alann wrote:
Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton for punishment. Love sitting in my room PPing for hours on end (seriously). :)
Me too. I love to shoot, but I also love to process the camera's captures into what I hope are photographs worthy of keeping. It does not really matter if I shot them in RAW or in Jpeg. But when I have the choice, and I didn't when I did my work with compacts that did not support RAW, I always choose RAW now because it keeps me in control of the final conversion to Jpeg. And I delete the RAW files after converting them to optimal Jpegs, except for the really exceptional shots, which are very few.
Detail of Church in Boston
Excellent, but is this an HDR, has a lot of different tones
architect wrote:
alann wrote:
Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton for punishment. Love sitting in my room PPing for hours on end (seriously). :)
Me too. I love to shoot, but I also love to process the camera's captures into what I hope are photographs worthy of keeping. It does not really matter if I shot them in RAW or in Jpeg. But when I have the choice, and I didn't when I did my work with compacts that did not support RAW, I always choose RAW now because it keeps me in control of the final conversion to Jpeg. And I delete the RAW files after converting them to optimal Jpegs, except for the really exceptional shots, which are very few.
quote=alann Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton... (
show quote)
Fantastic image! Wish I could say I took it. I'm envious. (I'm also not nearly as talented.) I'm curious to know what all you did in PP for end product to turn out so spectacularly. Congratulations!
Curious to know where subject church is. Terrific architectural detail. (Also a terrific photograph!)
fstop22 wrote:
Excellent, but is this an HDR, has a lot of different tones
architect wrote:
alann wrote:
Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton for punishment. Love sitting in my room PPing for hours on end (seriously). :)
Me too. I love to shoot, but I also love to process the camera's captures into what I hope are photographs worthy of keeping. It does not really matter if I shot them in RAW or in Jpeg. But when I have the choice, and I didn't when I did my work with compacts that did not support RAW, I always choose RAW now because it keeps me in control of the final conversion to Jpeg. And I delete the RAW files after converting them to optimal Jpegs, except for the really exceptional shots, which are very few.
quote=alann Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton... (
show quote)
Excellent, but is this an HDR, has a lot of differ... (
show quote)
Nope. This is not an HDR image. It is an almost SOOTC shot processed from RAW.
Not sure what SOOTC means. Nice image. Here's one I shot yesterday, cropped to 5 mega pixels because the subject is less than 1/2 inch in length. Simple JPEG. Sorry no recent architecture.
architect wrote:
fstop22 wrote:
Excellent, but is this an HDR, has a lot of different tones
architect wrote:
alann wrote:
Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton for punishment. Love sitting in my room PPing for hours on end (seriously). :)
Me too. I love to shoot, but I also love to process the camera's captures into what I hope are photographs worthy of keeping. It does not really matter if I shot them in RAW or in Jpeg. But when I have the choice, and I didn't when I did my work with compacts that did not support RAW, I always choose RAW now because it keeps me in control of the final conversion to Jpeg. And I delete the RAW files after converting them to optimal Jpegs, except for the really exceptional shots, which are very few.
quote=alann Raw 100% of the time. I am a glutton... (
show quote)
Excellent, but is this an HDR, has a lot of differ... (
show quote)
Nope. This is not an HDR image. It is an almost SOOTC shot processed from RAW.
quote=fstop22 Excellent, but is this an HDR, has ... (
show quote)
i thought shooting raw or jpeg was a choice, not a contest.
I shot JPEG because I like the end results and ease. Less time at computer more time shooting. I was hoping everyone that shot Raw would show me significant reasons and results for going thru the extra work.
jimberton wrote:
i thought shooting raw or jpeg was a choice, not a contest.
fstop22 wrote:
Blown out large areas on the fender and hood. Lost details in shadows down below, Does not prove your point.
33RIVERS wrote:
fstop22 wrote:
You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoot raw but Where's the Photos. I went back and checked everyone that shots raw, 100% of the Time.. Nikonian is the only one that post photos. Most of you Raw shooters have Not Even Posted One Photo.... And the few that have maybe 5 or 6.. You Rave how great Raw is but you post No Photos or just a couple. All of my shots are in JPEG. Not the best in the world, but you guys ain't even Posted anything to Look at.. Is your Photos still Processing?? I wasted one week of my life on Raw, that was almost 2 years ago. If you have to rely on Raw processing to pull data from the shadows and highlights of todays cameras, maybe you should read a book or two on photography. I recommend Understanding Exposure edition3 by Brain Peterson. There are qualified Raw shooters on this format.but you got to Post some decent photos before you start Trashing shooting in JPEG. Stop giving opinions when you got no photos............
You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoo... (
show quote)
stop22, I don't think anyone was trashing shooting in JPEG or any other format for that matter. It is simply a matter of preference and whether or not you choose to spend time in PP. As for posting photos, I for one am rather leary about posting anywhere! I use my work to supplement my income, and there are far too many unscrupulous people out there who find it easier to rip off the amateur or pro photographer just because they "found it on the web, it must be free", even though our copyright is plainly visible. But if you must see my work to validate my claims, please refrain from commenting on my © across the image, and concentrate on the body of work. Respectfully 33 Rivers (WJB4)
quote=fstop22 You Guys are Killing Me. You tell e... (
show quote)
Blown out large areas on the fender and hood. Lost... (
show quote)
Fstop22, thank you for the critique. With that being said, I think that may be enough to validate my point for shooting in RAW. I can go back and make any adjustments I wish at a higher level in PP without affecting the original image in any way. And to your response of the computer being better, even my MacBook can't make an adjustment for color temperature no matter whether I run LR4 or DPP. But I do agree that there are times when I batch process and allow the program to do the work, select what I want and ditch the rest. This is usually done when shooting family get togethers. And if you've done your homework you should be able to do this while uploading or importing depending on the program you use. Either way just shoot and be happy, you have a fabulous eye for Avian Photography!
A quick correction. Now one must remember that the idea is not just a photo. But a photo taken by a journalist of the time perhaps, after all it is a 33 Packard.
There is no argument, if you like to shoot in JPEG and that satisfies your needs then there is no need to shoot in RAW. I like the artistic effects and do a lot of PP that is why I shoot in RAW. Few more examples which are heavily processed.
fstop22 wrote:
I shoot JPEG all the time and just love the fact I can download, and process in minutes. With so many people shooting and Shouting shoot in Raw. I just want to hear a good argument for me to come over to your side. I want someone to show me that the benefits out weigh the headaches. In my Opinion Raw has a better chance of turning out bad than good. After all the processing is in your hands. How can the average photographer process a file better than a Computer?? And if I want to add my tweaks, just go from the JPEG file. I should mention that I never process the original file and always have that to fall back on.
Brucej67 wrote:
I will reframe from calling you names, and agree to disagree with you, however you are not making any point yourself. What are you saying that shooting in JPEG is better than RAW? Or are you saying do not PP your photographs to the degree that you need raw?
fstop22 wrote:
What, this was the size of a postage stamp?? I stand by the facts. Color off, focus off... and since we can't blame the raw we will blame you.. But the Point is you still did not make your case, that shooting in Raw is Better. But go ahead and call me names if it makes you feel better.
Brucej67 wrote:
You can't blame the camera or RAW on this, it is my interpretation of what I see (I am 70% color blind) and if you wern't such an asshole you would appreciate that. It so happens on this picture I sent it in to Digital Camera and recieved praise for it. And by the way focus is not off, I blew it up to 198% and focus was on.
Brucej67 wrote:
I beg your pardon; I shoot RAW (NEAF in Nikon terms) and have posted many shots (including my avatar). Check this one out: :hunf:
fstop22 wrote:
You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoot raw but Where's the Photos. I went back and checked everyone that shots raw, 100% of the Time.. Nikonian is the only one that post photos. Most of you Raw shooters have Not Even Posted One Photo.... And the few that have maybe 5 or 6.. You Rave how great Raw is but you post No Photos or just a couple. All of my shots are in JPEG. Not the best in the world, but you guys ain't even Posted anything to Look at.. Is your Photos still Processing?? I wasted one week of my life on Raw, that was almost 2 years ago. If you have to rely on Raw processing to pull data from the shadows and highlights of todays cameras, maybe you should read a book or two on photography. I recommend Understanding Exposure edition3 by Brain Peterson. There are qualified Raw shooters on this format.but you got to Post some decent photos before you start Trashing shooting in JPEG. Stop giving opinions when you got no photos............
You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoo... (
show quote)
I beg your pardon; I shoot RAW (NEAF in Nikon term... (
show quote)
You can't blame the camera or RAW on this, it is m... (
show quote)
What, this was the size of a postage stamp?? I sta... (
show quote)
I will reframe from calling you names, and agree t... (
show quote)
I shoot JPEG all the time and just love the fact I... (
show quote)
Yes, It's all about having fun
33RIVERS wrote:
fstop22 wrote:
Blown out large areas on the fender and hood. Lost details in shadows down below, Does not prove your point.
33RIVERS wrote:
fstop22 wrote:
You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoot raw but Where's the Photos. I went back and checked everyone that shots raw, 100% of the Time.. Nikonian is the only one that post photos. Most of you Raw shooters have Not Even Posted One Photo.... And the few that have maybe 5 or 6.. You Rave how great Raw is but you post No Photos or just a couple. All of my shots are in JPEG. Not the best in the world, but you guys ain't even Posted anything to Look at.. Is your Photos still Processing?? I wasted one week of my life on Raw, that was almost 2 years ago. If you have to rely on Raw processing to pull data from the shadows and highlights of todays cameras, maybe you should read a book or two on photography. I recommend Understanding Exposure edition3 by Brain Peterson. There are qualified Raw shooters on this format.but you got to Post some decent photos before you start Trashing shooting in JPEG. Stop giving opinions when you got no photos............
You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoo... (
show quote)
stop22, I don't think anyone was trashing shooting in JPEG or any other format for that matter. It is simply a matter of preference and whether or not you choose to spend time in PP. As for posting photos, I for one am rather leary about posting anywhere! I use my work to supplement my income, and there are far too many unscrupulous people out there who find it easier to rip off the amateur or pro photographer just because they "found it on the web, it must be free", even though our copyright is plainly visible. But if you must see my work to validate my claims, please refrain from commenting on my © across the image, and concentrate on the body of work. Respectfully 33 Rivers (WJB4)
quote=fstop22 You Guys are Killing Me. You tell e... (
show quote)
Blown out large areas on the fender and hood. Lost... (
show quote)
Fstop22, thank you for the critique. With that being said, I think that may be enough to validate my point for shooting in RAW. I can go back and make any adjustments I wish at a higher level in PP without affecting the original image in any way. And to your response of the computer being better, even my MacBook can't make an adjustment for color temperature no matter whether I run LR4 or DPP. But I do agree that there are times when I batch process and allow the program to do the work, select what I want and ditch the rest. This is usually done when shooting family get togethers. And if you've done your homework you should be able to do this while uploading or importing depending on the program you use. Either way just shoot and be happy, you have a fabulous eye for Avian Photography!
quote=fstop22 Blown out large areas on the fender... (
show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup:
PCL92 wrote:
I use RAW all the time. Why would I invest in a 16mp camera and then allow the camera to decide which pixels to throw away?
A jpg does not throw away pixels. RAW has nothing to do with pixel dimension.
fstop22 wrote:
Not sure what SOOTC means. Nice image. Here's one I shot yesterday, cropped to 5 mega pixels because the subject is less than 1/2 inch in length. Simple JPEG. Sorry no recent architecture.
[/quote]
SOOTC is short for "Straight Out Of The Camera", a common abbreviation amongst photographers, especially those who hate to edit, or choose not to, or are completely inept at editing. I certainly do not want to say that Jpeg shots cannot be excellent, as your image proves.
I do feel that having total control over your interpretation of the raw image that the camera captures is better than letting the camera (or more accurately, the camera's manufacturers) decide how to display white balance, contrast, sharpness, exposure, and saturation in your final image.
Of course you do have some, or even a lot of control over these issues if you know what you are doing. Which is why so many good photographers choose not to use RAW. But I choose to control my images, just as I did in B&W film using the zone system.
Sunrise in the Atlantic. Taken with RAW.
quote=fstop22]You Guys are Killing Me. You tell everyone to shoot raw but Where's the Photos.[/quote]
If I take a poor photo in RAW, it's still a poor photo. I haven't read anywhere, that shooting RAW makes you a better photographer.
I shoot RAW because I can make changes to a marginal photo that may not be possible in jpg.
so what if the subject has been discused before,neilp is sharing his experience.it was helpful to me and maybe to others.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
