Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 03-12-2013   #41
zvos1
Registered User
 
zvos1 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Down Under
Posts: 280
I only shoot THE REAL RAW: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm

;-)
__________________
Of course it's all luck. - HCB

M4 and some digital stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #42
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,955
May I assume that you regard yourself as a "reportage" type of shooter not an "artistic" shooter? I am the latter and I take the opposite view although I start from the same premis.....I am only interested in the image. The final image that is.

I have found that post processing produces gold in terms of improving the image that comes from the camera and any one who does not get this probably has not really tried to post process properly. Yes it consumes time but to my mind its every bit as important as the actual taking of the image and I enjoy doing it.

Its analagous to working in the dark room when shooting film. People like Ansel Adams knew and understood the above. People like Robert Capa were never interested in darkroom work however. Adams was an artist. Capa was a reporter. It all depends on where you are coming from.

Besides if you are into quality, the quality you get from RAW files is undoubtedly better. Sometimes its subtle, often its not. If your camera does this, try shooting an image and saving it both as a RAW and as a JPG simultaneously. Then process the RAW file to optimise it. Nine times out of ten you can just pull more detail out of the RAW image and this is especially crucial when there are blown highlights etc. The end result is a better image. As I say............................... All I am interested in is the image.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #43
Murchu
Registered User
 
Murchu is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Ireland
Age: 41
Posts: 829
Shooting raw suits me quite a lot. With my workflow centred on Lightroom, its easy and painless to import my raw files, and apply a general processing preset to give me results I like. I don't edit each raw file individually, only reserving that sort of indepth editing for final selections, and found after tinkering a bit to create general colour and black and white procesing presets, that I get results that please me far more than the jpeg profiles in camera. This way I also reserve that extra bit in the tank that raw files offer, to draw on when needed with an image.

The only thing I give up by shooting raw over jpegs is files that are about 60% bigger (8 vs 5mb), and the need to run the files through an editing program to convert them to a final output format. The latter is no big deal, as even if I was shooting jpegs, I would be importing them into Lightroom anyway.

Shooting raw does not have to be complex, contrary to popular opinion.
__________________
Damien

http://500px.com/Murchu
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #44
hepcat
Former PH, USN
 
hepcat's Avatar
 
hepcat is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eastern Iowa
Age: 65
Posts: 1,268
Hmmm.... interesting perspective. What I'm reading here is that .jpg is convenient. And it is. I used to shoot all my weddings with my Olympus E1/3/5 in .jpg because it was adequate, and convenient. I seldom printed larger than 8x10 and all was well. I also shot most weddings using the Olympus gear on auto/auto with TTL flash. Again it was spot on 98% of the time, fast and convenient.

Now, I'm shooting different cameras. The .jpg files are nice, but there's so much more I can do with the DNG files. It's a matter of satisfaction I suspect. How high quality of a product am I capable of producing? I'm no longer shooting auto/auto with TTL. I'm back to producing my work the "hard way" where I am controlling every part of the process, and I'm much more satisfied with the output. I'm not leaving the quality of my work to whoever programmed the camera.

After ten years with digital, I'm being a photographer again. It's pretty cool. And I like it.
__________________
Leicas and lenses

Find me on the web...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #45
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
Shooting RAW a waste of time?

Of course not...


And it's not taking up hours and hours of fiddling sliders either.

When your shooting style is coherent enough to get good exposures from JPG's straight away, you're also shooting coherently enough to make adjusting RAW a breeze!
__________________
Gegroet,
Johan Niels

I write vintage gear reviews on www.johanniels.com |

flickr | instagram |
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #46
nobbylon
Registered User
 
nobbylon's Avatar
 
nobbylon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nederlands
Posts: 2,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
You could manually set white balance with a white card before you made the shot.
I agree on WB issues, you COULD attempt to set it more acurately for each individual set of shots but why worry about it when there is already more than enough to sort out. It would take more time and also confine one's choices later.
I personally don't know of many wedding photographers who shoot jpeg only. I also don't know of many who shoot solely jpeg for any other work purely because it restricts your choices later. I used to do certain corporate jobs with jpeg but only because I know the venue and know what is expected in the final product however I've gone back to RAW for these also.
As for file size, my main reasoning for not going D800 was because using RAW the files are just too big with this camera. I've already got TB's on multiple Caldigit drives and it just keeps on growing! my 12mp Nikons give more than enough quality for what I need.
The debate will always be there. RAW vs jpeg? Use what works for you. If you don't want to invest the time into getting a work flow that works for you with RAW then use jpeg. If you come across tricky lighting and colour situations then just understand that you would possibly be better off using RAW.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #47
daveleo
what?
 
daveleo's Avatar
 
daveleo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: People's Republic of Mass.
Posts: 3,686
@nobbylon

thanks for that reply.
I say "to each his own", but I do want to understand why people have made their choices.
__________________
Dave

  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #48
Jamie123
Registered User
 
Jamie123 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,826
Sitting DOWN to pee a waste of time?

I don't think so. It's really more hygienic and these days with smartphones you can keep yourself busy so you don't get too bored.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #49
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveleo View Post
I say "to each his own"
Yes! There's no debate needed here. Surely, everyone should just do their own thing, and leave others to do theirs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #50
back alley
IMAGES
 
back alley's Avatar
 
back alley is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: true north strong & free
Posts: 49,241
i prefer medium rare myself...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #51
hausen
Registered User
 
hausen is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Auckland
Posts: 910
Like it Jamie
__________________
David
Auckland, NZ

Far too many cameras & lenses!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #52
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by haempe View Post
RAW is a waste of time - if you have no idea what you can do with it...

With all due respect , and in respect to RAW - most people do not have any idea.

Would you shoot film only to have it developed and printed by K-Mart or a 1 hour photo? If that is your only goal, great. Most people want "more". More control, more hands-on in the image making process, higher quality.
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #53
kbg32
neo-romanticist
 
kbg32's Avatar
 
kbg32 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 5,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbhv55 View Post
Yes! There's no debate needed here. Surely, everyone should just do their own thing, and leave others to do theirs.

Lets end it at that.
__________________
Keith

http://keithgoldstein.me/
Keith’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #54
umcelinho
Marcelo
 
umcelinho's Avatar
 
umcelinho is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 36
Posts: 1,332
get a 3 year old jpg of a shot you like a lot.
get a 3 year old raw file of that same photo, process it using current raw processing technology.
compare both.
take conclusions.
__________________
__________
@marcelography on Instagram
behance.net/marcelography
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #55
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
The only drawback of shooting jpg is finding the camera with a jpg engine that's suited to one's taste.

Fuji is the undisputed king of jpg but out there there are cheap and even forgotten cameras that produce exquisite jpgs, finding one, well that is the hard part.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #56
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by umcelinho View Post
get a 3 year old jpg of a shot you like a lot.
get a 3 year old raw file of that same photo, process it using current raw processing technology.
compare both.
take conclusions.
You can only improve the IQ of a photo, not the photo itself.

But even there, jpg files can be processed non-destructively in almost any software today - especially the free photoshop CS2.

With jpg no more expensive software and updates and all that nonsense.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #57
jody36
Registered User
 
jody36 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Macon Ga. USA
Posts: 253
I dont process raw or film, to each his own
__________________
http://jodycriswell.blogspot.com
LX3-fuji x-e1-zorki 4- konica auto s3- konica auto s2- fed 2
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #58
one90guy
Registered User
 
one90guy is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Age: 72
Posts: 326
I tried both when I got my digital camera, but on my old computer and monitor I could see no difference. Just replaced computer and monitor and think I will have to revisit both. I do confess that what I print using jpg is fine for me. So my answer would be do what ever makes you happy.
David
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #59
stitchohana
Registered User
 
stitchohana is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Singapore
Posts: 365
i shoot in raw so I can adjust WB & exposure if i dont like the outcome when im viewing it on my iMac.

There are times you just can't adjust the WB/exposure setting fast enough else you will miss the shot you wanted. That where RAW files comes in handy.

This is just my personal preference
__________________
Flickr| Blog | Twitter| Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #60
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
I have no doubt RAW files will give better results with processing when it comes to IQ only, but processing also means a lot of time spent in pressing buttons and playing with sliders, the stuff that does not interest me because I'm interested in the photos not sitting there and "playing" with photos.

I have begun to actually see shooting RAW as making one's work more than it should be and a waste of time, not to mention making one susceptible to be a photoshoper than a photographer.

My new must-have criterion for buying a new camera, great jpgs.
whatever floats your boat.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #61
-doomed-
film is exciting
 
-doomed-'s Avatar
 
-doomed- is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 797
It could be a waste of time.
One would say it really depends on what you do. Do you shoot for the news (on tight deadlines) where processing RAW files is more or less a luxury, or do you shoot longer term projects or personal stuff?
If you have a camera that has dual card slots, you can do both.
Often the OOC .jpgs are what I submit for print. Often times I send from the scene via eye-fi card and smartphone.
When I am on my own and working on personal stuff, I'll shoot RAW.
To me, it's a situational thing. On the job I shoot .jpgs out of necessity.

So, breaking that down it works like this for me.

Personal: RAW
Longer term and feature work: RAW (.jpg depending on time)
Daily work: .jpg's
__________________
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #62
dof
Fiat Lux
 
dof's Avatar
 
dof is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco, California
Posts: 727
I enjoy getting the most from my photos. Consequently I'm just too lazy to shoot jpegs. When I'm out in the world reacting to the things that catch my eye and inspire me, composition, focus and exposure are quite enough parameters to concentrate on.

To get what I want from my images displayed on a computer or in print, shooting jpegs would demand that I add white balance and histogram checks to the experience. I cannot be bothered with something that can be better judged in an environment better suited to the task. Using a calibrated monitor in a room with my favorite music playing on the hi-fi is just that for me.
__________________
-J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #63
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe's Avatar
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbg32 View Post
With all due respect , and in respect to RAW - most people do not have any idea.

Would you shoot film only to have it developed and printed by K-Mart or a 1 hour photo? If that is your only goal, great. Most people want "more". More control, more hands-on in the image making process, higher quality.
It seems you missed the bitter sarcasm...

I spend 5 years or so in the development of my post processing skills and have now to read ... waste of time.
And even more, I do this only to cheat my clients...
Always a challenge to stay peaceful if ignorance and arrogance go hand in hand...
__________________

haempe.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #64
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
You can only improve the IQ of a photo, not the photo itself.
But even there, jpg files can be processed non-destructively in almost any software today - especially the free photoshop CS2.
With jpg no more expensive software and updates and all that nonsense.
LOL ... Photoshop costs the same for editing JPEGs as it does for editing raw files. ;-)

Remember everyone: Keep it friendly and civil.
Film vs digital, raw vs jpeg, Canon vs Nikon ... never changes, always the same old stuff.

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #65
Sid836
Registered User
 
Sid836 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,132
It is always better to have the option to save a photo latter than be sorry you have missed that great perfect moment for a stop.
Also, if one would like to make B&W copies of a photo latter, it is better to work on raw files as you will be offered with a lot more flexibility in terms of getting the desired B&W result.
If all o.k., you can always convert to JPGs latter and get rid of RAWs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #66
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
You can only improve the IQ of a photo, not the photo itself.

But even there, jpg files can be processed non-destructively in almost any software today - especially the free photoshop CS2.

With jpg no more expensive software and updates and all that nonsense.
I'm sure you read it already, that the photoshop CS2 was not free for everyone but for users who already had a license. But there are enough free photo editing software on the market.....if you get used to them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #67
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,198
It's not shooting RAW that's a waste of time, it's the processing that is. Well, at least to me. I'm perfectly fine with the jpegs that come out of most recent cameras. Of course, I've shot slides in the past, so I'm very keen on getting exposure right already while shooting.
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #68
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,955
For me this question reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke where someone asks him "Is sex dirty?" Woody replies "Only if its done right!"

Is shooting RAW a waste of time? Yes if its done right - you see I actually LIKE mucking about in post processing. For me its an integral part of the creative process. Without it photography is not much more than making "snapshots".
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #69
Pablito
coco frío
 
Pablito's Avatar
 
Pablito is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Salsipuedes
Posts: 3,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
Film vs digital, raw vs jpeg, Canon vs Nikon ... never changes, always the same old stuff.

G
and none of it has anything to do with photography!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #70
tbhv55
Registered User
 
tbhv55 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Devon, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
I actually LIKE mucking about in post processing. For me its an integral part of the creative process.
+1... I like the challenge of trying to improve an image - whilst trying to achieve the balance required to avoid ruining it by overdoing the processing.

I also, quite simply, find it an enjoyable means of relaxation - especially when accompanied by a glass of wine, and some music...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #71
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 674
Much as I'd like to be the nice guy and say lets not argue, the fact remains that you can do things in raw that just can't be done in jpg, and for me the most useful of those is the full range of WB, if you do try to change WB on a jpg in post, the colours balance very quickly falls apart.
That said, if you never shoot in mixed lighting and your not blowing highlights then knock yourself out jpg wise. In the vast majority of situations a well exposed Jpg is every bit as good as a raw file, but don't confuse that with always.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #72
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 58
Posts: 1,789
Is shoot RAW a waste of time? Yes and No
Do people waste a lot of time processing RAW files YES

1 Just because there's a slider or a button there doesn't mean you have to use it.
2 Know when to say when: To many people fall into the trap of thinking that if I can get a good image from 3 minutes of processing, then spending 30 minute on it will make it a great image.
3 Learn to automate as much of the process as possible, by creating and using actions/presets or simply pasting setting from one image to others.
Some program's like LR even let you assign a set of processing instructions during the import phase.

So is RAW better the JPEG no, it just a different choice, just like TRI-X vs HP5 or Canon vs Nikon. Know that's hard to accept for some
__________________
M. Cary
Trying to see something new whither I'm visiting someplace new or a place that I've visited many a time before.


  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #73
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,647
shooting raw isn't much of an extra work these days, with tools like Lightroom. dont want to play with sliders? even the default settings are often good enough for net-sized pictures.

like some comments above, personally am also attracted to idea to return raw files recorded now, in 10-20 years from now with at-the-time available whizz-bang technology, and see whats possible. bought my first raw capable camera 2006 and started shooting raw soon after. current software tools were still distant dream back then, and so were my shooting and editing skills mediocre at best.

so raw, especially for backups. shoot raw+jpeg if want fast copy without any edits to Flickr, Facebook, iPad...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #74
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by dof View Post
I enjoy getting the most from my photos. Consequently I'm just too lazy to shoot jpegs. When I'm out in the world reacting to the things that catch my eye and inspire me, composition, focus and exposure are quite enough parameters to concentrate on.

To get what I want from my images displayed on a computer or in print, shooting jpegs would demand that I add white balance and histogram checks to the experience. I cannot be bothered with something that can be better judged in an environment better suited to the task. Using a calibrated monitor in a room with my favorite music playing on the hi-fi is just that for me.
Same here!

Not just laziness, either. Sometimes (quite often) I don't have time to set every parameter (including WB) perfectly: I'm too busy taking pictures in poor, mixed lighting, in a hurry.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #75
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
LOL ... Photoshop costs the same for editing JPEGs as it does for editing raw files. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn
I'm sure you read it already, that the photoshop CS2 was not free for everyone but for users who already had a license.
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #76
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Since most cameras are able to shoot RAW+jpg, its worth while to try and see if you can match the jpg files of the camera with your processing.


This is not one of those either/or arguments, its basically an approach to photography that some might find useful and others may not.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #77
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,630
I don't get the idea that shooting RAW waste's one's time... it takes no more time to load RAW files into LR than it does to load JPGs into LR. If the time saved is that you don't use LR to organize your photo library, then... ok. I wouldn't trust maintaining my photos to Windows Explorer/OSX Finder, and they certainly don't provide me with fast tools to do things like keyword photos.

So, I don't see where time is saved, unless your photos are just truly disposable things of the moment: if it's snap and load it into Facebook and done, then ok, JPGs take a step out of the process. With a wifi P&S camera, you can be really quick with it. But for anything beyond that, I don't see the time savings as significant.

With that said, and knowing that hard drives are cheap cheap cheap, I see no reason to limit photos to less data by not shooting RAW. I've rescued good pictures from underexposed shots that I never could have done with a JPG.

I posted this set for a friend, who didn't understand how much data loss there is involved with JPG. Not a great set of photos, but pretty demonstrative of what you might be giving up when you shoot JPG only. A dark photo in a nightclub might be really something, if you can adjust the RAW image, but might be unsalvagable if it was a JPG.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #78
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: back in the woods
Posts: 3,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
I have no doubt RAW files will give better results with processing when it comes to IQ only, ...

My new must-have criterion for buying a new camera, great jpgs.
Answering such a question with reasonable arguments seems a waste of time to me, as you have stated the obvious already yourself.
For what it's worth : If your are satisfied with jpg out of the camera then go for it.
Why should anyone try to convince you to put more effort into your own processing, if this seems a waste of time to you? Enough waste...
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #79
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,754
Can we say OoC JPG is like lab made process and conversion from RAW is like your own process, which you can redo several times with different chemicals and/or times?
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #80
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by btgc View Post
Can we say OoC JPG is like lab made process and conversion from RAW is like your own process, which you can redo several times with different chemicals and/or times?
That still implies that RAW takes a lot more time. How are people spending time with RAW? Are people loading them through Photoshop or something? I can see the time sink there, as the Open dialogue is a lot of options, and has to be gone through for each one.

But Lightroom or Aperture is load and done. Now you're free to do whatever you want: process or not.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:11.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.