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 03-13-2013   #81
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Image quality is a marketing gimmick and also a convenient aspect of photography that anyone irrespective of their skill level can grab onto.

The postcard-conditioning of people since childhood is hard to shed, after all postcards are the perfect examples of 'perfect photographs', technically.

Without image quality factor why should people pay for large sensors, expensive lenses and what not? After all most photographers are out there to produce postcards, even if they're not aware of it... But then the whole history of great photography is photographs that are not like postcards.

In the end this argument becomes a question of photography aesthetics. Postcard aesthetic with obsessive image quality consideration or allowing the photographs to develop their own aesthetic, the hallmark of all great photographs, a certain look that becomes a signature. While most of us cannot reach those levels, at least its better to try rather than go for the postcard perfection, which in the end of the day looks like any other postcard...

A jpg is also postcard-like but then by allowing for 'mistakes', its possible to get a more unpostcard-like look.

I'm not even mildly interested in postcards.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #82
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
That still implies that RAW takes a lot more time.
Can't argue with that. Sure, extra steps take time. If I don't have time and requirements, I shoot JPG. Or don't take picture. Not much to discuss here. There are restaurants and there are burger places, basically both serve food but difference is in details. Some things take time.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #83
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
In the end this argument becomes a question of photography aesthetics.
I would disagree. I would say it's an argument about options. I have done things to distress or add film grain to digital images: it's why people buy things like SilverEFX or DxO Filmpack.

The difference between a Holga and a Leica isn't that one makes better art: it's that one permits more choices in what your final art will look like. You can make a Leica shot look like a Holga shot (to a reasonable approximation, to me), but you can't make Holga images look like Leica.

Last edited by hteasley : 03-13-2013 at 08:29. Reason: added a clarification
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #84
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
Thank you that you looked up the license text for cs2.

Quote:
The serial numbers below should only be used by customers who legitimately purchased CS2 or Acrobat 7 and need to maintain their current use of these products.
  Reply With Quote

Capture Write time???
Old 03-13-2013   #85
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,952
Capture Write time???

Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
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.
Overlooking any discussion of time spent on the computer, or transferring files, What about the write time on the camera to the card for RAW or RAW plus Jpg.

It might be interesting to hear from a few people who are using RAW for fast action events.

Sports
Auto racing
Rodeo
Equine events
two year old children at a playground (anywhere other than sleeping)


Do those who specialize in action photography use RAW in burst mode, or rapid sequence on the shutter button?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #86
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom.w.bn View Post
Thank you that you looked up the license text for cs2.
you must be joking right?

putting something out there and saying its not free but if you want it you can take it?

the reason they cannot say its free has to do with the simple fact that it might annoy their customers who paid a lot of money for that product many years ago.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #87
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,615
With digital I capture 100% RAW.

After a gig I bring the cards back to my studio, upload to various external hard drives, then, with my designated "work" drive I go from there.

I make folders to process the RAW files into DNG files, just in case but I still keep software in case I need to look at a RAW file or two down the road. So I question if I need to make dup of RAW into DNG?

Then I work the RAW files, usually color balance, white balance and exposure. That's about it.

Using Photoshop I process the RAW files into JPEGs.

Then I go from there.

I use anywhere from 500 GB to 3 terabyte externals. No images are stored on any of my computers internal hard drives.

For the cameras I use I have slots for two cards so I get a backup immediately. I usually use anywhere from 4 gig to 8 gig cards; however, for my second backup on camera cards I have 16 gigs.

Works for me.

Please note: I'm pretty much retired but still make business portraits and someone wants me to photograph their wedding later this month! Some fritter money! Maybe another film camera body or, lets see, lenses!

Hope this info may help you.
__________________
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
-Yogi Berra
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #88
doolittle
Registered User
 
doolittle's Avatar
 
doolittle is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Ireland
Age: 48
Posts: 589
With in camera jpeg you let the camera software make the decision on how the image gets baked. By adjusting the menu parameters available you can have an input into this, but you need to do this before capture occurs. By shooting raw you defer how the image is baked to after capture.

I know what works better for me: I find it more convenient to defer these decisions to after capture when I have more time. If somebody has a different take on it, that's fine too!

As for CS2 being free - I think the Adobe disclaimer makes it pretty clear that it's not. I am no lawyer, but I would not rely on reading between the lines of adobe's intent as a defence. If people have a different take on this, that is no concern of mine, but I think it is wrong to tell others it is available free.
__________________
--

fixerofshadows.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #89
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuzano View Post
Overlooking any discussion of time spent on the computer, or transferring files, What about the write time on the camera to the card for RAW or RAW plus Jpg.
I thought write time was mostly a non-issue with most pro cameras, with dual cards and super-speed processors. If you're in a job where that's critical, I can see calling it "wasted time" if there's a difference and it causes shot loss. I guess I haven't run into issues where the possible difference in write time has manifested as "wasted time" for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #90
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,615
Write time can be an issue with slower cards being less expensive.

However, what I find is as, if not more important, is the "buffer" on the camera that will allow a certain # of images be in temp. storage while being processed. For my work, I like a large buffer. You can tell this on your camera as when you complete a rapid fire # of photos the light will show processing even though you're done shooting.

For me, during certain times where I will have the camera in rapid fire mode (bouquet and garter toss) I like a large buffer.

An aside, I use Quantum flashes at about 1/8th power and pocket wizards during these rapid fire times. The lower power works (quick re-charge) as I set the ISO to around 800 certain times. But that's just another reason to hire a "pro" for an important event.

Or you could use an iPhone.
__________________
Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
-Yogi Berra
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #91
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
 
hipsterdufus's Avatar
 
hipsterdufus is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ferndale, MI
Posts: 883
Doing your best means different things to different people. Perhaps the content, lighting, and composition of the photography took a JPEG user hours to find. Perhaps he knows his camera well enough that he knows that the JPEG engine will produce a beautiful result the first time. Perhaps he spent hours learning his camera so he wouldn't have to shoot RAW.
__________________
-Eric K.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #92
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,207
Well I have shot RAW for many years. I have the landscape thing down so well I really could and have shot Jepg. It depends on how happy you are with the results you are getting.
i think long term storage of images will hold up better stored in RAW as Jpegs degrade each time you save.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #93
Mcary
Registered User
 
Mcary is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia USA
Age: 58
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
i think long term storage of images will hold up better stored in RAW as Jpegs degrade each time you save.
Actually JPEGS degrade each time you re-save them as in apply changes/edits and then re-saving. If you're simply opening and closing them there is no degradation.
So how do you edit JPEG files with out having them degraded by re-saving over and over again? Simple you convert them to TIFFS, PSD or another format that is better suited for editing and re-saving.
__________________
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   #94
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana. USA
Age: 66
Posts: 2,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
Lets analyze some common objections to jpg:

-White Balance

Instagram has made a billion$ business by screwing up the WB of photos. Slide film's charm was incorrect WB... WB accuracy is another digital era photoshoper obsession rather than photographer one.

-Noise

Noise is no longer an issue with almost all digital cameras.

-Detail

If the detail is too small to get lost with jpg then its useless detail.

-Large printing

What % of photographers print that large?

--Dynamic range

HDR has made it quite obvious that too much DR is in fact a sure way to kill an image. High contrast images are still liked by everyone because it only makes one notice the important stuff. I don't care whats in the shadows or highlights if the image is useless to begin with it.


The obsession with RAW is simply due to image quality becoming the only profitable business in photography, from software to sensors to RAW converters...
These points tell me you have never tried RAW....

95% of the RAW converters use THE SAME TOOLS you use to process JPGS.... So, that argument is moot...

The Comparison:

If you have shot color Negative AND color Slide film....this may make more sense to you...

RAW is like shooting Color Negative film: A lot more leeway in exposure latitude. (2-3 stops total). With the added benefit of being able to CHANGE the Color Balance, not just adjust the baked in Color Balance with JPGs.

JPG is like shooting Slide film.... low tolerance to exposure latitude (1 stop--maybe total).. And, you adjust the baked in Color Balance, but not change it.

If you ever made wet prints..... did you just make a straight print w/o contrast adjustments, w/o dodge or burning in adjustments... if you said yes, then OOC JPGs are for you. If not, then give RAW a try... an honest one.... It really doesn't add any workflow... you use the "Save-As" with JPGs edits... not different to converting a RAW file to a JPG... you still use "Save-As" in practical terms.

As I said 95% of the Converters use the same tools as you would use in JPG edits...
__________________
Nikon F, F2, D200
Yashica A TLR
My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #95
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 799
Increasingly most users will NOT have home computer, just a portable tables or similar.

Camera makers are already evolving towards that scenario for the bulk of sales.

It will be interesting to see how much software is built right into the camera for PP and/or is made immediately available to a nearby tablet. This is n't about sharing or cloud computing but about the blunt reality that the vast majority of even the higher-end market (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #96
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
This is n't about sharing or cloud computing but about the blunt reality that the vast majority of even the higher-end market (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
I really don't see that happening for the professional market at all. I think cameras will come down into two camps: pro/enthusiast cameras where sensor performance and lens quality is the big deal, and phones. P&S cameras, super-zooms, I think those things are mostly doomed.

But, given how the high end market works, the need for large screens, lots of RAM, and fast performance with large photo libraries, those folks are always going to want desktop machines for photo processing. The market will be smaller than it is today, and consumers who care about documenting more than image rendering will, as you say, be very content with tablets, phones, and web-based presentation of images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #97
jarski
Registered User
 
jarski's Avatar
 
jarski is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
... (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
not sure how its possible someone even to come such a conclusion... tablet raw editing apps are powerful already now, and just keep improving when hardware to run heavier tasks becomes available. PC's are disappearing everywhere, not only in China. just now, Google announced of killing its Snapseed for desktops, but is investing on tablet/smartphone version, and giving it for users for free!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #98
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by hteasley View Post
I really don't see that happening for the professional market at all. I think cameras will come down into two camps: pro/enthusiast cameras where sensor performance and lens quality is the big deal, and phones. P&S cameras, super-zooms, I think those things are mostly doomed.

But, given how the high end market works, the need for large screens, lots of RAM, and fast performance with large photo libraries, those folks are always going to want desktop machines for photo processing. The market will be smaller than it is today, and consumers who care about documenting more than image rendering will, as you say, be very content with tablets, phones, and web-based presentation of images.
It's already happening. Direct from camera, very minimal editing now for the majority of photojournalism. Editing is a cost centre and web-ready images are by far what is dominant due to immediacy. I'm not talking smartphones or P&S, I'm talking paparazzi to emergency radio band journalists using top Canons and Nikons.

Desktop systems and the sheer volume of images generated digitally are overwhelming. Increasingly even high-volume prosumers are choosing automation, not folder-level organizing. Many here will disagree, but again, the bulk of the emerging markets have never used, and likely never will use, a desktop PC and storage system. Desktop PC photo editing outside of the very high-end professional realm will be come rarer and rarer with so many of those features replaced by algorithm, touchscreen automation either in-camera or on a nearby tablet. The days of sliders for WB and all the RAW tweaks we see now will wither as the economic and time efforts to perform those functions will be replaced.

We're going well beyond replicating the digital darkroom.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #99
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 799
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarski View Post
not sure how its possible someone even to come such a conclusion... tablet raw editing apps are powerful already now, and just keep improving when hardware to run heavier tasks becomes available. PC's are disappearing everywhere, not only in China. just now, Google announced of killing its Snapseed for desktops, but is investing on tablet/smartphone version, and giving it for users for free!
I think you are actually agreeing with me.

A tablet app is not PS, nor LR. Due to power and processing constraints they will be satellites not to a desktop PC even for high-end shooters, but to an online service. Mostly, they will increasingly adjust image parameters with substantially greater automated and intuitive programs. In the same way that matrix metering uses a catalogue matrix to compare and evaluate similar exposures, the same is already happening in camera software anticipating the vast majority of editing needs. In part his is just the evolution of software and processing power, but it is also based on the fact that they are catering to market that will never invest in a desktop PC editing program but wants (and will eventually get) identical results.
  Reply With Quote

The race is changing away from RAW
Old 03-14-2013   #100
kuzano
Registered User
 
kuzano is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,952
The race is changing away from RAW

To some degree, camera manufacturers are moving silently toward high quality camera's with a transfer of Post Processing becomine PRE-processing, or processing before the image hits the computer.

Now that digital camera's have sucked our wallets dry with the ISO race, the Full Frame race, and the Megapixel race, they are finally (at long last) giving us more control over image processing IN THE CAMERA.

One verification of this is more emphasis paid to removing or reducing the impact of low pass (AA) filtering. Nikon and Canon have both addressed this with AA cancelling or removal altogther. Olympus was first with weaker low pass filtering in the E-PL1. Pentax and Sony are on board.

So it looks to me as if other emphasis is being placed on photographers who will take the time to learn everything about their camera's. Those users will be able to set the camera for 2 or 3 custom profiles, and be happy to avoid RAW and computer Post Processing.

Working with the full capability of the camera will improve OOC images and reduce emphasis on Post in the computer. I think the important question will be whether one wants to spend time learning the full capability of your camera, or learning a near insurmountable learning curve in Lr or Photoshop.

I jumped on the E-PL! when it arrived in the market and did not shoot one RAW capture after that. That's been about four years. The OMD Em5 followed, winning the DPreview Camera of The Year award for 2012.

Ima happy camper. Regardless of the emphasis of this poll, no more RAW for me.

Post??? it remains to be seen as I am making a move on either the E-PL5 or EM5 in the next 30 days.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #101
jordanatkins
Registered User
 
jordanatkins is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: California
Posts: 106
Shooting RAW a waste of time? Only with a Fuji...
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #102
igi
Registered User
 
igi is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 298
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.
Lol if you shoot JPEG, your camera is the one doing the photoshopping for you. Try shooting RAW and see if the unprocessed file looks good to you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #103
igi
Registered User
 
igi is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
It will be interesting to see how much software is built right into the camera for PP and/or is made immediately available to a nearby tablet. This is n't about sharing or cloud computing but about the blunt reality that the vast majority of even the higher-end market (Asia, even Japan, and other emerging economies) are skipping entirely the concept of the home PC and therefore the entire concept of the digital darkroom on one.
A digital darkroom isn't exactly tied down to a home PC. As long as a machine computes, it can be a digital darkroom. Tablets and smartphones are good examples.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2013   #104
Samouraï
Registered User
 
Samouraï's Avatar
 
Samouraï is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 503
When it comes to the Foveon cameras from Sigma, I find that at times it would be impossible to shoot anything but raw. These cases involve setting the lowest acceptable shutter speed, iso, and aperture for an exposure I know I cannot have enough light for. So I underexpose a shot because I have no choice and I pull the image out, later. Usually I'll get a decent image from impossible light. I am curious, though, do still cameras behave like cinema cameras, wherein they are rated for a native ISO, and any ISP adjustment means nothing as adjustment can be taken care of during raw processing?

To be fair, I shot a few test jpegs on my DP3, and they look pretty decent.

Now, I suppose this is nothing compared to pushing a roll of film a couple stops, but it's the closest thing I can do with a slow digital camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #105
user237428934
User deletion pending
 
user237428934 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
Originally Posted by igi View Post

Lol if you shoot JPEG, your camera is the one doing the photoshopping for you. Try shooting RAW and see if the unprocessed file looks good to you.
An uprocessed raw file never looks good because you can't see it. If you can see it on the screen it's already processed and a raw converter already applied some presets.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #106
S.H.
Picture taker
 
S.H.'s Avatar
 
S.H. is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Bordeaux (France)
Age: 38
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
Image quality is a marketing gimmick and also a convenient aspect of photography that anyone irrespective of their skill level can grab onto.

The postcard-conditioning of people since childhood is hard to shed, after all postcards are the perfect examples of 'perfect photographs', technically.

Without image quality factor why should people pay for large sensors, expensive lenses and what not? After all most photographers are out there to produce postcards, even if they're not aware of it... But then the whole history of great photography is photographs that are not like postcards.

In the end this argument becomes a question of photography aesthetics. Postcard aesthetic with obsessive image quality consideration or allowing the photographs to develop their own aesthetic, the hallmark of all great photographs, a certain look that becomes a signature. While most of us cannot reach those levels, at least its better to try rather than go for the postcard perfection, which in the end of the day looks like any other postcard...

A jpg is also postcard-like but then by allowing for 'mistakes', its possible to get a more unpostcard-like look.

I'm not even mildly interested in postcards.
I do not see clearly the link between the jpeg destructive compression format and "I do not know how to use RAW or why I should" and "what is art".

Seriously, taking pictures is not rocket science :
- you like paper and chemicals, go in a darkroom
- you like digital, go shoot RAW and use a calibrated monitor if possible

If you do not like the craft and do not want to learn it, use a cellphone/instagram or much better a polaroid. The camera and the Nikanotax engineers have done 90% the work. But you will be limited by what they have already made.

I do not see the point in registering here of all places and saying "Image quality is a marketing gimmick", "I don't have the time to look at my own pictures". What do you want here ? Guidance, technical answers, reassurance? Why all the angst?

Also, try speaking to musicians and sound engineers saying "you are manipulated, sound quality is a gimmick, mp3 is fine": it is, yes, if you do not care. I do not, but I'm not trained to spot the difference either and I do not go around saying nobody can.
__________________
some pictures
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #107
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.H. View Post
I do not see clearly the link between the jpeg destructive compression format and "I do not know how to use RAW or why I should" and "what is art".

Seriously, taking pictures is not rocket science :
- you like paper and chemicals, go in a darkroom
- you like digital, go shoot RAW and use a calibrated monitor if possible

If you do not like the craft and do not want to learn it, use a cellphone/instagram or much better a polaroid. The camera and the Nikanotax engineers have done 90% the work. But you will be limited by what they have already made.

I do not see the point in registering here of all places and saying "Image quality is a marketing gimmick", "I don't have the time to look at my own pictures". What do you want here ? Guidance, technical answers, reassurance? Why all the angst?

Also, try speaking to musicians and sound engineers saying "you are manipulated, sound quality is a gimmick, mp3 is fine": it is, yes, if you do not care. I do not, but I'm not trained to spot the difference either and I do not go around saying nobody can.
Hard to disagree.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #108
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
The argument that ends this thread for me is a simple one, I no longer care for image quality.

If the images I produce appeal to me then that is the ultimate satisfaction I can get from photography in this day when no one really cares for other people's photos - I mean I'd be honest, I don't.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #109
benlees
Registered User
 
benlees is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB
Age: 48
Posts: 1,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
The argument that ends this thread for me is a simple one, I no longer care for image quality.

If the images I produce appeal to me then that is the ultimate satisfaction I can get from photography in this day when no one really cares for other people's photos - I mean I'd be honest, I don't.
The great thing about RAW files is that you can make them look worse than JPEGS! Amazing, really.
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #110
upceci
-
 
upceci is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by benlees View Post
The great thing about RAW files is that you can make them look worse than JPEGS! Amazing, really.
The whole effort for me is a waste of time. And when I say I don't care about image quality it does not mean I will make photos worse, I'm saying that let the camera be my photoshop, I'll try to be the photographer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #111
hteasley
Pupil
 
hteasley is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
It's already happening. Direct from camera, very minimal editing now for the majority of photojournalism. Editing is a cost centre and web-ready images are by far what is dominant due to immediacy. I'm not talking smartphones or P&S, I'm talking paparazzi to emergency radio band journalists using top Canons and Nikons.
So, where seconds and minutes are critical, and the actual technical quality of the photo is secondary to its documentary communication, folks are publishing straight from cameras. OK. That says nothing to me that those same pros don't want desktop machines to manage their photo libraries.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #112
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,068
If you're an "Ansel Adams" shooter where your aim is to take a breathtaking "perfect" shot of that mountaintop, and you're waiting for hours/days for the lighting to be jusssst right with your perfectly-positioned Linhof, and your aim is to dodge and burn and spend days, weeks, months in the darkroom until you reach perfection for that ONE perfect print that will be on display in a gallery. And by no stretch are you willing to delegate your post work to some firmware and an algorithm -- then RAW.

If you're trying to subsist as a microstock phtographer shooting and uploading 100's of pictures and hoping that 1 in 10 will sell for $0.25 and you're uploading 1000's of photos a week. JPEG.

Me? I'm in-between. I shoot JPEG. I think that the processing and tech in modern digital cameras do a fine job. However, I convert all JPEGS to PSD, Photoshop's native format using "scripts" function. I delete the original JPEGs. This gives me a "digital negative" but I hate that term. Really what I'm after is a lossless file format with reasonable compressing/file sizes where I can preserve and manipulate layers but not some giant azz raw file that bogs down my laptop with all kinds of extraneous bits and bytes I don't need. I'll let the in-camera firmware do the heavy/tedious lifting. I then have an assortment of actions, presets in the channel mixer, and some favorite tools I like to use in the Nik Collection -- usually a film emulation for color or a black and white one in Silver Effects but I do make use of all the software. I then make various JPEG copies from that one original PSD file with various levels of quickly applied tweeks without introducing recompression artifacts while preserving the original lossless PSD. It's also a fast, streamlined workflow.

I'll sometimes shoot RAW+jpeg in real crappy lighting but that's about it. I think RAW zealots are silly, personally.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #113
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,888
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.
PP is just part of the process as it was with film and a darkroom. I want the control to get the finished image to be what I saw in my minds eye at exposure and to consistently get that I need all the control that raw gives me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #114
JoeLopez
Registered User
 
JoeLopez's Avatar
 
JoeLopez is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 364
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.
To you perhaps, certainly not to all. No need to over generalize
__________________
Minolta A5 - acquired September 2018

Other gear: Minolta X-570, Nikon F3/T, N90s & D750, Fuji X100T
Nikkor 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8 E, Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL, Minolta 45mm f2 & 50mm f1.7

My Flickr | My ebay | Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #115
JoeLopez
Registered User
 
JoeLopez's Avatar
 
JoeLopez is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by upceci View Post
The whole effort for me is a waste of time. And when I say I don't care about image quality it does not mean I will make photos worse, I'm saying that let the camera be my photoshop, I'll try to be the photographer.
We get it.
__________________
Minolta A5 - acquired September 2018

Other gear: Minolta X-570, Nikon F3/T, N90s & D750, Fuji X100T
Nikkor 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8 E, Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL, Minolta 45mm f2 & 50mm f1.7

My Flickr | My ebay | Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #116
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CA
Posts: 8,828
Nice, a thread from 2013! But I'm cool with it cuz I never saw it back then. I think I was still in high school...

If you are happy not having control over your images but lets the corporation that sold you the camera make the call, sure, shoot jpegs.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #117
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
If you're an "Ansel Adams" shooter where your aim is to take a breathtaking "perfect" shot of that mountaintop, and you're waiting for hours/days for the lighting to be jusssst right with your perfectly-positioned Linhof, and your aim is to dodge and burn and spend days, weeks, months in the darkroom until you reach perfection for that ONE perfect print that will be on display in a gallery. And by no stretch are you willing to delegate your post work to some firmware and an algorithm -- then RAW.

If you're trying to subsist as a microstock phtographer shooting and uploading 100's of pictures and hoping that 1 in 10 will sell for $0.25 and you're uploading 1000's of photos a week. JPEG.

Me? I'm in-between. I shoot JPEG. I think that the processing and tech in modern digital cameras do a fine job. However, I convert all JPEGS to PSD, Photoshop's native format using "scripts" function. I delete the original JPEGs. This gives me a "digital negative" but I hate that term. Really what I'm after is a lossless file format with reasonable compressing/file sizes where I can preserve and manipulate layers but not some giant azz raw file that bogs down my laptop with all kinds of extraneous bits and bytes I don't need. I'll let the in-camera firmware do the heavy/tedious lifting. I then have an assortment of actions, presets in the channel mixer, and some favorite tools I like to use in the Nik Collection -- usually a film emulation for color or a black and white one in Silver Effects but I do make use of all the software. I then make various JPEG copies from that one original PSD file with various levels of quickly applied tweeks without introducing recompression artifacts while preserving the original lossless PSD. It's also a fast, streamlined workflow.

I'll sometimes shoot RAW+jpeg in real crappy lighting but that's about it. I think RAW zealots are silly, personally.
Never thought of doing it that way Nick.
Thanks for that , I`ll give it some thought.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #118
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,115
Back in the day, if you shot film, and processed it yourself, printed it yourself in the darkroom, using different grade papers to control contrast, etc.; then shooting RAW is an extension of that.

Back in the day, if you shot Kodak Gold film you bought at the Drug Store, and had it processed/printed at the Fotomat stand alone kiosk in the parking lot; then shooting JPEG is an extension of that.

Best,
-Tim
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #119
Gid
Registered User
 
Gid's Avatar
 
Gid is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Suffolk, UK
Posts: 1,749
https://www.michaelfurtman.com/jpeg_...mparison_photo
__________________
My Gallery

My Top Ten

Gid
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-21-2017   #120
JoeLopez
Registered User
 
JoeLopez's Avatar
 
JoeLopez is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmyjoe View Post
Back in the day, if you shot film, and processed it yourself, printed it yourself in the darkroom, using different grade papers to control contrast, etc.; then shooting RAW is an extension of that.

Back in the day, if you shot Kodak Gold film you bought at the Drug Store, and had it processed/printed at the Fotomat stand alone kiosk in the parking lot; then shooting JPEG is an extension of that.

Best,
-Tim
Well said Tim
__________________
Minolta A5 - acquired September 2018

Other gear: Minolta X-570, Nikon F3/T, N90s & D750, Fuji X100T
Nikkor 50mm f1.8, 28mm f2.8 E, Voigtlander 40mm f/2.0 Ultron SL, Minolta 45mm f2 & 50mm f1.7

My Flickr | My ebay | Instagram
  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 09:42.


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.