Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Do you shoot in the raw?
Oct 11, 2013 11:32:12 #
Nothing wrong with shooting in Jpeg, Glen. I do recommend that you try RAW though. It gives you so much more control in pp. You really don't need lightroom if you have cs6. Open a pic in Camera Raw and you will have about 80% of lightroom. Those will be the important features.
Oct 11, 2013 11:35:59 #
TimS wrote:
I think a better analogy is JPEG is like a sedan w... (show quote)
I like that, but I can read the responses already: If the price of gas was not a factor, why would you use a small sized car if you already own a full-sized pickup? Why not always be ready for a full-sized load? You can always carry less, but you can't always bring home that fridge if you are out with the car. :-)
Oct 11, 2013 11:41:07 #
There are those who don't want to commit to post-processing and refuse the advantages of shooting RAW. It's their call. Unless I'm shooting a birthday party for the sister-in-law of my third cousin's neighbor's friend's ex-wife, I don't use jpg. And since you're a macro shooter, RAW will be even better for you. You'll love the precise control. If you really want to see your images as jpg, look in your LCD; those images are jpg. Happy shooting!
Oct 11, 2013 11:43:27 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I have never shot in "the raw", I doubt my neighbors would appreciate it too much. ;-)
My thoughts exactly. Plus, it is usually too cold anyway.
Oct 11, 2013 11:45:58 #
If YOU are The Photographer..... And want YOUR work to be YOUR work...
RAW -- RAW -- RAW.
RAW -- RAW -- RAW.
Oct 11, 2013 11:55:11 #
rdgreenwood wrote:
There are those who don't want to commit to post-processing and refuse the advantages of shooting RAW. It's their call. Unless I'm shooting a birthday party for the sister-in-law of my third cousin's neighbor's friend's ex-wife, I don't use jpg. And since you're a macro shooter, RAW will be even better for you. You'll love the precise control. If you really want to see your images as jpg, look in your LCD; those images are jpg. Happy shooting!
I'm not sure I would say I "refuse the advantages of shooting raw". It's more about "deliberate ignorance" with me (as another UHH member pointed out in a different thread). Ignorance can be blissful if you give it a chance. Oh, and I enjoy compressed music as well. :-)
Oct 11, 2013 11:57:31 #
James R wrote:
If YOU are The Photographer..... And want YOUR work to be YOUR work...
RAW -- RAW -- RAW.
RAW -- RAW -- RAW.
And if you don't shoot raw, the settings, framing and location are all the work of the camera? :-)
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Oct 11, 2013 11:58:40 #
Glen H wrote:
I'm contemplating shooting pictures in raw, instead of JPG.
What are your thoughts on this? Does it produce a better picture? I guess if it is to be posted on line it needs to be converted to a different format anyways!?!?!?
I'm mostly shooting macro of insects and plants.
I have Photoshop CS6 Extended but don't have Light Room
Glen
What are your thoughts on this? Does it produce a better picture? I guess if it is to be posted on line it needs to be converted to a different format anyways!?!?!?
I'm mostly shooting macro of insects and plants.
I have Photoshop CS6 Extended but don't have Light Room
Glen
hey Glen ,I shoot in raw but shooting in the raw would certainly be different.HMMMMM.LOL
Oct 11, 2013 12:30:37 #
As Jerry said, I shoot both. The jpeg for sharing quickly, and those shots that I will never want to pp and mount on the wall. The raw enables me to fix those little and sometimes errors or make changes I want
Oct 11, 2013 12:33:53 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I have never shot in "the raw", I doubt my neighbors would appreciate it too much. ;-)
I always wear clothes, too.
Oct 11, 2013 12:35:36 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I have never shot in "the raw", I doubt my neighbors would appreciate it too much. ;-)
My thoughts exactly!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Oct 11, 2013 12:46:02 #
RKramkowski
Loc: Missouri, US
I do both for the same reasons as JerryC41. I just make sure my CF card can transfer the data faster than my camera can so as to minimize the time the camera is "busy" transferring data when doing continuous shooting.
Oct 11, 2013 12:47:05 #
Uuglypher wrote:
just a thought on " exhibit 1": it's a beautiful blossum, but I must admit that the bright reflections in the lower right quarter of the image are a bit distracting. I suggest that had you shot that in RAW the detail in those over-bright highlights would easily have been recovered with the first quick touch-up in your RAW converter and those clipped highlights would no longer detract from the effect of the othrwise well-exposed composition. it IS a lovely image!.
Dave in SD
Dave in SD
So what's yer point? You have an aversion to lower right hand corners? You see, that's just it, you PP addicts can't leave anything alone. I suppose you'd like to be able to order up the Grand Canyon monochrome so you can "improve" on it!
Oct 11, 2013 12:53:19 #
James R wrote:
If YOU are The Photographer..... And want YOUR work to be YOUR work...
RAW -- RAW -- RAW.
RAW -- RAW -- RAW.
That's total B.S. The camera didn't tap me on the shoulder or ring a bell---I picked the subject---I framed it---I shot it---the finished product was my picture---I didn't need a contrivance gimmick to lick my egotistic face.
Oct 11, 2013 12:57:12 #
when I was in England on the last day all I had left was a one g card.
If I shot in Raw I could get 25 images, if I shot in Jpeg I could get 125 images.
I went with jpeg and the images were ok, not great.
If I shot in Raw I could get 25 images, if I shot in Jpeg I could get 125 images.
I went with jpeg and the images were ok, not great.
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 True Macro-Photography Forum section of our forum.