want to see how much of a difference it makes, force your camera to use the wrong mode. Find a spot entirely lit up by fluorescent lights and shoot in tungsten (incandescent) mode. Shoot the same scent with RAW and Jpeg. Now color correct both of the images. Pick a spot for grey reference and use the exact same spot to be fair. Compare the quality of the new image and you'll see that RAW is better..

Also try to match the contrast, saturation, and sharpness of the jpeg to be fair (shooting the jpeg with none of these corrections would be easiest, if available on the camera).

-Porter.

BAK wrote:.

Melissa, try to find some non-weirdo photo that someone has takenusing both a RAW original file setting and a decent JPEG setting paying attention to white balance, contrast settings, etc..

See if you can tell any difference that matters..

I've never been able to..

For weirdo shots let's say you are inside a restaurant with thesun bouncing off a green colored building across the street, thereare quaertz lights shining down on the table where your food is, andthere are incandescent lights illuminating the art work ont he walls.RAW is not a bad iidea under these circumstances..

BAK..

Comment #17

To quote LM1.

"I shoot almost exclusively jpeg.The key is to know when to switch to raw".

The only way to learn the difference is to use both from time to time. That way you will know when and why to switch..

Tom..

Comment #18

As an amateur/hobbyist I have shot in both raw and jpeg. After owning a dslr for 20 months I have come to rely on jpeg for everyday shooting. I have also stopped shooting at the max resolution and have gone to shooting in fine instead of extra fine. I have found printing at 8x10 and even 10x15 come out nice with a 1504x1000 fine jpeg. One of the things I have found is this allows my camera to perform better/faster, I think someone already mentioned more fps... I can't afford high dollar equipment so this helps make the most of what I have.



I have learned and am still learning what to expect from my camera and how to adjust it for the conditions. I enjoy composing the image through the viewfinder and getting results that require very little PP..

...Dennis..

Comment #19

Melissa926 wrote:.

Preferences.)I don't care to do too much post processing either. Perhaps croppingor straightening. In my estimation, converting RAW too much tends tolead away from true photography to another form of art..

In my opinion what you have said is true. However, I word it differently. I attempt to document what I see, not what I would like to have seen..

From what I understand, RAW requires a lot of post processing andthen to save that as JPEG and keep the original RAW intact.Therefore, the "RAW" file is manipulated to what the photographerseyes sees or what he wants us to see -showing their expression -showing their vision of the expression. I look at it as not the true"as is" photo..

Not long ago someone posted about their trip to Alaska and the glaciers they saw. When they got home they spent some time removing the blue cast that appeared in their glacier photo's. Glaciers are composed of old ice. The old ice is blue..

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...

Comment #20

5D DjD wrote:.

I enjoy composing the imagethrough the viewfinder and getting results that require very littlePP..

...Dennis.

Interesting that I never see any posts from film people who did their own darkroom processing...maybe that's because they are still doing it. But the idea of trying to avoid any or as much PP as possible seems to run counter to the idea of having a darkroom..

Any darkroom converts out there willing to chime in?.

Darren Cassesehttp://www.dnjphotography.net..

Comment #21

I do. If you get a good, natural image setting and get the exposures right, JPEG can work fine. For my camera, I get better WB control and a little more DR. Tonality is a hair better in RAW, if I use ACR. Other than that, I get the same resolution with RAW as JPEG...

Comment #22

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.this keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg.yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

Comment #23

You might be interested in this; which I posted a while back..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257..

Comment #24

Good question. I have two Fuji cameras. With the E550 I get purple fringing. I didn't really notice it until one shot with the highlights blown. Since then I've been sensitive to PF in each shot..

I tried raw to see if this would eliminate or reduce PF. It didn't. When you raised the question I went out, we have a bright sunny day, and shot in raw. The PF is there and has to be processed out. The shots were made at f5.4 and f5.6 around 1/160 and iso at 100. I used Program setting.



I get good photos in JPEG; it records faster; and takes less memory..

My original JPEGs are archived and I work in TIFF..

When individuals note that memory (Hard Disk) is cheap, I still think that then there are so many more drives that I have to search to retrieve. And then you need to make backups..

Bottom line, at this time, I sticking with JPEG unless I can be shown a more efficient means..

Hope this helps.vsteffel..

Comment #25

Also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do itin the camera, it's called composition..

Sorry, but this is just a nonsense. i'm not questioning whether *you* crop or not. maybe, indeed, you don't. your camera has an aspect ratio of 3:2. a standard 10*8 print, for example, has an aspect ratio of 5:4 ...or do you only ever print at 3:2?.

Some digital photographers are downright naive. if you only ever print 6*4s, if you only display your photographs on-line, no, there's no need to crop, you can keep your 3:2 ratio and never ever crop. if you produce photographs for standard enlargements, 7*5, 10*8, you have to crop because they are different aspect ratios. If you provide photographs for publications, they are going to be cropped to fit the page layout by a sub-editor or designer..

I think this naivety is also shown in this raw vs. jpeg debate. For years images were "post-processed"... in the darkroom, by colour houses, by professional scanner operators and colour correctors, by automatic image enhancements performed by mini-labs. Yes, it's better to get it as right as possible in the camera but for years the "little gnomes" have been "post-processing" images without the public knowing. and now the digital camera is a little gnome too performing all sorts of tricks and sleights of hand to make your photo look so much better..

Sorry, but when I see people say "i never crop", I smell a complete and totally naive n00b. I do compose very carefully ...and then I back off a little. so I actually leave some room to crop...

Comment #26

Sorry to disappoint you. but it is extremely rare that I crop. as a said I do it in the camera. I wrote the following awhile back. I do not submit pics professionally; and do not intend ever to start. I have retired, and do not intend to go back to work; which is what it would be if I did pro photography..

This is the way I do it..

First off I am particular about the correct composition in the camera. I use the lens and my position to get the scene the way I want it. when I get to the pc, my goal is to crop 0%. of late that is what I have been doing. or if I crop at all I crop to get the BEST pic I can from my original image. this may mean that the resultant keeper does not fit the 4x6 5x7 8x10 etc; so be it.

If the pic is framed it can be masked to cover the white anyway on all four sides..

So I am not concerned in fitting an image to a size, I am only interested in getting the best final scene I can..

Besides, if one were to shoot panoramas they would not fit any preset print size; they all come out odd sizes..

Also, for prints 8x10 and smaller, I do my own printing. when you do your own the software has adjustments that you can just print what you have so that it fits on the size paper in use, keeping the original aspect ratio. you also have the choice of turning that off and it will fit it as best it can but use all, say of a 5x7, and MAKE it fit. this means it will crop something. the paper itself is say the 8x10 and that is what it stays no matter what is printed on it. you may have 2 opposite sides that have a larger white border..

I use kodakgallery.com for all my printing above 8x10. they have a similar setup to my printer software. the forced to fit a size paper can be turned on or off to suit you. I just turn it on and off on the preview and see which I like the best. they also have a picture-perfect device which makes the colors levels and contrast correct when they print it. it can be turned on or off.



I also have found this site for my panoramas. I will be trying them in the near future.http://www.jumbogiant.com/also their tips page-http://www.jumbogiant.com/services/tips.html.

I have done so, results are extremely good...

Comment #27

For my general and hobby photography I use jpeg.It's an L of a life, this photography lark.

Http://www.freelancephotographic.net/..

Comment #28

Bugzie wrote:.

Also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do itin the camera, it's called composition..

Sorry, but this is just a nonsense. i'm not questioning whether *you*crop or not. maybe, indeed, you don't. your camera has an aspectratio of 3:2. a standard 10*8 print, for example, has an aspect ratioof 5:4 ...or do you only ever print at 3:2?.

Some digital photographers are downright naive. if you only everprint 6*4s, if you only display your photographs on-line, no, there'sno need to crop, you can keep your 3:2 ratio and never ever crop. ifyou produce photographs for standard enlargements, 7*5, 10*8, youhave to crop because they are different aspect ratios. If you providephotographs for publications, they are going to be cropped to fit thepage layout by a sub-editor or designer..

I think this naivety is also shown in this raw vs. jpeg debate. Foryears images were "post-processed"... in the darkroom, by colourhouses, by professional scanner operators and colour correctors, byautomatic image enhancements performed by mini-labs. Yes, it's betterto get it as right as possible in the camera but for years the"little gnomes" have been "post-processing" images without the publicknowing. and now the digital camera is a little gnome too performingall sorts of tricks and sleights of hand to make your photo look somuch better..

Sorry, but when I see people say "i never crop", I smell a completeand totally naive n00b. I do compose very carefully ...and then iback off a little. so I actually leave some room to crop..

Kinda abrasive, try making a point without rubbing the other guy the wrong way, you'll find folks take you more constructive and the conversation doesn't turn into an argument... Did you notice the forum heading by the way?.

That said if you use any of the over the counter or online photo centers that print digital their systems do image inhancement on every shot be it printed or developed prints. The ones I have used also crop to fit a 5:4 ratio so the photographer may never do any cropping and be none the wiser. Even home printing lets you "fit to page". My point is someone can probably go a lifetime and not PP or crop and be very content with their work. In that respect it's just like the old film days once you drop that roll off for developing and printing....

The comparing of dark room to computer is only valid to a certain degree. It takes a lot of experience in the dark room to do some of the easiest post processing tasks. With the computer you are only limited by time, don't like your results and start over at no additional expense. That alone makes the use of a darkroom a very conservative place for all but a few. An example of this often a topic right here in the forums of this site. We see threads about photo-journalists being called out for abusing their creative abilities with PP regularly, I'm sure it happened in the film days but not with the frequency it's done today....

If photography is to be concidered an art in the digital enviroment, it's what ever works for the artist/photographer..

...Dennis..

Comment #29

What sort of computer do you have? A RAW file from my D2x opens in under a second.Jules.

Oceanofapathy wrote:.

I'll often shoow RAW + small Jpeg because jpegs load so much fasterfor previewing, and are good enough for posting on the internet andsuch...

Comment #30

I shot JPEG only for 6 years with a succesion of Oly DSLRs. I now shoot RAW with my Nikon D80 and D50. Why the change?:.

1) I now shoot event photography - mainly theatre work - using available light only. Thus I am on the edge.2) Better software3) Space on my hard drive4) I am now used to it so it is easier to shoot everything in RAW..

To expand on 2)-4).

2) I used Capture NX so my presets come up in the screen image. If I am happy with what I see I save a 2.5-3MB jpeg or 5MB if the shot is really special. I often tweak a bit especially cropping but it never takes more than 5 minutes..

3) All versions of my RAW shot get stored in the same NEF (e.g. different crops) so there are not endless 10MB+ copies of original and PP'd NEFs lying around. Just, for the good ones - one NEF per photo plus a jpeg both backed up to an external drive (and the jpeg on Zenfolio) - for the also-rans I batch convert to jpeg and ditch the NEF..

4) Having got used to this routine it is easier to shoot everything in RAW. I only use jpeg to test the cameras. There is an embedded jpeg in the RAW shot that many programs can read instantly so there is no delay as long as you use the right viewer that can read those jpegs..

You do have to be tidy shooting RAW and bin the rubbish. (Just imagine your children sorting your effects on your death. What are they going to do with 50,000 jpegs. Much better to have 10,000 marked out as your best! They can then bin the NEfs if they wish).

For me there are other potential pros and cons to my change..

PRO - I take the shot now but can improve it in 5 years time with better noise reduction algorithms or whatever.

CON - Somewhere down the line in 20 years time or whatever a Windows OS will not support Capture NX so either I upgrade at expense or I can no longer read my NEFs wheras JPEGS are so universal that I cannot conceive that will ever happen..

It follows from the above that I always keep a jpeg copy of my best shots as well as the NEF!.

I have no ambition to preach others. I am just relating my practice and experience..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #31

It seems to me that you are saying that you do exactly what we all do. Crop to get the best image. There is no right length to height proportion, not in the camera or any of the available precut paper sizes. life doesn't come in preprepared rectangles or squares. So we frame everything that we want through our viewfinder and treak it when we come to printing or showing on the web..

People who say they never crop are not clever. They are just unnecessarily limiting themselves for no advantageous points at all. The great think about processing and printing your and matting and framing your own work (which we do) is that the format is entirely up to us..

Jules.

GaryDeM wrote:.

Sorry to disappoint you. but it is extremely rare that I crop. as asaid I do it in the camera. I wrote the following awhile back. I donot submit pics professionally; and do not intend ever to start. ihave retired, and do not intend to go back to work; which is what itwould be if I did pro photography..

This is the way I do it.first off I am particular about the correct composition in thecamera. I use the lens and my position to get the scene the way iwant it. when I get to the pc, my goal is to crop 0%. of late that iswhat I have been doing. or if I crop at all I crop to get the BESTpic I can from my original image. this may mean that the resultantkeeper does not fit the 4x6 5x7 8x10 etc; so be it.

If the pic is framed itcan be masked to cover the white anyway on all four sides.so I am not concerned in fitting an image to a size, I am onlyinterested in getting the best final scene I can.besides, if one were to shoot panoramas they would not fit any presetprint size; they all come out odd sizes.Also, for prints 8x10 and smaller, I do my own printing. when you doyour own the software has adjustments that you can just print whatyou have so that it fits on the size paper in use, keeping theoriginal aspect ratio. you also have the choice of turning that offand it will fit it as best it can but use all, say of a 5x7, and MAKEit fit. this means it will crop something. the paper itself is saythe 8x10 and that is what it stays no matter what is printed on it.you may have 2 opposite sides that have a larger white border.i use kodakgallery.com for all my printing above 8x10.

The forced to fit a size papercan be turned on or off to suit you. I just turn it on and off on thepreview and see which I like the best. they also have apicture-perfect device which makes the colors levels and contrastcorrect when they print it. it can be turned on or off. I leave it on.i also have found this site for my panoramas.

I have done so, results are extremely good..

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #32

I was making the point that I crop 0% or close to it. if I do crop at all, which is rare, I included my procedure..

This is not saying that I crop 3/4 or more of my shots, which is what I commonly read. makes me wonder why people buy the fancy zooms and other lenses (LBA) in the first place if they have little intention of using the diferent lenses and zooming feature for the composition that is supposed to done in the camera..

Cropping is supposed to eliminate unwanted eliments in the shot when they cannot be gotten rid of in the field. it is not an excuse to snap away with no care about what is actually in the image because you can crop it out later. to do so is simply sloppy photography and poor technique...

Comment #33

Thank you for all these posts. I'll read them when I get to work. Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #34

GaryDeM wrote:.

Cropping is supposed to eliminate unwanted eliments in the shot whenthey cannot be gotten rid of in the field. it is not an excuse tosnap away with no care about what is actually in the image becauseyou can crop it out later. to do so is simply sloppy photography andpoor technique..

That is a rather narrow perspective. It may hold true with landscape photography and much of posed portrait photography (especially if you have a 100% viewfinder) But what of action photography? Candid street photography? I photograph live theatre and concerts where I am constantly zooming in and out and nobody stops for me to frame a shot (and I often do not know what is coming).

Regarding your last comment it is even sloppier and poorer to leave a needy photograph uncropped. Further one can often learn from cropping (and other PP) and apply them to future shots..

Perhaps you are a photographic paragon of perfection but most of us have clay feet some of the time..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #35

Melissa926 wrote:.

Thank you for all these posts. I'll read them when I get to work..

Nice work if you can get it! .

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #36

Actually I shoot JPG 99% of the time. But....

The JPG engine in my favourite camera does a poor job on short cut grass - which can end up looking like a smudge of green. So for a scene with short croped grass near to me I switch to RAW, this actually provides far greater detail...and only does it because my paint program converts the RAW file better than the in camera JPG processing does..

But my DSLR does such a good job with JPEG's that I do not normally use RAW at all..

Hope that helps..

Adrian.

Http://www.t1000.co.ukhttp://www.ashgemsoftware.co.uk..

Comment #37

I do not shoot street or action photography. therefore, I can compose in the camera to suit what I expect to see later without cropping...

Comment #38

I actually crop very few photos. When I compose, even action, I try to get the whole picture as right as possible. If there is an unwanted element, then it may get cloned out..

I also see fail to see why there is a difference in cropping RAW vs JPEG photos. At least in my Pentax, there is no added resolution in an ACR converted JPEG. Please do not point me to Phil's review as evidence to the contrary...

Comment #39

I have a Canon 20D and have shot exclusively RAW for the last 2-3 years. I use Lightroom as my RAW processor..

My reasons for shooting RAW are exactly the same as the last poster, Chris Elliott. The software is better, I avoid multiple copies of files on my hard drive, and with some shots you can get better output from RAW than you ever could from a JPEG. Shooting in only one format simplifies my workflow..

RAW converters are so easy to use nowadays and the time overheads of using RAW are so low (5-15 secs per file) that I cannot imagine any reason for shooting a JPEG except to get a longer burst in continuous mode..

My only concern about using RAW is the same as Chris Elliott's - at some stage I am going to have to convert all my RAW files to a new standard.Chris R..

Comment #40

I have done my own comparisons shooting JPEG and RAW on my DS. The JPEG camera settings were Natural, +1 Sharpness, -1 Contrast. With ACR, the resolution was identical. ACR did make it easier to correct color and get a little more DR. Considering the extra work and storage, I stopped using RAW...

Comment #41



Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/..

Comment #42

Chris R-UK wrote:.

My only concern about using RAW is the same as Chris Elliott's - atsome stage I am going to have to convert all my RAW files to a newstandard..

Adobe DNG looks promising..

A linear 16-bit TIFF would be also be good, although the regular 16-bit TIFF with the tone curves applied may be more practical, even though they technically loose a little information in the tone-curve adjustment...

Comment #43

Hi Melissa,.

I still use jpg only and never used, or felt the need for using raw. I guess you do have more control with raw, but it is just not for me..

Melissa926 wrote:.

I have always used JPEG in the past.I'm very happy with it, as it takes less time to pp anything..

However, all I hear about is how much better RAW is.There are so many time contraints with regard to RAW. That's mybiggest compalint as well as space for storage..

I know I evenutally have to step up to RAW photography, but in themeantime. does anyone still use JPEG only?-.

Thanks..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

OliviaBritish Columbia..

Comment #44

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Chris R-UK wrote:.

My only concern about using RAW is the same as Chris Elliott's - atsome stage I am going to have to convert all my RAW files to a newstandard..

Adobe DNG looks promising..

I am hoping that DNG will become the standard at some stage. If Canon and Nikon start offering as an alternative RAW output format, then I will change all my files.Chris R..

Comment #45

K1000Photographer wrote:.

I also see fail to see why there is a difference in cropping RAW vsJPEG photos. At least in my Pentax, there is no added resolution inan ACR converted JPEG. Please do not point me to Phil's review asevidence to the contrary..

The point is if you are going to shoot JPEG and PP (the most common form of which is cropping) then you could equally use RAW and PP..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #46

I shot RAW exclusively for a while but now I've started shooting jpg more often. I still shoot RAW in situations where the lighting is too tricky for JPGs or for photos that are more important. I recommend that you shoot RAW for a while to figure out which situations it offers the most improvement and which you are safe using jpg..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Technical Info: Roseart U.S.A. Gold #2 pencil, Pentel High Polymer eraser, Academie sketch pad drawing paper. Drawn clumsily under relatively poor light..

Http://www.geocities.com/wild_tiger_1.

Http://flickr.com/photos/selrahcharles/..

Comment #47

Almost always JPEG. I shoot a few frames of RAW every month to remind myself what I'm missing  .

Http://flickr.com/photos/dseang/..

Comment #48

Chris Elliott wrote:.

K1000Photographer wrote:.

I also see fail to see why there is a difference in cropping RAW vsJPEG photos. At least in my Pentax, there is no added resolution inan ACR converted JPEG. Please do not point me to Phil's review asevidence to the contrary..

The point is if you are going to shoot JPEG and PP (the most commonform of which is cropping) then you could equally use RAW and PP..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

My most common form of PP is exposure tweaking. Sometimes I need to clone something out and even add a touch of sharpenning on occasion. If one needs to do a lot of cropping, then they need to work on framing...

Comment #49

I use JPG (largest size) 90% of the time and RAW when conditions are rather tricky or I know I'm going to need to be able to print a big image..

Many of people simply duplicate the actions the camera would take on it's own; but I think it's valid to fiddle around with RAW to get the image how you thought you saw it at the time of capture.John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

Comment #50

... you seem to have some wrong ideeas..

Melissa926 wrote:.

I have always used JPEG in the past..

JPG is fine..

I'm very happy with it, as it takes less time to pp anything..

Well, that is wrong. Or you do it the wrong way. One takes much more to postprocess jpgs than raws - with the condition that some pp is done on the file..

Jpg: open the files one at a time in your photo editor, edit, save..

Raw: open the raw converter, mark the modifications for the files WITHOUT waiting for each to open, press convert and go and have a sandwich..

However, all I hear about is how much better RAW is..

It can be better qualitywise. However, if your aim in a certain day is to quickly upload the images on the web or quickly give them on a cd to aunt Edna, jpg is a clear winner..

There are so many time contraints with regard to RAW. That's mybiggest compalint as well as space for storage..

Again, if you modify most of your images, raw is faster. On the other hand, it does take more space, that's right..

I know I evenutally have to step up to RAW photography, but in themeantime. does anyone still use JPEG only?-.

Jpeg, yes, Jpeg only - I personally don't..

Thanks..

You're wellcome.

/d/n..

Comment #51

K1000Photographer wrote:.

The point is if you are going to shoot JPEG and PP (the most commonform of which is cropping) then you could equally use RAW and PP..

My most common form of PP is exposure tweaking. Sometimes I need toclone something out and even add a touch of sharpenning on occasion.If one needs to do a lot of cropping, then they need to work onframing..

It was not my point. I was simply explaining it's relevance to the discussion!!.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #52

Chris Elliott wrote:.

It was not my point. I was simply explaining it relevance to thediscussion!!.

Chris Elliott.

Anyways, I thought the need to crop was getting OT. As far as the added time and storage for RAW, I have experienced a negative ROI. It adds time and takes up a lot of storage and then does not deliver additional IQ...

Comment #53

You are talking about cropping by zooming. Doing this constrains you to the relationship of the height and width that your camera shoots. I do that with a zoom or by moving my feet of course. But by usin PS I am referring to changing that width and height relationsip by cropping (or sometimes adding) to the width or height...and I do it all the time.Jules.

GaryDeM wrote:.

I was making the point that I crop 0% or close to it. if I do crop atall, which is rare, I included my procedure..

This is not saying that I crop 3/4 or more of my shots, which is whati commonly read. makes me wonder why people buy the fancy zooms andother lenses (LBA) in the first place if they have little intentionof using the diferent lenses and zooming feature for the compositionthat is supposed to done in the camera..

Cropping is supposed to eliminate unwanted eliments in the shot whenthey cannot be gotten rid of in the field. it is not an excuse tosnap away with no care about what is actually in the image becauseyou can crop it out later. to do so is simply sloppy photography andpoor technique..

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #54

Yes I do, when my space on the card runs low. Usually I have both on any machine. The Jpegs are dependant on correct exposure whereas a Raw file can be tweaked abused altered etc indefinitely, which helps as metering some situations is impossible/does not work..

But if you have a small card and expensive software like Literoom on your computer you may find that you can now retrieve a lot of highlights you couldnt before Literoom-well not without vast expense..

Fun! Download a trial of Adobe Literoom when you have assembled all your old faves and redo the lot-you've got a month! ready steady go!.

That said RAW is safer because it will not ever outdate whilst jpeg is obsolete has been since the JPEG2000 lossless format nobody took up in 2000 (so much for the real significance of millenia!.

I have wonderful results on Jpeg, but, and it's a biggy I DO wish tthey were ALL raw files instead-so much less grief and hassle- so many more creative possibilities,yo!..

Comment #55

You must not take many photos of birds .

Greg.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/..

Comment #56

Baffled:.

Devnull wrote:.

I'm very happy with it, as it takes less time to pp anything..

(less time because she pp only the odd flaws in jpgs).

Well, that is wrong. Or you do it the wrong way. One takes much moreto postprocess jpgs than raws - with the condition that some pp isdone on the file..

(the condition that some pp is done on the file does not apply to jpgs, does it?).

Jpg: open the files one at a time in your photo editor, edit, save.raw: open the raw converter, mark the modifications for the filesWITHOUT waiting for each to open, press convert and go and have asandwich..

Why open the jpg file one at a time unless one is pp particular flaws in a jpg (no general flaws otherwise).

By using a raw converter to mark modifications (fixing all RAW files means all files are flawed?) you imply you must modify all RAW files, otherwise they all are flawed otherwise? why not just take the photo with a proper exposure in the first place?.

How on earth can you fix particular flaws (which only a jpg user might be concerned with) using a method dealing with general flaws (which RAW users are used to)?.

How do you really save time?.

Why not just use a 'flaw fixer' (non RAW converter) batch method on jpegs (and go have a sandwich); which probably will not fix a particular problem that a jpg user might find objectionable (noise/hotspots/deadspots/wb/color/sharpness)?.

Examples of image characteristics for batch handling jpegs, which for me seem outrageous because this means all the jpegs are 'wrong' to start with (why take poor shots at all just because one can batch pp later?):.

Using a simple free fileviewing application like Irfanview, the following batch pp could happen with just jpgs:.

Crop, Resize, Change color depth, Auto adjust colors, Horizontal flip, Vertical flip, Rotate left, Rotate right, Convert to greyscale, Negative, Sharpen, Brightness, Contrast, Gamma correction, Saturation, Color balance, etc. (+ rename).

However, Irfanview doesn't do 'hot/deadspots' though....

Personally, if i'm going to alter color/gamma/sharpness, i'd want to do it per file, not batch! I can understand doing batch for noise reduction (since doing noisy shots can be a result of lack of choice, forced to use the highest noisiest ISO), but that's it...

Comment #57

Sdyue wrote:.

Jpg: open the files one at a time in your photo editor, edit, save.raw: open the raw converter, mark the modifications for the filesWITHOUT waiting for each to open, press convert and go and have asandwich..

Why open the jpg file one at a time unless one is pp particular flawsin a jpg (no general flaws otherwise)by using a raw converter to mark modifications (fixing all RAW filesmeans all files are flawed?) you imply you must modify all RAW files,otherwise they all are flawed otherwise? why not just take the photowith a proper exposure in the first place?.

Take the picture with the proper exposure in the first place? Who said anything about modifying exposure?..

Comment #58

Sdyue wrote:.

Personally, if i'm going to alter color/gamma/sharpness, i'd want todo it per file, not batch!.

If you shoot JPEG, your color/gamma/sharpness alterations are done in a batch process inside the camera, in that the same changes get made to every picture you take...

Comment #59

I shoot RAW+JPEG for casual shooting (99% of what I do). Most of my shots are just to remember the memories, so I keep the JPEGs and delete the RAWs. There are, however, those few shots that could use the extra elbow grease to make them really shine. For those, I use the RAWs, process to JPEG, and keep both..

Should work for you too I would imagine. I just don't have the space or money to archive every shot I take in RAW.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #60

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

Personally, if i'm going to alter color/gamma/sharpness, i'd want todo it per file, not batch!.

If you shoot JPEG, your color/gamma/sharpness alterations are done ina batch process inside the camera, in that the same changes get madeto every picture you take..

There you go, for jpg, it's all 'pre-batch' processed.isn't that faster?.

Granted the camera doesn't do everything..

In the end you still have to open each individually processed RAW file to fix the particulars...? (which is all the jpg users were interested in doing anyway?)..

Comment #61

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

Jpg: open the files one at a time in your photo editor, edit, save.raw: open the raw converter, mark the modifications for the filesWITHOUT waiting for each to open, press convert and go and have asandwich..

Why open the jpg file one at a time unless one is pp particular flawsin a jpg (no general flaws otherwise)by using a raw converter to mark modifications (fixing all RAW filesmeans all files are flawed?) you imply you must modify all RAW files,otherwise they all are flawed otherwise? why not just take the photowith a proper exposure in the first place?.

Take the picture with the proper exposure in the first place? Whosaid anything about modifying exposure?.

Devnull didn't, so what's there to modify that's unique to RAW pp but not jpeg pp? (other than original data available in RAW?)..

Comment #62

Sdyue wrote:.

There you go, for jpg, it's all 'pre-batch' processed.isn't that faster?.

Yes, it is faster. For about 100 pictures, you might save 5 minutes or something..

That really isn't much of a time savings in my opinion, if it means just 1 of those hundred pictures could be tweaked more effectively if they were shot in RAW...

Comment #63

If I'm shooting jpegs, usually with my p+s nowadays. Have a Nikon DSLR and Capture NX, so I batch process using the camera settings which gets me jpegs almost exactly what they look like if processed in-camera..

Open them up in Picasa and review, 90% of the time they look great. If I need to do some selective sharpening or other changes, I go back to Capture NX to make the changes..

Takes an extra few minutes per one gig memory card to batch process, but I'm looking at the RAWs via Picasa while I wait. The extra hardrive space I could care less about since hardrives are so cheap nowadays..

JPEGs out of the camera are fine, I just figure if I've spent so much money on DSLR and lenses and I'm out to get photos, might as well have the option to end up with the best possible image, especially those that are borderline...

Comment #64

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

There you go, for jpg, it's all 'pre-batch' processed.isn't that faster?.

Yes, it is faster. For about 100 pictures, you might save 5 minutesor something..

That really isn't much of a time savings in my opinion, if it meansjust 1 of those hundred pictures could be tweaked more effectively ifthey were shot in RAW..

You can tweak more effectively in RAW than jpeg?.

I wouldn't want to find out the best post tweaking in RAW is marginally better (if at all) than the best post tweaking in jpeg (not including added batch pp time for RAW).

Either way, you still have to open to view all your RAW pp images (larger files) to tweak them again anyway, right? (naturally i'm assuming because RAW is used, you don't know what the image really looks like (especially color/exposure) until you get to your PC)..

Comment #65

Sdyue wrote:.

You can tweak more effectively in RAW than jpeg?.

Yes. Especially if you want to adjust the tone curves or white balance. In JPEG - forget about it..

Either way, you still have to open to view all your RAW pp images(larger files) to tweak them again anyway, right? (naturally i'massuming because RAW is used, you don't know what the image reallylooks like (especially color/exposure) until you get to your PC).

Huh?..

Comment #66

True.Jules.

PeaceFrog wrote:.

You must not take many photos of birds .

Greg.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #67

I like your suggestion of shooting both raw and jpeg and then only using the raw for critical shots. If I ever decide to give raw a try (I understand I may have to purchase Nikon software for processing) I think that would be my approach. I haven't had any customers who have complained about receiving jpegs at this stage though. I do use photoshop for batch processing when required (noise reduction with Neat Image at high ISO for wedding receptions etc., making a set of smaller sized images for easier viewing by the customer) which can be a big timesaver when dealing with thousands of images...I believe a previous poster implied batch processing was restricted to raw files.Duncan Bristowhttp://www.pbase.com/duncanbristow..

Comment #68

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

You can tweak more effectively in RAW than jpeg?.

Yes. Especially if you want to adjust the tone curves or whitebalance. In JPEG - forget about it..

These are all image exposure control/capture parameters, you mentioned earlier that exposure is not the issue. that's confusing especially the first thing you mentioned at the beginning of the thread deal entirely with those parameters..

Wb & tone curves, couldn't you set this in-camera anyway ahead of the shot; this is normal with digicams, and not dSLRs, how can that be right?.

(i understand some P&S don't have such sophisticated options in-camera; but some have more options than others).

Plus wouldn't tone curves or white balance vary for every shot (given every shot is different most of the time); and thus you'd have to open every file to tweak them even in RAW?.

Either way, you still have to open to view all your RAW pp images(larger files) to tweak them again anyway, right? (naturally i'massuming because RAW is used, you don't know what the image reallylooks like (especially color/exposure) until you get to your PC).

Huh?.

You use a pc to look at your images, then decide how much pp to use on your RAW images, right? and all those images are hardly considered 'the final look' because you intend on batch process all of them to alter them to achieve a 'final look'?.

Isn't it simpler to just look at individual images and just fix the odd one that needs it?.

Somehow it's confusing to avoid what a camera can do in-camera, only to do it after the fact, and to do it, you shoot in RAW..

I don't doubt some RAW processing might offer something some cameras don't offer in-camera, so maybe that's what's missing, wanting a feature in-camera, but your camera lacks it, so you use RAW (provided the camera has it of course)..

Thanks.i get it...

Comment #69

Try out RAW on your D2X the next time you go out shooting. Sooner or later you'll be simply amazed when the WB is slightly off for your JPEGs, but you can batch convert the RAWs to correct the 400K difference with just a few minutes of man power. I wasn't sold on RAW until I had mistakenly set WB improperly then went on a shoot, only to come back and realize all of my shots had a distinct blue tint (reviewing on the camera's small LCD couldn't show this)..

You can also salvage +/- 1 stop very effectively in RAW, and even push it to +/-3 stops with additional PP required for highlights..

Note that your images won't "look" any better - it's not like RAW is a secret thing to make images look better. You'll just have a significant flexibility in processing your photos.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #70

Sdyue wrote:.

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

You can tweak more effectively in RAW than jpeg?.

Yes. Especially if you want to adjust the tone curves or whitebalance. In JPEG - forget about it..

These are all image exposure control/capture parameters,.

Those parameters really aren't dependent on how much light you let hit the sensor (exposure).

Wb & tone curves, couldn't you set this in-camera anyway ahead of theshot; this is normal with digicams, and not dSLRs, how can that beright?.

Yes, and you can also set those parameters into the RAW converter and batch process..

Plus wouldn't tone curves or white balance vary for every shot (givenevery shot is different most of the time); and thus you'd have toopen every file to tweak them even in RAW?.

Yes, they do vary slightly for every shot. You can batch process, and get what the camera would have given you with JPEG, but then you can go back and tweak the pictures you feel are worth tweaking..

What does this extra ability and freedom cost? It costs the amount of time to batch process the RAW into JPEG (a few minutes), disk space (not an issue for me), and the number of pictures you can capture in burst mode ...

Comment #71

Thanks for the encouragement wrt raw. I'll give it a try. The version of photoshop I use isn't able to open the Nikon raw files so I'll need to contact Nikon for a copy of their appropriate software. I haven't had any problems with white balance to date but I tend to check the photos pretty frequently on the camera for the histogram (slightly underexpose) and colour balance so I'd notice if the white balance was significantly off right away and adjust it appropriately.Duncan Bristowhttp://www.pbase.com/duncanbristow..

Comment #72

Timskis6 wrote:.

Sooner or later you'll be simply amazed when the WB is slightly off[snip]You can also salvage +/- 1 stop very effectively in RAW.

One thing that grates on me is this cult of insecurity. "Nobody can get white balance or exposure right on a regular basis, so everyone should shoot Raw.".

There is no reason to propagate this kind of insecurity..

Getting exposure correct is something that every experienced photographer should be able to do. There are occasionally tricky situations which the experienced photographer will recognize and will handle by bracketing, use of Raw, or whatever..

Similarly, white balance is not black magic. An experienced JPEG photographer can get WB correct in all but the occasional tricky situation, which the experienced photographer will recognize and will handle by bracketing, use of Raw, or whatever..

If one has regular problems with white balance and/or exposure, then some more study and practice is the best solution. If one hasn't yet put in the study and practice, or if one is simply lacking in the aptitude to get WB and/or exposure correct, then certainly shooting Raw is one way to compensate. But recommending that others should be insecure about *their* abilities is inappropriate..

The experienced photographer should *expect* a good capture with each shutter release, not just *hope* for a capture that is good enough that it can be salvaged in post-processing. (Experimental shots aside, of course.)..

Comment #73

Shooting raw can really simplify some things in the field. In many cases, I use raw to be able to make some important decisions in the comfort of my digital "darkroom" rather than in the sometimes stressful field situations. Put another way, by dividing some shooting into things that must be done in the field and things that can be delayed until the "darkroom" helps me improve the overall result as more time can be spent on critical things (like composition, choosing shooting location, etc.) particularly in the field..

Of course, I often shoot to the right in raw in my landscapes just to get the extra stop of DR on my particular camera. Every little bit helps.Leonhttp://homepage.mac.com/leonwittwer/landscapes.htm..

Comment #74

I am also a real novice. When you shoot both raw & jpeg, do you actually get two photos?Dossy..

Comment #75

Just my personal opinion and experience (this does NOT apply to everyone)....

As a publisher of a local newspaper... graphic designer and a web master... I need my images FAST and at once!!.

Even if I shoot portraits of our miss bellflower contestants... I shoot JPGS... I can enhance the color and the details for say... 30 young ladies in less than 2 hours... USING JPGS....

NOW if an AGENCY hires me to shoot... say a wedding... then I switch to RAW + JPGS... simply because they are paying me to do that and of course to shoot!.

I shot portraits, events, sceneries, weddings, etc. using JPGS only... and like I said... I can enhance my images just fine... even professional wedding photographers said WoW!!!.

BOTTOM LINE:.

Your TIME!! I hated when I converted 350 RAW images of a wedding and couldn't use my computer for more than TWO HOURS!! using Photoshop Lightroom... but I was paid to do that... so no complaints....

ENHANCING IMAGES???.

I can sharpen, enhance, etc... an under/over exposed JPG images... using photoshop... for example get PROFESSIONAL PHOTOSHOP the classic guide to color correction by Dan Marguilis... you'll love this book!!.

;->..

Comment #76

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement..

I have read in this 1 thread about all the people whole fix/adjust/correct/tweak just about everthing on the pc during either the raw conversion or after during pp. and the same theme has been said in many threads before. it all makes me wonder what they are doing in the field other than simply pushing the shutter button down..

I learned my photography while shooting slides for 32yrs. you either got it right or the slide and your money went into the waste basket. eventually you learned how to take proper well exposed pics or you went broke buying film. now shooting digital is no problem; I was used to shooting with a very limited dynamic range in the slides and shooting digital is the same..

Noone it seems wants to spend the extra few seconds getting a proper picture in the field/camera; just push the shutter and I can get right in the pc..

Oh well. rant rant rant...

Comment #77

You can nail the shot in the field, and still improve it better with RAW than if it was jpeg, so your point is moot...

Comment #78

Sdyue wrote:.

Baffled:.

Devnull wrote:.

I'm very happy with it, as it takes less time to pp anything..

(less time because she pp only the odd flaws in jpgs).

So, you are saying that NOT pp-ing is faster than pp-ing. Agree .

Well, that is wrong. Or you do it the wrong way. One takes much moreto postprocess jpgs than raws - with the condition that some pp isdone on the file..

(the condition that some pp is done on the file does not apply tojpgs, does it?).

It definitely applies. Doing the same modifications on, let's say, 10 files, is faster on RAW images..

Jpg: open the files one at a time in your photo editor, edit, save.raw: open the raw converter, mark the modifications for the filesWITHOUT waiting for each to open, press convert and go and have asandwich..

Why open the jpg file one at a time unless one is pp particular flawsin a jpg (no general flaws otherwise).

For hundreds of reasons not necesarily in the flaw area. Maybe you are not exactly happy with the white balance. Maybe you want it BW. Or sepia. Maybe you are not happy with the tone curve applied by the camera. Maybe the saturation looks wrong.

Maybe you have a feeling lowkey might look better. Or maybe hikey..

By using a raw converter to mark modifications (fixing all RAW filesmeans all files are flawed?) you imply you must modify all RAW files,otherwise they all are flawed otherwise? why not just take the photowith a proper exposure in the first place?.

Again, a perfectly exposed picture might need tweaking from my point of view - see above..

Example: One day bike trip. Shoot RAW, probably about 300 imgs. Download them (10 minutes), import them (2 minutes), do the tweakings on, say, 200 files (10 minutes), press "export" and head for a sandwich. Total time, maybe 25 minutes. Tweakings will include bw conversions, exposure (yes!) and curves adjustments, saturation, white balance adjustments, noise removal (if shot late in the evening) and so on. With jpg, you'll get your images in 5 minutes, and, pray, how long does it take you to adjust 200 jpgs? Heck, how long does it take you to open and close 200 jpgs in Photoshop?.

How on earth can you fix particular flaws (which only a jpg usermight be concerned with) using a method dealing with general flaws(which RAW users are used to)?.

General flaws apply particullary. If you shoot outdoors with some clowds on the sky, the light will change 2 times a minute. If you shoot indoors with artificial lighting, and the distance to the light fixtures changes, it's the same..

Furthermore, try to shoot with the same settings a red flower, a yellow flower and the two flowers together. You'll be surprised..

How do you really save time?.

Because I don't have to wait for each file to load. That's a huge difference. And, it's a workflow product..

Examples of image characteristics for batch handling jpegs, which forme seem outrageous because this means all the jpegs are 'wrong' tostart with (why take poor shots at all just because one can batch pplater?):.

Using a simple free fileviewing application like Irfanview, thefollowing batch pp could happen with just jpgs:Crop, Resize, Change color depth, Auto adjust colors, Horizontalflip, Vertical flip, Rotate left, Rotate right, Convert to greyscale,Negative, Sharpen, Brightness, Contrast, Gamma correction,Saturation, Color balance, etc. (+ rename).

Heh, you want to crop in batches?  And use the same settings for all your files at grayscale conversion?.

Personally, if i'm going to alter color/gamma/sharpness, i'd want todo it per file, not batch!.

You do it per file OR group of files; however, you just tag the raw file with the modifications and then it's done without your assistance..

You have to think large volume. Don't think 10 files, think 1000 files. You'll make mistakes. You'll miss some files. You'll overwrite some originals. And so on..

If it helps, think of RAW as ABS and ESP for your car. It works perfectly without it, but when you need it, it's a life saver..

Regarding in camera settings... ever traveled with a group of non-photographers. You barely have the time to compose, let alone digging in menus to change settings....

/d/n..

Comment #79

Doug Pardee wrote:.

Timskis6 wrote:.

Sooner or later you'll be simply amazed when the WB is slightly off[snip]You can also salvage +/- 1 stop very effectively in RAW.

One thing that grates on me is this cult of insecurity. "Nobody canget white balance or exposure right on a regular basis, so everyoneshould shoot Raw.".

There is no reason to propagate this kind of insecurity..

With all due respect, this is not what I'm suggesting by any means. I'm not *telling* you (anyone) that they *will* screw up WB at one point or another. I meant to suggest that the average shooter will naturally tinker with WB if they shoot JPEG - if WB isn't perfect, or if they forget to change it for the next scene, most if not all of the subsequent images will be difficult to salvage. Shooting in RAW would salvage those images - that may or may not be important to the photographer..

Photography is not only a combination of skill, talent, and equipment - a bit of luck is always present in most cases. The former three will help net a good result, but in many situations you just have to be in the right place at the right time. This is true for most hobbies, sports, and past times..

Getting exposure correct is something that every experiencedphotographer should be able to do. There are occasionally trickysituations which the experienced photographer will recognize and willhandle by bracketing, use of Raw, or whatever..

RAW is not a fix-all for exposure problems. If you blow highlights on an image, it is impossible to recover them in RAW. Image data is lost when blown, and not recoverable. This is why we tend to expose for the highlights, or shadows, depending on the shot and situation..

And for this reason it is necessary to get the exposure correct, and not rely on RAW to "fix" the problem..

Similarly, white balance is not black magic. An experienced JPEGphotographer can get WB correct in all but the occasional trickysituation, which the experienced photographer will recognize and willhandle by bracketing, use of Raw, or whatever..

Very true. But why in the world would you bracket 3 or 5 frames in JPEG when you can do all of that in one frame of RAW? WB is not black magic - but RAW will allow you to experiment, determine the correct WB, and understand what to expect for the next time..

I didn't know there was that big of a difference between 4800K and 5300K for WB until I started shooting RAW and would adjust WB in PP to see the difference. Its not just RAW itself that helps the photographer, it's the use of RAW that requires extra PP that helps the photographer learn..

If one has regular problems with white balance and/or exposure, thensome more study and practice is the best solution. If one hasn't yetput in the study and practice, or if one is simply lacking in theaptitude to get WB and/or exposure correct, then certainly shootingRaw is one way to compensate. But recommending that others should beinsecure about *their* abilities is inappropriate..

I apologize if my statement came across as a flame to other photographer's insecurity or inability in image making. That isn't what I was trying to suggest, and I think most others understood this..

The experienced photographer should *expect* a good capture with eachshutter release, not just *hope* for a capture that is good enoughthat it can be salvaged in post-processing. (Experimental shotsaside, of course.).

Of course this is ideally true. We all hope for the best. But as I said earlier, many shots have a bit of luck built into them. Digital has allowed us to take many more exposures than we otherwise would have while using film. It also allows the photographer to experiment with all those exposures which in turn allows them (ideally) to learn much faster..

Of course none of this works unless the person actually leaves the house and starts shooting..

Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #80

You might be interested in this; which I posted a while back..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257.

After looking at the above; so what great improvement is raw?..

Comment #81

Devnull wrote:.

Example: One day bike trip. Shoot RAW, probably about 300 imgs.Download them (10 minutes), import them (2 minutes), do the tweakingson, say, 200 files (10 minutes), press "export" and head for asandwich. Total time, maybe 25 minutes. Tweakings will include bwconversions, exposure (yes!) and curves adjustments, saturation,white balance adjustments, noise removal (if shot late in theevening) and so on. With jpg, you'll get your images in 5 minutes,and, pray, how long does it take you to adjust 200 jpgs? Heck, howlong does it take you to open and close 200 jpgs in Photoshop?.

I understand the benefits of raw in that you have more to work with on the computer. I also understand doing something in batch to save time but it means applying the exact same condition to everything being processed. It seems very much like shooting jpeg and letting the camera do the batch processing instead of the PC..

The camera has digital effects controls that let you set contrast, color saturation and sharpness to suit the photographer as well there are a host of color modes that typically once set apply to all shots taken. I didn't include wihte balance or iso in that because I personally make many wb and iso changes through out the day. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems these are basically the changes one makes batch when working with raw..

Once you get to individual file processing I realize raw gives you more to work with, a perfect example is a sunrise or sunset where the foreground is dark and underexposed. Raw will allow you to process a whole lot more detail out of the dark than jpeg..

My whole point is there are valid reasons to use RAW and valid reasons not to. Don't be so narrow minded as to say one is the only way to go. We have testomony right here in this thread from folks earning a living using jpeg, as well some use raw. Same with those who just do this for fun. Justify for yourself what ever you want but just because you opt for one way don't write it off as the only way to go....Dennis..

Comment #82

GaryDeM wrote:.

After looking at the above; so what great improvement is raw?.

That low dynamic range scene doesn't show much..

Anyway, just the fact the data is linear is reason enough for me to use raw...

Comment #83

Timskis6 wrote:.

I'm not *telling* you (anyone) that they *will* screw up WB at onepoint or another. I meant to suggest that the average shooter willnaturally tinker with WB if they shoot JPEG - if WB isn't perfect, orif they forget to change it for the next scene, most if not all ofthe subsequent images will be difficult to salvage..

How is "forget to change it for the next scene" different from "screw up"?.

This is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. An experienced photographer doesn't forget to change it for the next scene. And in this digital era where photos can be reviewed instantly on the LCD, there is simply no excuse for someone to shoot multiple photos at the wrong WB setting& aside from making a "beginner's mistake"..

Let me be clear about my intent: this IS a beginner's forum, and beginners might well profit from using Raw as a safety net for some of their mistakes. My concern is that these forums seem to suggest that even experienced photographers need a safety net for WB and exposure, which is not true. A few individuals might have a personal challenge in those areas, but there is no reason that the vast majority of experienced photographers should be making random mistakes in WB or exposure..

Photography is not only a combination of skill, talent, and equipment- a bit of luck is always present in most cases. The former threewill help net a good result, but in many situations you just have tobe in the right place at the right time..

Certainly there can be luck involved in getting an opportunity, but what has that got to do with the topic?? How does shooting Raw or JPEG affect whether or not you'll be in the right place at the right time?.

There should be no luck involved in getting a good capture when presented with the opportunity..

I apologize if my statement came across as a flame to otherphotographer's insecurity or inability in image making..

I didn't see it as a flame at all. I saw it as an implication that there is no one who can trust their ability to get WB and exposure correct. I saw it as just one more of those implications, one of thousands made by many different posters in many different forums here. All of them implying that WB and exposure are inherently unpredictable and that everyone regardless of experience needs to have a safety net..

There is a big difference between "I can't rely on my ability to get WB and exposure right all of the time" and "you can't rely on your ability to get WB and exposure right all of the time"..

There is a big difference between "when I screw up my WB or exposure, I'm glad I shot Raw" and "when you screw up your WB or exposure, you'll be glad you shot Raw"..

There is a big difference between "beginners often find Raw a useful safety net for WB and exposure mistakes" and "everyone needs Raw as a safety net for WB and exposure mistakes"..

That isn't what I was trying to suggest, and I think most others understood this..

Statements like "Sooner or later you'll be simply amazed when the WB is slightly off" certainly make it sound like you believe that everyone struggles with WB..

The experienced photographer should *expect* a good capture with eachshutter release, not just *hope* for a capture that is good enoughthat it can be salvaged in post-processing. (Experimental shotsaside, of course.).

Of course this is ideally true. We all hope for the best..

Did I not just say "the experienced photographer should& not just *hope* for a capture that is good enough"???.

I don't hope. I *expect* my captures to be correct. Hoping is for people who don't really understand what they're doing. "Point and pray" may be inevitable for beginners, but the experienced photographer does not rely on Providence for getting a good capture..

As we progress in our photography, we should all be gaining confidence in our mastery of the craft. Photography is more fun when you're secure in your abilities...

Comment #84

A monkey can take a greycard shot and set custom WB. It isn't skill or talent. It's a waste of time...

Comment #85

This is also why some must have the 18-2000 zoom lens. I go out and shoot with just one prime most of the time and shoot JPEG. I also shoot ISO 800 on up fairly often and have made up to poster size from them. I have learned not to obsess over WB because the color of light is so variable. Right now, all the walls on the entire floor are the same color, yet I see several different hues of that color. Which is the right one?.

Capturing the light does not always mean making it appear that the photo was taken at high noon...

Comment #86

People keep saying things to the effect of: if you need to change WB or exposure a lot with a jpeg, you're stuck, so you should have used RAW..

But I change the WB and bring up the exposure on my jpegs all the time... what is this supposed degradation that happens to jpegs that I keep being warned about?.

Seriously, I'm not asking rhetorically... what happens to a jpg if you mess with it too much? Does anyone have an example?.

I keep hearing that RAW will give me the flexibility to pull & tug on the image without worrying about affecting quality... can someone show me a "broken" jpeg so I know what to look out for?.

If I save a new version of the jpeg after I "mess" with it, isn't that "safe" enough, or no?!..

Comment #87

But if you cannot see the difference, why use raw? if you postulate that raw is better which is what the raw lovers state, then the difference between the 2 versions should be able to be seen. please do not tell me about limited dynamic range, try again, it was a brilliant day the aluminum on the peak was very bright and the shadows under the car and in the garge were very dark. the scene had plenty of dynaimic range.THE 2 PICS ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME..

Also, I have printed the 2 shots on 4x6 and they Are virtually identical..

Remember wht MR Spock of Startrek said "a difference that makes no difference is no difference"...

Comment #88

The following is the JPG from the camera, followed by a raw file edit, followed by an attempt to edit the camera jpg to match the raw edit..

Note the lost detail in the sky and posterization in the JPG edit..

BTW, I don't care if you don't like the colors or saturation etc, the point is to show how JPGs lack what can easily be valuable information..

JPG from the camera:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Raw edit:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Camera JPG edit.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #89

GaryDeM wrote:.

But if you cannot see the difference, why use raw? if you postulatethat raw is better which is what the raw lovers state, then thedifference between the 2 versions should be able to be seen. pleasedo not tell me about limited dynamic range, try again, it was abrilliant day the aluminum on the peak was very bright and theshadows under the car and in the garge were very dark. the scene hadplenty of dynaimic range.THE 2 PICS ARE EXTREMELY CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME..

Also, I have printed the 2 shots on 4x6 and they Are virtuallyidentical..

Remember wht MR Spock of Startrek said "a difference that makes nodifference is no difference"..

So the JPEG from the camera looks like the JPEG from the RAW converter, when the RAW converter uses the same variables as the camera..

They should not just LOOK identical, they should BE identical...

Comment #90

But you are saying the raw should be better, are you not?..

Comment #91

GaryDeM wrote:.

But you are saying the raw should be better, are you not?.

Only if you are editing..

Comment #92

You are introducing unknowns into your own arguement. such as, was the camera set up to take the best posible jpegs, as though raw did not exist and you will be shooting jpeg forever. did you put the necessary effort into making the jpegs the best possible, I have. was both your jpeg and raw shots set the optimum exposure. without being there noone else has any idea of what the sky really looked like in person to the naked eye. we the observers has no idea if any of the images matches the real scene.



If you say that the converted raw image was tweaked and looks prettier, I might even agree with you. but that does not answer MY fundamental question:which image IF ANY looks the way the scene did when the pictures were shot?.

If the answer is none I will give you points for mastering pp but not for photographically capturing the scene as it existed during the shoot. the last is what I am after. it may not be the prettiest or have great saturation or contrast or details in the shadow areas visable; but did it look like the scene as I saw it? if yes, then I as a phtographer would be completely satified..

To me since I looked at the scene in my raw/jpeg test either printed or as shown on my monitor either photo looks like the scene as I saw it. if someone tells me that colors do not pop or the contrast is low or is not the prettiest in the scene that shot but it looks like the original scene, then I am a success in taking the picture as far as I am concerned...

Comment #93

Note-clint, we are probably talking from 2 different points of view...

Comment #94

Note- clint, we are probably taling from 2 different points of view..

You are judging your pics from after the pp. if the pic is good then you are satisfied..

I am judging how the pic looks as I bring it to the pc but before any pp but sharpening in the pc...

Comment #95

Bill Randall wrote:.

Not long ago someone posted about their trip to Alaska and theglaciers they saw. When they got home they spent some time removingthe blue cast that appeared in their glacier photo's. Glaciers arecomposed of old ice. The old ice is blue..

Without addressing how blue old ice may be (because I don't know), a classic arctic ice shot often involves (what appears to be) white ice illuminated by a blue-cast light source. Even if the ice has native blue components, the WB will be thrown off due to the blueness of the light source..

Blue reflecting off a white surface is blue..

At least that's how I see it.......

Dpreview & pbase supporterhttp://www.pbase.com/digirob..

Comment #96

I shoot exclusively jpg and have not regretted it. I find that raw slows things down too much in camera, transferring, and on my computer (which is plenty fast). And it eats up memory like a six-year-old on a pop tart. But that's JMO!.

Raw vs. jpg has been hotly debated for years ala the Mac vs. Windows jihad..

There are so many good (and bad) opinions and facts on both sides of the issue that it can be safely assumed that neither raw nor jpg holds all the advantages or disadvantages. Try both and choose what works best for you with your particular needs and wants..

Dpreview & pbase supporterhttp://www.pbase.com/digirob..

Comment #97

This is exactly the point that I'm trying to make. An experiencedphotographer doesn't forget to change it for the next scene. And inthis digital era where photos can be reviewed instantly on the LCD,there is simply no excuse for someone to shoot multiple photos at thewrong WB setting& aside from making a "beginner's mistake"..

Let me be clear about my intent: this IS a beginner's forum, andbeginners might well profit from using Raw as a safety net for someof their mistakes. My concern is that these forums seem to suggestthat even experienced photographers need a safety net for WB andexposure, which is not true. A few individuals might have a personalchallenge in those areas, but there is no reason that the vastmajority of experienced photographers should be making randommistakes in WB or exposure..

So, you find yourself in a beginner's forum voicing advanced amateur technicals, and can't understand why or how anyone can possible screw up WB? Give me a break. 99% of people buying into DSLRs buy the body and the kit lenses. They have never heard of a grey card, ISO, WB, or APS-C..

It's much easier to learn in RAW, when you can sit down and take 30 minutes playing with WB, rather than shooting 15 shots in JPEG each with a different WB setting, then opening them ALL up on your computer to examine. It's just utter madness...We giving advice to beginners here, remember?.

Photography is not only a combination of skill, talent, and equipment- a bit of luck is always present in most cases. The former threewill help net a good result, but in many situations you just have tobe in the right place at the right time..

Certainly there can be luck involved in getting an opportunity, butwhat has that got to do with the topic?? How does shooting Raw orJPEG affect whether or not you'll be in the right place at the righttime?.

A bit of luck with Auto WB will work fine every time, especially if your camera has an external WB sensor. About 5% of my shots don't nail WB in auto mode - even though my camera has an excellent external WB sensor. It's not worth my time to shoot a grey card for every set of shots in hopes those 5% will turn out better. It'll take me all of 3 minutes in PP to change them..

BTW, have you EVER seen a beginner shooting a grey card? Have you EVER seen a beginner fumbling with WB in every set of shots?.

I'm confident with my abilities - you can agree or disagree with what I produce.A very, very small example:http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=24882473.

Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #98

I was visiting friends a few weekends ago and snapped a couple of "gotcha" shots. It's not like I was going to pull out a grey card while saying, "hold that pose." Nor was I going to open up the menu and make a guess of WB - I would have guess around 5700K, still a bit off apparently when processed in RAW..

Original7500K.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

RAW processed 5300K.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Now that I'm looking at it, I would have bumped it to 5400K..

All of that aint gonna happen at the time of exposure.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #99

5D DjD wrote:.

My whole point is there are valid reasons to use RAW and validreasons not to. Don't be so narrow minded as to say one is the onlyway to go. We have testomony right here in this thread from folksearning a living using jpeg, as well some use raw. Same with thosewho just do this for fun. Justify for yourself what ever you wantbut just because you opt for one way don't write it off as the onlyway to go..

I fully agree with you. RAW has it's advantages, jpeg has it's advantages as well. Both have their place. I felt I had to speak up because: i. the person I was replying to was heavily biased against raw - therefore my answer was accordingly pro, and ii. bad information was spread..

Here, let me point some jpeg advantages, for good balance:- smaller file size, both on card and on archival medium;- faster writing to card, therefore emptying the buffer faster.

- faster availability (i.e. download the pictures from the card and upload to client/web site imediately; also faster upload due to size).

- better "instant" compatibility (i.e. let's download my pictures on your laptop and look at them)- very good quality, on par with raw in most cases.

However, postprocessing speed is not one of those jpeg advantages .

/d/n..

Comment #100

JulesJ wrote:.

Melissa a lot of people have strange ideas about RAW and oftenparaphrase what they have read elsewhere instead of giving advice onwhat they have actually tried and tested.We shoot RAW and jpg in our studio all the time.We produce prints (and only prints from the work shot. The sizes goup to anything as large 40" across. Therefore every shot taken musthave that ability.95% of our images printed and sold are taken from the jpg, not the RAW.Surprised? I hear the crowd oohing in disbelief. Nay RAW IS BETTERthey cry!!!No it's not. Not if you get your exposure correct! That's the catch..

But....if you do get your exposure slightly wrong and have burned outor under exposed areas, that is when that RAW file that you shot willsave your bacon and you can retrieve information..

So don't let me hear that RAW is better. Just stick to RAW can bebetter..

But yes shoot it always, but don't bother go to the extra work ofusing it if you don't need it because you are wasting your time..

...and if I don't get barrage of brainwashed dissenters to this Iwill be surprised..

Jules.

Thanks Jules.Makes me feel better about JPEG..

- Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #101

JulesJ wrote:.

What sort of computer do you have? A RAW file from my D2x opens inunder a second.Jules.

RAW takes so much more time and space. I suppose I would have to get a good workflow going before I attempt RAW and JPEG..

Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #102

BAK when I need touse a RAW fileI have it and the jpg both open on the screen together which is how I work. It enables me to adjust the RAW file before opening it in PS whilst comparing it to the jpg which has the problem..

One thing I always notice is the colour difference. The jpg is brighter and more 'Fuji' if you know what I mean. The RAW is definately less saturated and sort of 'greyer'. But there is definately a difference.Jules.

BAK wrote:.

Melissa, try to find some non-weirdo photo that someone has takenusing both a RAW original file setting and a decent JPEG setting paying attention to white balance, contrast settings, etc..

See if you can tell any difference that matters..

I've never been able to..

For weirdo shots let's say you are inside a restaurant with thesun bouncing off a green colored building across the street, thereare quaertz lights shining down on the table where your food is, andthere are incandescent lights illuminating the art work ont he walls.RAW is not a bad iidea under these circumstances..

BAK.

Black moles do not destroy information...

Comment #103

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

Clint Sanders wrote:.

Sdyue wrote:.

You can tweak more effectively in RAW than jpeg?.

Yes. Especially if you want to adjust the tone curves or whitebalance. In JPEG - forget about it..

These are all image exposure control/capture parameters,.

Those parameters really aren't dependent on how much light you lethit the sensor (exposure).

Capture parameters, ok..

Wb & tone curves, couldn't you set this in-camera anyway ahead of theshot; this is normal with digicams, and not dSLRs, how can that beright?.

Yes, and you can also set those parameters into the RAW converter andbatch process..

It would make sense to do capture parameters in-camera if it was available, otherwise RAW might make sense if it wasn't available in-camera.

Plus wouldn't tone curves or white balance vary for every shot (givenevery shot is different most of the time); and thus you'd have toopen every file to tweak them even in RAW?.

Yes, they do vary slightly for every shot. You can batch process, andget what the camera would have given you with JPEG, but then you cango back and tweak the pictures you feel are worth tweaking..

So in the end you still have to go over every shot for fine tweaking (as one would anyway had one shot in jpeg).

What does this extra ability and freedom cost? It costs the amount oftime to batch process the RAW into JPEG (a few minutes), disk space(not an issue for me), and the number of pictures you can capture inburst mode ..

I can see advantage of batch conversion for burst mode (when many shots run through similar conditions that require similar adjustments)..

Comment #104

Timskis6 wrote:.

Original7500K.

RAW processed 5300K.

Now that I'm looking at it, I would have bumped it to 5400K..

All of that aint gonna happen at the time of exposure..

Why not, it would've been self-evident if you had live-view (exposure simulation).

You could've chosen 5400K at the time before the shot because 7500K was so wrong!.

Ok, you didn't have live-view.now I see...

Comment #105

I've only just started having a go at shooting RAW (recent photos on http://www.flickr.com/photos/philllister ).

I've noticed that straight out of the camera the jpeg just hasn't got the same detail as the RAW (tones, textures), even if the RAW sometimes looks flatter. But there's more in the RAW image to work with..

I think I'm a recent convert!.

Phill..

Comment #106

Now I'm 98% raw. Been shooting DSLR for 5 years. The reason I switched? My jpegs required pp'ing no matter what, even if just a little sharpen or levels adjustment. But after upgrading to Photoshop CS3 and playing with Adobe Camera Raw - which has a ton more control over older versions, I can do over 90% of my processing right there in the raw conversion, and with better control. I still do jpegs when I'm doing multiple shots of a subject for pano's or merge to HDR situations..

That said, there's nothing wrong with shooting jpeg if you're getting good results. Now that I have a 40D (was shooting a D60) I'll probably play with jpeg/raw for a bit...

Comment #107

Bill Randall wrote:.

Melissa926 wrote:.

Preferences.)I don't care to do too much post processing either. Perhaps croppingor straightening. In my estimation, converting RAW too much tends tolead away from true photography to another form of art..

In my opinion what you have said is true. However, I word itdifferently. I attempt to document what I see, not what I would liketo have seen..

From what I understand, RAW requires a lot of post processing andthen to save that as JPEG and keep the original RAW intact.Therefore, the "RAW" file is manipulated to what the photographerseyes sees or what he wants us to see -showing their expression -showing their vision of the expression. I look at it as not the true"as is" photo..

Not long ago someone posted about their trip to Alaska and theglaciers they saw. When they got home they spent some time removingthe blue cast that appeared in their glacier photo's. Glaciers arecomposed of old ice. The old ice is blue..

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove mewrong, I reserve the right to change my mind..

I appreciate your comments Bill..

Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #108

I have always shot JPEG, but since getting a Canon 40D two weeks ago I believe I am going to try some RAW this weekend. Since I don't use PP very often except for re-sizing for the purposes of e-mail or posting on pbase, it might be a challenge. I will probably opt for the combination of RAW/JPEG just for comparison purposes until I become more familiar with RAW.dcr1998http://www.pbase.com/dcr1998..

Comment #109

Philllister wrote:.

I've only just started having a go at shooting RAW (recent photos onhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/philllister ).

I've noticed that straight out of the camera the jpeg just hasn't gotthe same detail as the RAW (tones, textures), even if the RAWsometimes looks flatter. But there's more in the RAW image to workwith..

Perhaps true for jpegs using default camera settings, what if you set the camera so details are as high as possible (setting contrast lowest/sharpness lowest); how would this compare to RAW then?.

I'm assuming that lowest setting does not in itself remove details, just that it does not suffer from settings any higher that might remove details...

Comment #110

Digirob wrote:.

Without addressing how blue old ice may be (because I don't know), aclassic arctic ice shot often involves (what appears to be) white iceilluminated by a blue-cast light source. Even if the ice has nativeblue components, the WB will be thrown off due to the blueness of thelight source..

Blue reflecting off a white surface is blue..

One day in Patagonia while on a boat I got up before sunrise. The boat was near a glacier. When I went out on deck everything was blue. The other passengers on deck all had blue faces, the boat was blue - everything. I was able to capture the moment. As the sun came up the blue started to disappear.

It was enough old blue ice to cast a blue hue to everything at sunrise..

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...

Comment #111

Devnull wrote:.

Example: One day bike trip. Shoot RAW, probably about 300 imgs.Download them (10 minutes), import them (2 minutes), do the tweakingson, say, 200 files (10 minutes), press "export" and head for asandwich. Total time, maybe 25 minutes. Tweakings will include bwconversions, exposure (yes!) and curves adjustments, saturation,white balance adjustments, noise removal (if shot late in theevening) and so on. With jpg, you'll get your images in 5 minutes,and, pray, how long does it take you to adjust 200 jpgs? Heck, howlong does it take you to open and close 200 jpgs in Photoshop?.

/d/n.

Not long at all. I only make minor adjustments to some of the photos..

I'll try RAW as in your example and see how it goes. Where do you save RAW and JPEG? Melissa.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/michiganmelissahttp://www.flickr.com/photos/melissa926Promises should be made not to be broken..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #112

Sdyue wrote:.

Why not, it would've been self-evident if you had live-view (exposuresimulation).

Yeah, indeed! It's really the easyest thing in the world to correct an exposure's color temperature on a lcd viewed in the same light temperature! Self-evident, indeed. I really wonder how those people wearing color-tinted glasses cope with the color modifications.

Ok, you didn't have live-view.now I see..

It's really good that live view is around. Now one can throw away all the color calibration gear and sell away those color-controlled lights. We have live-view, finally!!!.

/d/n..

Comment #113

Devnull wrote:.

Yeah, indeed! It's really the easyest thing in the world to correctan exposure's color temperature on a lcd viewed in the same lighttemperature! Self-evident, indeed. I really wonder how those peoplewearing color-tinted glasses cope with the color modifications.

I think correction here is relative.what is correct for you?.

It's on your monitor; and those who correct it to the same standard you use, but only for those with corrected monitors!.

It's really good that live view is around. Now one can throw away allthe color calibration gear and sell away those color-controlledlights. We have live-view, finally!!!.

No matter how correct you use calibration, it's net effect is for reference sake, it doesn't mean the image you create necessarily pleasing to all who view it (if viewers view it with calibrated monitors even)..

However, live-view at least allows me to make the image pleasing to my target intentions. all the calibration tools available will not make that image 'better' in my eyes because I simply don't have the ability to remember exactly where in a scenery all the colors are exactly 'true' or 'off'..

And every tweaking you/or anyone else does on a pc (with or without calibration) means it is separated in time/space enough that unless you have 100% perfect recollection of the differences between shots captured versus what was out in the field that day (exposure choices can even alter that as well as lighting) will not make a photo more pleasing except for the fixes you make to satisfy yourself..

I suppose the only purpose of calibration is for the publishing process (print?)..

Oh, yes, and maybe for those with 'perfect' color vision (which i'm uncertain whether it exists)..

Can you remember the exact color of the lighting you use?i cannot, so I don't think I can somehow duplicate it.and if the lighting is less than perfect, why duplicate it anyway?and if lighting varies, what are you trying to calibrate the 'look' to?.

E.g..

For me, having live-view allows my limited colorsense to take a shot that is pleasing only to me. and since my recollection is far from perfect, i'd only notice that my shirt color is a bit off on my pc, but I won't be able to remember exactly how it should look on my pc in order to 'fix' the shirt color to match what it should look like after the fact since the exact sunlight (and surrounding reflections) are now absent while away from that shooting spot (time/place)..

I suppose with a calibrated monitor, etc. you can now see that 'off' shirt color with it, and only if you have perfect recollection, fix it perfectly. otherwise, whatever you do fix it to with imperfect recollection is a fiction. and that fiction is about as good as not fixing it at all. (given all other colors looking 'ok' in the scenery)..

Comment #114

I shoot Jpeg 99% of the time as I am way to busy/ lazy for RAW! If you get the exposures ok then I find I can still edit jpegs fine if I need to. I can choose the compression ratio of Jpegs on my Olympus E500 which helps as the jpegs are greatI have too little time to mess about with raw , if I had the time I would still only use raw a little more maybe 5 - 10 % of the time..

Regards.

Tim Hugheshttp://www.artwanted.com/timhughes..

Comment #115

Sdyue wrote:.

I think correction here is relative.what is correct for you?.

There is an "absolute" correction: the RGB (or CYMK) colors read from a color card with a colorimeter should match the values read with the eyedropper in photoshop. That is sensor calibration. Also, the values on the screen should be the same measured with a colorimeter and in Photoshop. That is screen calibration. And the values read from a print with a colorimeter should match the values read in Photoshop. That is printer calibration..

It's on your monitor; and those who correct it to the same standardyou use, but only for those with corrected monitors!.

Yes, indeed. So, what's the solution? Don't color corect because others don't? I'd rather know that what I see is what I get..

No matter how correct you use calibration, it's net effect is forreference sake, it doesn't mean the image you create necessarilypleasing to all who view it (if viewers view it with calibratedmonitors even)..

2 issues here: first, one can not correct for others; second, pleasing does not necessarily mean accurate! You can bet that I process differently if the prints are to be seen in natural light or in tungsten light..

But that's not beginner level talk. Most people prefer a slightly warmer color balance than it really was, and that's probably the thing to be reminded..

However, live-view at least allows me to make the image pleasing tomy target intentions. all the calibration tools available will notmake that image 'better' in my eyes because I simply don't have theability to remember exactly where in a scenery all the colors areexactly 'true' or 'off'..

That's simple. Use a white card. Correct for the white. Your colors should be pretty close to what they were..

And every tweaking you/or anyone else does on a pc (with or withoutcalibration) means it is separated in time/space enough that unlessyou have 100% perfect recollection of the differences between shotscaptured versus what was out in the field that day (exposure choicescan even alter that as well as lighting) will not make a photo morepleasing except for the fixes you make to satisfy yourself..

That's practically false. You can use "reference" colors. A white garment, the green grass, the white of the eyes or teeth. And ESPECIALLY the skin color. Again, now we are color correcting aestethically. But without proper color management, you can't, because what you see is not what you get.



I suppose the only purpose of calibration is for the publishingprocess (print?)..

Not the only. The main practical. But also to give one a reference..

Can you remember the exact color of the lighting you use?i cannot, so I don't think I can somehow duplicate it.and if the lighting is less than perfect, why duplicate it anyway?and if lighting varies, what are you trying to calibrate the 'look' to?.

E.g.for me, having live-view allows my limited colorsense to take a shotthat is pleasing only to me. and since my recollection is far fromperfect, i'd only notice that my shirt color is a bit off on my pc,but I won't be able to remember exactly how it should look on my pcin order to 'fix' the shirt color to match what it should look likeafter the fact since the exact sunlight (and surrounding reflections)are now absent while away from that shooting spot (time/place)..

It depends what are you talking about. Shooting products, you want the colors to be pinpoint accurate, and then a bit more saturated. Shooting people, you want the skin to look good - usually a yellow cast. If you shoot landscapes, you want to impress and be plausible. On top of that, you add personal preferences and choices. If you shoot a long exposure before dawn or after dusk, what color should be the sky? If you shoot a performer under a blue or red light, do you color corect or not?.

Those are artistical choices, but they should be based on a decent calibration (I am not saying perfect!). This way, your snow won't be green or purple on other displays... or in print...

Comment #116

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.