I Took an on-line photography course (26 hrs.) this pass week and I finally took advice that I have received before
Jan 25, 2014 19:04:47 #
The biggest take-away from the course, and of probably most of you already do this - at least the serious photographers in the group - shoot in raw. There were some startling examples given demonstrating the difference between what can be done with a raw file in PP versus a JPEG which has already been optimized and compressed by the camera.
I have been shooting in raw the last two days, and frankly it is a different world. I am amazed with the information that can be extracted from a raw file to turn a seemingly mediocre file into a great looking shot. The PP latitude is like night and day - pun intended. Although I certainly picked up a few tidbits along the way, this one change is having a major influence on my work.
If you don't shoot in raw, and are serious about your work, just do it!!
I have been shooting in raw the last two days, and frankly it is a different world. I am amazed with the information that can be extracted from a raw file to turn a seemingly mediocre file into a great looking shot. The PP latitude is like night and day - pun intended. Although I certainly picked up a few tidbits along the way, this one change is having a major influence on my work.
If you don't shoot in raw, and are serious about your work, just do it!!
Jan 25, 2014 19:14:40 #
Jan 25, 2014 19:19:01 #
Nikonian72 wrote:
Is there an echo in here?
Yup, I have been told enough times, but when I see a graphic demo of the difference, even a stubborn guy like me had to relent!
Jan 25, 2014 19:28:49 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
So, what prevented you from believing before now?
pedalmasher wrote:
Yup, I have been told enough times, but when I see a graphic demo of the difference, even a stubborn guy like me had to relent!
Jan 25, 2014 19:42:09 #
What online course did you take, and did you think it was worthwhile other than the valuable takeaway of shooting in RAW?
Jan 25, 2014 19:50:49 #
Jan 25, 2014 20:10:58 #
lighthouse wrote:
So, what prevented you from believing before now?
It just seemed like it would be a hassle to have such large files when my results were consistently good shooting in JPEG. It still a bit of a hassle in that after I manipulate the file, I have no desire to store endless large files so after I finish with my keepers and turn them into finished, acceptable JPEG form, I have the added work load of ridding my library of the raw files. I know many keep the original raw files which I would consider for 5 shots (on the rare occasion when I get one that I rate that).
Jan 25, 2014 20:12:07 #
joer wrote:
26 hours?
Yes, there was 26 hours, actually probably a couple hours longer than that as it played out starting every weekday last week at 12 PM EST and running typically to almost 7 with a couple of breaks and lunch.
Jan 25, 2014 20:24:15 #
Jan 27, 2014 21:42:01 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
pedalmasher wrote:
..........my results were consistently good shooting in JPEG. ..........which I would consider for 5 shots (on the rare occasion when I get one that I rate that).
You don't consider this to be an oxymoron?
Jan 27, 2014 22:30:38 #
lighthouse wrote:
You don't consider this to be an oxymoron?
No, AAMOF, the person who conducted the course I took last week opined that anything over a 3 star rating is probably rare or non existent in the first three years of shooting. You can have consistently good results without having 5 star ratings which implies perfection. I have yet to shoot anything perfect, but I will continue on a quest for it.
Jan 27, 2014 22:34:43 #
Jan 27, 2014 22:48:52 #
rszer57 wrote:
what online course was this?
It was a course conducted by John Greengo:
http://www.johngreengo.com/learn_fodp.html
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.