Shooting RAW
May 15, 2017 10:02:36 #
Sarg, why shoot both if I'm not even going to look at the jpg file? Post processing is an inherent part of making a photograph. Oh, and I'm single. So, I've no need any excuses.
--Bob
--Bob
ole sarg wrote:
Why not shoot both it don't cost nothing?
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
May 15, 2017 10:06:19 #
rmalarz wrote:
Moreover, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, it seems likely that if you convert a RAW file to JPEG using the software supplied by your camera manufacturer, you will get exactly the same JPEG file - without the waste of space on you memory card and without the extra delay between shots for saving two image files rather than just one.Sarg, why shoot both if I'm not even going to look at the jpg file? Post processing is an inherent part of making a photograph. Oh, and I'm single. So, I've no need any excuses.
--Bob
--Bob
May 15, 2017 10:08:58 #
RAW or raw data from the digital sensor allows to record lots of information. The data is recorded on a 14 or 15 bits of information while myriad of colors and tonalities are also recorded. It is said that shooting RAW controls noise better but modern JPEG images are doing very well in that respect also.
I have not been able to find a person knowledgeable enough to explain me what happens when I want to print a RAW file in a commercial lab and I have to convert all that information into a JPEG. What happened to all that 14 bits of information that it is now only 8 and what happened to the wide color space (used most often during editing with RAW) when I compress the file to the sRGB color space, a considerably smaller color space. It is obvious that I have lost lots of information.
I shoot RAW but not as much as I did in the past. I am very selective using RAW with my subjects. Some of my best shots have come from using JPEG files and many of my 13x19 enlargements have come from JPEG images.
Let me repeat it again, I use RAW often but not for all of my subjects. I have been very pleased and satisfied with the beautiful colors and details I get from my JPEG images.
When I feel like a racing driver I usually rent a Corvette.
I have not been able to find a person knowledgeable enough to explain me what happens when I want to print a RAW file in a commercial lab and I have to convert all that information into a JPEG. What happened to all that 14 bits of information that it is now only 8 and what happened to the wide color space (used most often during editing with RAW) when I compress the file to the sRGB color space, a considerably smaller color space. It is obvious that I have lost lots of information.
I shoot RAW but not as much as I did in the past. I am very selective using RAW with my subjects. Some of my best shots have come from using JPEG files and many of my 13x19 enlargements have come from JPEG images.
Let me repeat it again, I use RAW often but not for all of my subjects. I have been very pleased and satisfied with the beautiful colors and details I get from my JPEG images.
When I feel like a racing driver I usually rent a Corvette.
May 15, 2017 10:10:49 #
ole sarg wrote:
Why not shoot both it don't cost nothing?
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
Well, for one thing, if I'm shooting 5-600 shots in a game, it costs memory and a whole lot of extra time trying to pick one over the other for each shot and I can guarantee that 99% of the time I would pick the RAW file anyway due to the increased latitude.
BTW, this "old guy" has other things to do besides spending unnecessary time sitting in front of a computer screen (like cruisin' around in my Miata!
)May 15, 2017 10:15:47 #
pecohen wrote:
Moreover, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, it seems likely that if you convert a RAW file to JPEG using the software supplied by your camera manufacturer, you will get exactly the same JPEG file ...
You must be shooting with Canon! (just kidding).If that were the case, I would need to get my head examined to do all that extra work and wind up with the same result. Not all pro photographers are imbeciles, you know.
W
May 15, 2017 10:17:38 #
Additionally, Sarg, the exposure techniques I use would render a jpg image that's a piece of crap. Here's a straight out of the camera image. Simply opened the RAW image and export it to jpg. This is what the jpg image would look like.
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
--Bob
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
--Bob
ole sarg wrote:
Why not shoot both it don't cost nothing?
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
I think most of the raw shooters are old guys like myself and pp on the one hand gives them something to do with the time on their hands and the other gives them an excuse to be away from the wife!
May 15, 2017 10:19:59 #
I shoot RAW because my old Photography class instructor would hunt me down and take my camera if he found I was shooting in anything but RAW.
May 15, 2017 10:45:39 #
rmalarz wrote:
Additionally, Sarg, the exposure techniques I use would render a jpg image that's a piece of crap. Here's a straight out of the camera image. Simply opened the RAW image and export it to jpg. This is what the jpg image would look like.
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
--Bob
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
--Bob
Bob- Can you show Sarg what the final product looks like as well to complete the illustration?
May 15, 2017 10:52:19 #
Sure. Here it is.
--Bob
--Bob
Djedi wrote:
Bob- Can you show Sarg what the final product looks like as well to complete the illustration?
May 15, 2017 10:55:29 #
May 15, 2017 11:08:58 #
May 15, 2017 11:28:58 #
rmalarz wrote:
Well, we each have our own reasons for shooting RAW. If that is yours, so be it. Mine is to capture the most data the camera can capture. In fact, my technique of using RAW extends past the usual amount, coupled with metering the subject to accommodate that capture. It's an extension of the control I achieve when shooting film. It's more than just a paint stripe, but I'll make the most of your paint stripe if I photograph your car.
--Bob
--Bob
I agree with this, good way to put it!!
May 15, 2017 11:48:18 #
rmalarz wrote:
Sure. Here it is.
--Bob
--Bob
Nice one!
This is not unlike the difference between recording log video and looking at the finished, color-graded version of same. The log version looks terrible, and you wonder how the color grader got a film-like look from it.
Tonal range compression and expansion is a very useful tool...
I used to over-expose and underdevelop B&W film, and vary the paper contrast, to get similar effects.
May 15, 2017 11:52:44 #
rmalarz wrote:
Additionally, Sarg, the exposure techniques I use would render a jpg image that's a piece of crap. Here's a straight out of the camera image. Simply opened the RAW image and export it to jpg. This is what the jpg image would look like.
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
--Bob
http://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/2015/10/11/1444601010698-d700_2015091301_012_sooc.jpg
--Bob
Of course, this is not the picture you would have recorded if you hadn't planned to work on it PP. I have no idea what the scene would have looked like to my eyes had I been standing next to you when you recorded this, but even simply asking gimp to "fix" it gives something realistic in appearance - and, to be perfectly honest, your final product is very "artistic", but it doesn't look realistic to my eyes either.
May 15, 2017 12:05:13 #
Peterff wrote:
I don't need to feel like a racing driver based upon decals and paint. If I want to feel like that I have a rear view mirror!
Does baking up make you feel like a race driver?
Padre
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.