Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Shooting Raw
Page <<first <prev 8 of 8
Jan 16, 2014 11:15:40   #
russelray Loc: La Mesa CA
 
FredB wrote:
I understand it completely. I never said you could always "get" a raw file. I corrected a mistaken impression that a sensor would create a JPEG file without having a raw file in the interim. As I noted, if you don't WANT a raw file, or your particular camera doesn't give you an option to save one, that does not infer that one does not get created by the camera. It's just not apparent to you. Re-read my post. There is no sensor in the world that creates a JPEG file straight-away. Just doesn't happen.
I understand it completely. I never said you could... (show quote)

There might not be a file created by the sensor at all! Everything could be just a lot of 0's and 1's running around until the camera does something with them, like create a file, either RAW, JPG, or both!

Reply
Jan 16, 2014 11:16:47   #
mdorn Loc: Portland, OR
 
BigDaddy wrote:
I think a lot of folks think your not a real photographer unless you shoot raw, and they have the t-shirts to prove it. I've not yet seen a t-shirt proclaiming "I Shoot Jpeg"


LOL. As Fred pointed out, we ALL shoot raw, so this t-shirt should fit all of us. I have one that says "I Print JPEG!" :-)

Reply
Jan 16, 2014 11:31:35   #
russelray Loc: La Mesa CA
 
BigDaddy wrote:
once you get passed 2 stops of error, raw or jpg the picture is usually junk for anything other than a historical record of something you cannot re-photograph.

Not really. Just depends on how creative you want to be. For examples of what I sometimes do with my "junk" throwaways, see a couple of my blog posts:

http://russelrayphotos2.com/2012/10/05/friday-flower-fiesta-october-5-2012/

http://russelrayphotos2.com/2012/09/14/friday-flower-fiesta-september-14-2012/

http://russelrayphotos2.com/2013/10/11/friday-flower-fiesta-10-11-13-what-you-make-others-see/

Reply
 
 
Jan 16, 2014 13:11:39   #
fotohouse Loc: Northern Illinois
 
[quote=FredB]Almost. The raw image is just that - raw. No attention is paid to the WB, contrast, saturation, or any other setting on your camera. Those settings affect ONLY the JPEG image. As such, they will be taken into effect for the JPEG thumbnail that you see when you peer at your LCD after the shot, or open the raw file in Windows Explorer or such. The raw data IS dependent on absolutes such as ISO and exposure settings, however.

Not necessarily true on all cameras, I know on my KM7D I could correct the WB to an extent PP on RAW images but I did get better results making sure it was right from the start. Now that could be due to the camera being better at determining correct WB with custom settings and White/Black/Grey cards than the PP software and the WB info was just a sidecar file attached to the raw file that the software used to adjust the image in the raw editor.

Reply
Jan 16, 2014 13:23:47   #
fotohouse Loc: Northern Illinois
 
BigDaddy wrote:
I think a lot of folks think your not a real photographer unless you shoot raw, and they have the t-shirts to prove it. I've not yet seen a t-shirt proclaiming "I Shoot Jpeg"


Don't judge all who wear the I SHOOT RAW shirts as a collective group. I wear one since as an early adopter of KM and Sony cameras I came to realize the jpeg processing sucked to be polite. I leaned to process raw so I could get the quality out of the equipment that it was capable of and Sony programmers were not capable of at the time. I started wearing the shirt as many in my camera club group felt that only a "real" photographer could consistently get SOOC images that were any good so I was labeled as a Post Process expert but a lacking photographer. Funny how they tried to turn the coin around.

Now that they have evolved to using lightroom and CS many of those same people are now shooting raw. I myself have never cared how another photographer gets their image as long as it is theirs. If they can get a great image with an instamatic more power to them. I will shoot the way that I do (raw) and post process the way that I do even though in my latest camera (A77) Sony has finally gotten to the point that he SOOC jpegs are pretty good and any changes I make probably would only be noticed by me since I know what they are.

Reply
Jan 16, 2014 16:14:17   #
GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Gary, did you mix up the two pictures? On my screen, the jpg looks a lot better than the raw.


No. While you may prefer the overall quality of that image my intent was to show that a RAW image contains more data and thus gives you more to work with in terms of saving or enhancing an image. Just look at the words over the door and the faces in the pictures ignoring the rest of the image. The last JPEG produced from a RAW image is clearly superior in allowing you to read the words and identify the faces.

While I have no problem with those who say they only shoot JPEG and get good results when PP is required I firmly believe that starting from a RAW image produces better results when an image needs rescuing or you really want to make it pop.

There is a process which I call faux HDR where you start with a single image, create additional images of different exposures, and then process them using HDR software. I've do this often starting with a RAW image and most often get very good results. The few times I've tried it with a JPEG the results have been not been as good.

Reply
Jan 17, 2014 12:18:05   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
russelray wrote:

Lot's of fine examples of why many throwaways can be turned into creative art.

I never used to toss anything either, but really bad stuff. As my picture accumulation has grown and now my camera is taking 10 meg jpg files, I'm starting to toss more stuff.

Reply
 
 
Jan 17, 2014 12:20:03   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
mdorn wrote:
LOL. As Fred pointed out, we ALL shoot raw, so this t-shirt should fit all of us. I have one that says "I Print JPEG!" :-)

Good one :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jan 17, 2014 12:55:27   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
[quote=GaryS1964]No. While you may prefer the overall quality of that image my intent was to show that a RAW image contains more data and thus gives you more to work with in terms of saving or enhancing an image. Just look at the words over the door and the faces in the pictures ignoring the rest of the image. The last JPEG produced from a RAW image is clearly superior in allowing you to read the words and identify the faces.

GaryS1964 wrote:

While I have no problem with those who say they only shoot JPEG and get good results when PP is required I firmly believe that starting from a RAW image produces better results when an image needs rescuing or you really want to make it pop.

I still think the jpg is better. I went back and looked again, and still thought the faces and letters were better in the jpg, even blown up full size. It shouldn't be this way, I know, so I thought you may have mixed them up. I guess it's just me.
GaryS1964 wrote:

There is a process which I call faux HDR where you start with a single image, create additional images of different exposures, and then process them using HDR software. I've do this often starting with a RAW image and most often get very good results. The few times I've tried it with a JPEG the results have been not been as good

I believe you, and I understand Raw files may have more dynamic range than a compressed jpg. My personal experience is different from those that say if you want to edit your pictures, you must shoot raw. I've been editing jpgs without much problem for 15 years. I've also edited a good number of RAW files, and came to the (personal) conclusion that the extra time, effort and space just is not worth it to me. If I were a still life photographer that took 10 pictures of a vase, picked the best one and edited it for a week, I would do raw. As it is, I might shoot a hundred pictures of a bumble bee and not get one I like, and do it again until I give up, or get one I like. If I shot them all in raw, it would drive me nuts. Actually, editing any raw files drives me nuts, as I have to work at getting it as good as the jpg out of the camera, and deciding which settings I like best can get really frustrating, particularly when I'm all done and the jpg looks just as good, or worse, better.

Reply
Jan 17, 2014 17:35:12   #
FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.
 
Ok, let's try to distill this discussion down to the final salient points.

1) You do not have to shoot raw in order to have an editable image.

2) JPEG is perfectly adequate, given appropriate conditions, for many types of photographs.

3) Shooting raw demands an investment in post-processing labors that many feel is not needed for their experience.

4) Raw files provide more LEEWAY in editing than JPEG, because of their greater information density. This does not necessarily mean they are BETTER, only that they have more to work with.

A 60 foot ladder is nice, but if Rapunzel is only 20 feet off the ground, it's stupid to carry it around all the time.

Raw purists can be bigots at times, and there is no good reason for them to be.

Reply
Jan 17, 2014 18:27:28   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
FredB wrote:
Ok, let's try to distill this discussion down to the final salient points.

1) You do not have to shoot raw in order to have an editable image.

2) JPEG is perfectly adequate, given appropriate conditions, for many types of photographs.

3) Shooting raw demands an investment in post-processing labors that many feel is not needed for their experience.

4) Raw files provide more LEEWAY in editing than JPEG, because of their greater information density. This does not necessarily mean they are BETTER, only that they have more to work with.

A 60 foot ladder is nice, but if Rapunzel is only 20 feet off the ground, it's stupid to carry it around all the time.

Raw purists can be bigots at times, and there is no good reason for them to be.
Ok, let's try to distill this discussion down to t... (show quote)


I think you hit the elephant right square in the trunk.

Nicely summarized I think. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 8
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.