Raw questions
Sep 4, 2014 10:07:03 #
mdorn wrote:
Making large prints depends on a few other things ... (show quote)
Thanks for the rant, I loved it!
Phil
Sep 4, 2014 10:08:54 #
MW wrote:
Most photos are not worth keeping. I try to delete as many as I can while still in the camera. I make a second deletion pass on my PC before further processing. To be honest, I keep too many (sentiment). But as I learn to be more ruthless I see the quality of the keepers improve. A side benefit is that the number of RAW files to be processed continues to decline (slowly) and thus RAW file processing becomes less tedious.
Be careful deleting photo's in camera. Most of the time you will have no problem but it can cause the SD card to corrupt it's filing and you may have problems downloading on your computer when you get home.
I studied with a master photographer with 40 years experience as an Army photographer through to a Pro wedding and fashion shoot photographer, and now mostly a lecturer, and he told me of his experiences.
.........and it is a problem I have had in the past......so now I only delete (well format actually) after I have downloaded.
He also tells me that theses SD cards wear out eventually.
I haven't experienced this (I mostly use San Disk Ultra Pro) but he shoots many thousands every year (in RAW as that's what his clients demand) and he would know. Interestingly, he doesn't process them - his clients do it themselves!
Sep 4, 2014 10:17:25 #
Bear2
Loc: Southeast,, MI
Good question and I do not.
For family snapshots etc., I delete the raw mages and go with JEPG.
For landscape, wildlife, and street, I use only the RAW images, but save the JEPGs, until I know my RAWs are better.
Duane
For family snapshots etc., I delete the raw mages and go with JEPG.
For landscape, wildlife, and street, I use only the RAW images, but save the JEPGs, until I know my RAWs are better.
Duane
Dds82 wrote:
Took some photos with both raw and JPEG simultaneo... (show quote)
Sep 4, 2014 10:17:39 #
You can also make some wb presets that mimic the settings for each of the in camera settings (sunny, cloudy, shade... etc.) Shoot a picture in raw bring it into lightroom then observe the settings for each of the WB fixed options and create a preset ...
Capture48 wrote:
I'm not sure why people think you can't adjust WB in JPEG's. It's more accurate to say you don't know how to adjust it, but that does not make it hard to adjust. In fact it's easier to adjust WB on JPEG's than it is RAW's.
If the only reason you are shooting RAW is for WB, it's a waste of time.
If the only reason you are shooting RAW is for WB, it's a waste of time.
Sep 4, 2014 10:24:14 #
lloydl2 wrote:
You can also make some wb presets that mimic the settings for each of the in camera settings (sunny, cloudy, shade... etc.) Shoot a picture in raw bring it into lightroom then observe the settings for each of the WB fixed options and create a preset ...
I just explained how to do this in a new thread
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-241660-1.html#4068121
Sep 4, 2014 10:42:56 #
bsprague wrote:
I've read that most, if not all of the professional sports photographers with $10K to $20k rigs rely on .jpegs. The buffer fills too fast to burst shoot in RAW.
That may have been true in the past, however a Nikon D4 can shoot an 85 raw image burst at 11fps and a Canon 1Dx a 35 image burst at 14fps before the buffer fills up.
Sep 4, 2014 10:56:40 #
skiman wrote:
That may have been true in the past, however a Nikon D4 can shoot an 85 raw image burst at 11fps and a Canon 1Dx a 35 image burst at 14fps before the buffer fills up.
Good point. Sports photographers (at least the few I know) shoot JPEG for other reasons. My Timber (local soccer club) photographer friend does it for convenience more than anything. The Timber website gets updated with photos in real-time (close to real-time) during games. Even if it's automated, there is very little time to do any PP. Plus, the JPEGs look phenomenal taken through that expensive glass. Shooting raw doesn't add anything of value for these guys. In fact, it's just a proprietary pain in the a$$ with different cameras.
Sep 4, 2014 11:07:22 #
I don't have time to read through all the threads here
but
something I seldom see addressed in this never ending confusion over RAW.
When the original Canon 1Ds arrived I jumped into digital. I began with Phase One software which I still believe to be the worlds finest. A few of my clients depend on me to keep all their image files here at the studio. Every now and then they call and want an image from many years back. I have found when I return to the original RAW file and proceed to process it with several many generations later Phase One software the results are startling. Hey it's the same image but with better color, better shadow detail, better everything I DO NOT MISS FILM Good Lord I love digital.
Of course, I sometimes pull one of my father's negatives from the 1940's shot with a 4X5 press camera, scan them and print them. There is little doubt they are way better than he could have done in his closet darkroom Wish he could see the results!!!
When the original Canon 1Ds arrived I jumped into digital. I began with Phase One software which I still believe to be the worlds finest. A few of my clients depend on me to keep all their image files here at the studio. Every now and then they call and want an image from many years back. I have found when I return to the original RAW file and proceed to process it with several many generations later Phase One software the results are startling. Hey it's the same image but with better color, better shadow detail, better everything I DO NOT MISS FILM Good Lord I love digital.
Of course, I sometimes pull one of my father's negatives from the 1940's shot with a 4X5 press camera, scan them and print them. There is little doubt they are way better than he could have done in his closet darkroom Wish he could see the results!!!
Sep 4, 2014 12:04:04 #
Capture48 wrote:
This statement is just plane wrong. I can do all the same adjustments on a JPEG as I can a RAW file, and I can do them quicker.
You won't get any argument from me on shooting RAW, I use RAW to capture a greater dynamic range than I can with JPEG. But if WB is the only reason someone is shooting RAW, it is not needed.
You won't get any argument from me on shooting RAW, I use RAW to capture a greater dynamic range than I can with JPEG. But if WB is the only reason someone is shooting RAW, it is not needed.
What post processing programme are you using? I'll check it out.
Sep 4, 2014 12:09:22 #
RJM wrote:
What post processing programme are you using? I'll check it out.
Just a few responses back I posted a link to a thread I stated on how to do it.
Sep 4, 2014 12:21:16 #
The point is, as the camera creates the JPEG it is doing a lot of post processing right in the camera--the JPEG will always "look" better than the raw--while it is doing this it is destroying a lot of data you might want to use to make your image better than what the camera did. But for stuff you have no real use for the JPEG will probably work fine--but don't count too much on making it better.
Stan
Stan
Sep 4, 2014 12:28:52 #
skiman wrote:
That may have been true in the past, however a Nikon D4 can shoot an 85 raw image burst at 11fps and a Canon 1Dx a 35 image burst at 14fps before the buffer fills up.
Hi ski
Here are the specs for the D4 see site below...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d4/nikon-d4A6.HTM
Sep 4, 2014 12:54:08 #
And you never know when a snapshot can be turned into more that you expected. Go back into the collection and you may see something good in a photo you initially thought was so so. And wish it had been shot raw.
stan0301 wrote:
The point is, as the camera creates the JPEG it is doing a lot of post processing right in the camera--the JPEG will always "look" better than the raw--while it is doing this it is destroying a lot of data you might want to use to make your image better than what the camera did. But for stuff you have no real use for the JPEG will probably work fine--but don't count too much on making it better.
Stan
Stan
Sep 4, 2014 12:57:58 #
Capture48 wrote:
I'm not sure why people think you can't adjust WB in JPEG's. It's more accurate to say you don't know how to adjust it, but that does not make it hard to adjust. In fact it's easier to adjust WB on JPEG's than it is RAW's.
If the only reason you are shooting RAW is for WB, it's a waste of time.
If the only reason you are shooting RAW is for WB, it's a waste of time.
You can, but you get better results faster, without data loss, when you do it on a 14 bit raw file. By design, jpg is not an editing format, it is an output format. It has undeniable limitations - 8 bit color depth being the major one.
Anyone who spends $3000 or more for a camera and insists on shooting raw just wasted his/her money. The camera can produce much more than they are getting.
Sep 4, 2014 13:22:53 #
I always shoot RAW+JPEG. That way I can do any post-processing that might be required. I then delete any unneeded RAW files. I always save the RAWs for any image I think I might want to print.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.