larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Please keep in mind that this was 14 years ago...I didn't know everything then that I know now. But I did know that I probably needed to go as far down the scale as I could to compensate for the red light.

And you are correct that I had the benefit of a subject that didn't move around a lot...but it took maybe 5 seconds to set things up...not a long time. I never felt like I could count on my earlier Nikons to do a good job with AWB, so have never adopted it as part of my process. Probably need to give the newer models a fair shot at it, but it seems that so much of what I shoot has a predominant color that I feel it's just a risky choice.

While it is helpful to generalize in discussions like this, absolutes can be dangerous. For example, I find that I prefer that my images be more saturated than lots of other folks. The exception is shots of people. Excessive saturation is just not attractive on photographs of human beings.

Concerning ETTR...after some experimentation, I have decided that Highlighted Weighted Metering is a pretty serviceable option for me in a lot of situations where I know that I will be editing later. That's almost, but not quite, ETTR. But for me, if the camera is capable of 11 or 12 or 13 stops of dynamic range, then I can live just fine with 10 or 11 or 12 stops of information. Most of what I shoot doesn't need to be an "ultimate image." I'm even known to use Matrix metering sometimes.

But night sky images do push the envelope. They require using the entire range of the D850's sensor, and they require working quickly when making panoramas to minimize the effect of the earth's rotation. During the 8 or 9 minutes required to shoot a 10 or 11 shot panorama, the earth rotates about 2.5 degrees. That's really about all you have to give without creating problems with stitching the ccomponents. Oh...to get the proper balance between blue, white, and red stars, WB needs to be set close to 5800K...pretty close to the "Sunlight" icon. No possible way to do this SOOC or in JPEG. And if you want to be able to look at the back screen and check whether you have something that might be useful, you have to select "Flat" in Picture Control. Anything with higher contrast will make everything disappear, even if it's there.

So I agree that methods must be tailored to subjects. The ability to adjust and adapt is critical.

10MPlayer Loc: California

OMG, ever heard of the search function? Seriously, I hate to be the grumpy old geezer to say this but if you searched UHH you would find about a hundred thousand threads titled JPEG vs. RAW or vice versa. Next it'll be Nikon vs. Canon, probably misspelled Cannon.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

with Canon I think it's under picture style menu but I might be wrong.Which setting would you adjust and by how much

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

Great examples above, thank you. You can also easily have the advantages of RAW without post processing by opening the manufacturer's free software (NX Studio, View-NX-I/Canon DPP4) and export or output to TIFF, or whichever is your preferred format. The photo will be rendered using your in-camera picture control settings. So, in the end, you don't lose THAT capability (to control your exposure options) and you retain the simplicity, as well as the ability to further do SOME enhancements. There is no need for one versus the other. JPEG is simply a step-down from the original captured data and is only useful to email/post to sites that impose limitations on size and format.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

Very well put, thank you. And, again, if you don't want to edit images, just bring it/them into your processor and export.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

You have a lot more latitude with RAW. In other words, you can be off a lot more and still get great images with RAW. I finally converted two years ago, used to just shoot Jpeg. thinking I could control the outcome through careful exposures. But I was wrong. I can get much better results using RAW so that is all I use now. If you have the time to make all adjustments and time to check your exposures before going on to the next shot you might be OK in Jpeg. But once you switch, there is no going back. And really, Post is easy with the sliders, you see exactly what your getting as you slide the sliders.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

Canisdirus

The compromise is to sit in the RAW while you process in JPEG.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

You'll be a more successful RAW picture maker.

SteveG Loc: Norh Carolina

You know, everyone is not at the same place that you might be in there photography. If it's not a topic that interests you, why don't you just move on to one that does?

Chadp Loc: Virginia Beach

Is this forum all about you?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Haha, you are being assimilated...

It's a game, a contest, perfect out of the camera: "I WIN!".
It's a self imposed goal/requirement.

"Must... resist....PP...".
A self-imposed restriction.

Less PP work if it does.
Oh well if it doesn't.
I have more important stuff to worry about than competing in a one person contest.


"But it's a challenge!" they say.
...Yea, whatever floats your boat.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Oh geez, not again. Shoot whichever format you want. jpg is akin to Polaroid photos... you get what you got. RAW is akin to shooting film which provides a good deal of creative ability in processing. Check here for what can be done. Keep in mind the SOOC RAW images are planned. They weren't "fixed" in Ps. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-698075-9.html#12279645
--Bob

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So many people worry about what floats someone else's boat.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The thing to remember, though, is that raw files are going to have to be processed in order to be printable. There's no way to directly print an image with 14 bits of depth without something getting either lost or badly distorted.

It's like when using a program like Photomatix to combine multiple JPEGs into a single HDR image. The last step has to be tone mapping to determine how all that information is going to be "corralled" in a manner that allows it to be printable or viewable on a screen.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Not just printable.
Raw files have to be processed to be viewable.