Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
could this have been made better
Dec 14, 2012 05:58:41 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
This was taken as a jpg, nd after seeing the discussion on jpg vs raw, do you think this photo could have been made better by using Raw, if so how.personally I dont think so. Ernie
Dec 14, 2012 06:10:24 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Hi Ernie,
In RAW the CA on the beak and the possibly oversharpened background may have been easier to deal with.
In RAW the CA on the beak and the possibly oversharpened background may have been easier to deal with.
Dec 14, 2012 08:05:05 #
Dec 14, 2012 09:17:40 #
erniehatt wrote:
This was taken as a jpg, nd after seeing the discussion on jpg vs raw, do you think this photo could have been made better by using Raw, if so how.personally I dont think so. Ernie
If that bird's head was green, he would have been invisible.
Dec 14, 2012 16:43:17 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
(In RAW the CA on the beak and the possibly oversharpened background may have been easier to deal with.)
Thanks, but your eyes must be far better than mine, I have blown this up beyond pixelation and can see no sign of it, what I do see is a sign of over sharpening. As for the out of focus background, that is how I like it, it shows a continuation of the environment.
(I don't think RAW would have been ANY advantage.
Great photo!!)
Thanks , my sentiments also.
(If that bird's head was green, he would have been invisible.)
Sorry I cannot see the relevance to the question. But it would depend on which shade of green.
Cheers Ernie
Thanks, but your eyes must be far better than mine, I have blown this up beyond pixelation and can see no sign of it, what I do see is a sign of over sharpening. As for the out of focus background, that is how I like it, it shows a continuation of the environment.
(I don't think RAW would have been ANY advantage.
Great photo!!)
Thanks , my sentiments also.
(If that bird's head was green, he would have been invisible.)
Sorry I cannot see the relevance to the question. But it would depend on which shade of green.
Cheers Ernie
Dec 14, 2012 16:54:41 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
I like the out of focus backgrounds too - and that is where the over sharpening really detracts from the image.
It looks like it is trying to sharpen detail in your bokeh.
At 100% in photoshop the top side of the beak has a clearly visible green CA line.
It looks like it is trying to sharpen detail in your bokeh.
At 100% in photoshop the top side of the beak has a clearly visible green CA line.
Dec 14, 2012 17:03:32 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
lighthouse wrote:
I like the out of focus backgrounds too - and that is where the over sharpening really detracts from the image.
It looks like it is trying to sharpen detail in your bokeh.
At 100% in photoshop the top side of the beak has a clearly visible green CA line.
It looks like it is trying to sharpen detail in your bokeh.
At 100% in photoshop the top side of the beak has a clearly visible green CA line.
I am not going to disagree with you, as I am colour blind to a degree, that maybe why I cannot see it, even so, it cannot be that bad as to worry me. Thanks Ernie
Check out True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.
Dec 14, 2012 17:05:55 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
It is not very bad at all Ernie and at the size you are going to use it at will probably be unnoticeable - but you asked a question about RAW so I gave an answer.
Apparently you did not like the answer.
Apparently you did not like the answer.
Dec 14, 2012 17:19:26 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
That is not correct, I have no problem with the answer, just saying that I could not see it, which was fact. Maybe if I could see it, then it could also be fixed in Photoshop or lightroom, lightroom has the same features for jpg's as it does for raw. Ernie
Dec 14, 2012 21:18:50 #
erniehatt wrote:
This was taken as a jpg, nd after seeing the discussion on jpg vs raw, do you think this photo could have been made better by using Raw, if so how.personally I dont think so. Ernie
Can't say.
As noted the one you posted seems oversharpened. The RAW image wouldn't have that problem and with most processing programs the things you do to the RAW file are reversible. You can ensure that is the case with any processing program by first using "Save As" with a different file name (e.g. add ".edit") before you do anything.
Your bias is most certainly unjustified.
Dec 14, 2012 21:28:21 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
MtnMan wrote:
quote=erniehatt This was taken as a jpg, nd after... (show quote)
No I am not biased, everyman to his own.
But if I use say photoshop, and do my editing via adjustment layers,and save a copy to PSD, then I can alter my adits, so where is the difference. And regarding the over sharpening, that is down to the one using the software regardless of whether it is jpg or raw. Ernie
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Dec 14, 2012 21:43:30 #
erniehatt wrote:
No I am not biased, everyman to his own.
But if I use say photoshop, and do my editing via adjustment layers,and save a copy to PSD, then I can alter my adits, so where is the difference. And regarding the over sharpening, that is down to the one using the software regardless of whether it is jpg or raw. Ernie
No I am not biased, everyman to his own.
But if I use say photoshop, and do my editing via adjustment layers,and save a copy to PSD, then I can alter my adits, so where is the difference. And regarding the over sharpening, that is down to the one using the software regardless of whether it is jpg or raw. Ernie
Sorry, we are all biased. It is how the human brain works. Unless you want to claim not having a human brain?
Jpeg's apply a number of corrections based on your camera. RAW does not apply those corrections. Thus your flexiblity in post processing is increased.
In most cases the jpeg images also contain less dynamic range to start with; e.g. eight bits vs. fourteen or sixteen bits.
Of course you should do what turns you on.
You certainly don't seem interested in input.
Dec 15, 2012 00:02:53 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
MtnMan wrote:
quote=erniehatt br br No I am not biased, every... (show quote)
I daresay my brain is equal t yours, and I do know the differences between jpgs and raw, so I do not need lessons from you. My question was, could this image have been improved by shooting Raw,given the conditions it was taken under, which you have no knoledge of, I would say no. And yes I am interested in input providing it is for the question I asked
From what I have read of your opinions on other posts, I get the feeling that you are a very arrogant and rude person, so this will be my last answer to anything further you have to say. Cheers
Dec 15, 2012 02:01:44 #
erniehatt wrote:
...do you think this photo could have been made better by using Raw...?
the answer you're scared of is yes, the answer you want to hear is no but the only correct answer is we will never know...
Dec 15, 2012 02:13:30 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
Scared, why on earth would I be scared, I already know the answer, you see I shoot in both, though I am leaning towards shooting in jpg in the future. This for me a solely a hobby, so I like to experiment, and I honestly believe that done properly jpg is very satisfactory way of shooting.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out AI Artistry and Creation section of our forum.