where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
TaoTeJared said:
. Most DSLR owners don't own or want to own Photoshop since they are just recording their kids and family.
But why bother with a DSLR at all
why even bother with a camera
most phones now take excellent family snaps
your phone is nearly allways with you, not only for taking, but also showing the family snaps
The shooters that state they can mostly get it right in the camera must be much better photographers than me :D If I want to go for the perfect image I almost always end up changing the exposure in post. And on occasion when I have to eliminate burnt out highlights, like anyone else I apply exposure compensation, sometimes as much as -4EV, if i shot jpeg it would be nearly impossible to get underexposure or burnt out highlights under control. In raw it's super easy, I just create underexposed images, then in post I fix the exposure and lower the highlights. (recovery in LR3.6 and highlights slider in LR4 beta)
Gabbb said:
The shooters that state they can mostly get it right in the camera must be much better photographers than me :D If I want to go for the perfect image I almost always end up changing the exposure in post.
Most of those who say that are new to photography (became one in the last 7 years starting with digital) and have never worked in a darkroom. Ansel post-processed the ____ out of his images. I tend to do most of what I do in Photoshop in the darkroom too (while I am very skilled in Pshop, 12+ years working in it) I tend to do mild edits for the vast majority of my work)
With the exception of a memory guzzling event (30+ gigs) I always shoot raw for several reasons. First off is dynamic range. My 2 favorite lenses are my 10.5mm and 14-24mm both which are very likely to have a blown out highlight or darkened out shadow when shooting in the daytime so Raw allows me to tone one or the other down or fill shadows (probably the only non darkroom command I do (to my credit film is much easier on extreme exposures and can be slightly altered at the enlarger.
Second, it is sharper and 3rd, it has more colors. 4th It helps with Noise reduction when shooting over ISO 3200 on my D7000 and ISO 1600 on My D90. 5th It makes WB changes much easier (Like those dials on my color enlarger) unlike editing a Jpeg in photoshop (like owning a box of 5 color filters)
Also I have all Tiffs and Jpegs open up in camera raw by default...
"Most DSLR owners don't own or want to own Photoshop since they are just recording their kids and family"
Sad but true. Usually they get it for the hype that a better camera takes better photos but while generally true it isn't worth it as they usually use it in sunny and easy light conditions. I knew this one lady who put only about 1000 shots on the D70 she owned for 5 years already. I shot seven times that much just yesterday...
I didn't know camera Raw was such a hostile topic ;) I threw out a devils advocate argument.
Personally I try to get the image at the time I shoot. I rarely need to do more than tweak WB or exposure more than a few points and at that, it is just because of "taste" and not the "need" to. It sounds like many other on this thread are more comfortable editing in PS then working to get the image in the camera. I do that too, when I see something well after the point of capture that I could have done.
Just a side note: I have seen many do this. Shoot raw, download, convert to Jpeg, then edit. Once you convert RAW to JPG you lost just as much data. My Raw conversions go to Tiff or PSD files to retain the data then I edit, save, and export copies to jpegs.
sevencrossing said:
But why bother with a DSLR at all
why even bother with a camera
most phones now take excellent family snaps
your phone is nearly allways with you, not only for taking, but also showing the family snaps
kyoshinikon said:
"Most DSLR owners don't own or want to own Photoshop since they are just recording their kids and family"Sad but true. Usually they get it for the hype that a better camera takes better photos but while generally true it isn't worth it as they usually use it in sunny and easy light conditions. I knew this one lady who put only about 1000 shots on the D70 she owned for 5 years already. I shot seven times that much just yesterday...
sevencrossing & kyoshinikon touched on what I see every day, most DSLR shooters - edit: most consumer DSLR shooters buy a DSLR because they think they need it to shoot their kids, etc. (Opinions aside of what they should have bought) the assumptions that every persons shoot raw revolve around individuals knowing how to edit them, desire to spend time editing them, desire to spend $500+ on software and hard-drives, and can never get the correct WB or exposure. Persons who struggle with spending $600 on a camera system, do not see spending $500 on photoshop or even just $100 on Elements and another $200 for a 2TB drive as in the realm of ideas they should do. That is just reality. Not everyone has the desire to be a photographer. I have seen people shooting raw because they see threads like this, but then convert everything to jpeg with zero editing. They really don't know why, but they read they should. Obviously they are not akin to photography as many of us are. If someone lands in the "bucket" I just don't see the need of them needing Raw.
I'm not making an augment against RAW - but trying to open up when it is NOT needed. I think that helps people much more since the times you do need it are endless.
Shooting this in raw would not have made any difference in the end result-
@Tao - as much as I agree with most of this what You wrote in Your last post, as much I'm more and more convinced that a lot (maybe majority even) ppl who buy dslr spend too much time on cameras and too low and learning how to use them. We had similar conversation couple months ago ASFAIR, and we really didn't ended up with one conclusion. No matter what we will say, there's gonna be a lot of people who will do what they feel like. I shoot RAW, only because I deeply believe my editing skill is superior to this what I get out of the camera. I treat file the same way I would treat film in the analog era. For me the conversion to jpg only occurs at the very end stage, right before showing the snap to someone else either physically or over the net. All of this however doesn't change my general point of view, that a lot of those ones who buy dslr doesn't really need them. There's a lot of compact/hybrid cameras on the market that will do this job as good or even better than a dslr.
BTW:
nice snap, and it doesn't matter to me either You took it with dslr, compact or medium format. it's a good picture and that what really matters at the very end.
@Adamz - I agree with you as well. For "photographers" who have the skill or for people who want to learn, Raw can be very beneficial.
For those who do not have the skill or want to learn, I find the statements that "Raw is the only way to go" is extremely misguiding and ignores the the actual individual user and their needs & desires. I think it is along the same lines as when someone wants to upgrade from a 18-55 lens on a d3100 and people suggest a $1,200 17-55vr that is worth 3x their DSLR body when they say they only have $300 to spend. I don't think suggesting the absolute best rather than what is best for them, helps anyone.
Snap- thanks! (D300, 70-300vr, Lightroom 3 adj - & shot in Jpeg)
For family stuff, usually JPG. I do quick and dirty edits in PS with those pics and upload via iPhoto to Facebook and done.
Paid, I shoot in RAW. Assess how good/bad things are in Dx0. Import in and convert into jpg (since DxO is correcting for lens aberrations, etc.), then PS->client.
I store the RAW's for clients, as I've had some ask me for them.
I archive off my local HDD 1 year from shoot (per my contract), so people don't get the impression I retain forever.
The sizes went up considerably when I got the D7000 as a backup. The D800 will force streamlining for most, I'm sure.
I shoot RAW + Fine JPG. I know I am probably wasting space...although I can always use the delete button, but it gives me flexibility. If I don't feel like doing any editing and just want to put something on facebook then I already have a jpg. On the other hand if I have shots that I think might be "good" pictures then I like to have the RAW shots. I can save pictures shot in RAW that would be toast in jpg. It gives me the flexibility to do what I want with them and every once in a while do enough editing to get something good out of a would be worthless shot. I am either way...both are nice to have depending on the purpose and what editing you do or might need to do. RAW takes some extra time, but it can be worth it.
I know the advantages of RAW and can understand why someone, who does not want, the expense of buying a program such as lightroom, shoots jpegs
But can anyone explain the advantage of shooting both or sometimes shooting RAW and sometimes jpeg
If you are shooting RAW then i am going to assume you have and can use, a program such as lightroom
Lightroom is blistering fast at sorting and editing and filing stuff, it can upload stuff directly to FB without making even making a jpeg copy
What happens if you are shooting some family stuff in jpeg and you get that once in a lifetime shot, only its 3 stops underexposed. If you shot in RAW there a reasonable chance of it being rescued
Am I missing something
Yes I know.If you are press or event photographer time can be critical and jpegs are going to get the results out faster
For me a hobbyist, I shoot mainly jpeg. I have photoshop elements and am trying to master it, but I find that for the vast majority of my shots, which I'm sure a professional could criticise to pieces, I'm pretty happy with minor tweaks in PS, and often I'm pretty happy with no edits. Unless a picture I take is the only one and trashing it would elminate a special moment/memory, I'll try to fix in PS, but if it's just plain awful, and I can't fix it in PS, I'll trash it. And to whoever posted why have a DSLR with good glass if you're not shooting raw and editing a lot, I counter with, because I want the creative freedom and higher quality the camera/glass combination offers over a PS camera.
@TaoTeJared
What locomotive is that? I'm guessing a 4-8-4 midwest/east or engine (although it looks like the drivers from SF 3751 however)
Up 844?
@rbrylawski, There is nothing wrong with not shooting raw or not editing (heck I shoot raw and edit less than I do film in a darkroom) It is more that many "soccer moms" buy DSLR's for the hype and slight improvement but their photography skills lack (and they seldom use the thing) making it a useless purchase. Even though I sometimes shoot jpeg there are times I regret not shooting raw because of my shooting style. However that is me. Only you can be happiest with your own process ;)
sevencrossing said:
But can anyone explain the advantage of shooting both or sometimes shooting RAW and sometimes jpegAm I missing something
Yes I know.If you are press or event photographer time can be critical and jpegs are going to get the results out faster
You did kind of answer your own question there... Speed and compatibility is the thing for JPG. My local newspaper has plenty of good quality color pictures in it, so they ask for at least a 1024px on the long edge JPG files no matter what else the shot is. When you do get a really good shot, and they want to use it larger, it does help to have the raw file too.
Raw for quality and flexibility in post processing (you can go back to the original as processed by the camera for things like B&W or other 'effects') and JPG for speed when ultimate editing ability and that last few % of quality is not the issue (at least for me). I always do a raw capture, even when I am also doing JPG.
Remember JPG is a compression technique introduced to maximize the (then) much smaller amounts of computing and storage spaces that were available two decades ago. However good it might be or even made to be, if you are shooting a high MP/top quality shot, why cripple the image with a "lossy" format that JPG is? It's only a short jump from there (when you have good gear and no worries about disk space that is) to only using raw, if you can...
In this day and age I can't understand anyone not shooting RAW. Alright, I understand the average family buying an entry level DSLR for family shots of the kids and vacations and only ever shooting JPGs but for everyone else it's a must. Just the fact that you are here reading this suggests that photography is more than just a part time hobby.
I own a D700 and some very nice glass and I would guess that I have around $7,000 invested in my photography equipment and I am not a pro. I only shoot RAW because I want to get the best final result possible and I know that my camera can't make that decision for me. Shooting JPGs from a good DSLR is like owning a Ferrari and letting your Grandma drive you around.
I use Lightroom 3 for all my RAW photos and can batch edit around 300+ photos in about 2 hours, then save them out as JPGs for the web. I have over 60,000 RAW images on one of my hard drives and then they are backed up to another drive. The hard drives only cost me $100 a piece, so it's a no brainer for me to shoot RAW.
The bottom line is, if JPGs work for you then keep shooting them but if you want the best quality and flexibility possible then shoot RAW.
Just my $0.02
Personally I shoot both.
firstly as said in previous posts, there are times when the shot is over or underexposed
and needs re-tweeking. I also follow the advice of guy gowan regarding shooting raw's just google him.
Secondly all the jpegs are in a shared folder that my parents can access via a VPN
so they can look at the images. too many for flicker.
As for deleting them, WHY, disk space costs nothing nowdays,
Once you delete them they are gone.
If at worst all you can do is to batch make them into jpg's and compress them so they are about 10k, them move all the raws to removable disks.
At least that way you can use them like a contact sheet.
Personally i use lightroom as my contact sheets.
Current count is about 250K Raws
One other thing, if you set all your actions up as a droplet (guy gowan) then you can repeat all of the processing that you need.
Mac.
Mac.
sevencrossing said:
But why bother with a DSLR at all
why even bother with a camera
most phones now take excellent family snaps
your phone is nearly allways with you, not only for taking, but also showing the family snaps
The point and shoots could not match the performance of a DSLR when I was looking into cameras.
For very important shoots I will shoot raw. But for the most part I shoot jpg. I'm not paid and I shoot only for myself, so it's really no big deal. I also try my hardest to get my exposure right in camera.
I also don't enjoy processing, I just like shooting, so there really isn't a reason for me to shoot in raw if I don't plan on editing at all.
NSXType-R said:
The point and shoots could not match the performance of a DSLR when I was looking into cameras.For very important shoots I will shoot raw. But for the most part I shoot jpg. I'm not paid and I shoot only for myself, so it's really no big deal. I also try my hardest to get my exposure right in camera.
I also don't enjoy processing, I just like shooting, so there really isn't a reason for me to shoot in raw if I don't plan on editing at all.
Kind of my thoughts exactly.....
sevencrossing said:
can't see any point in shooting both RAW and jpeg
I have one. If you only have a camera with one card slot (like most people, including my D700) and are used to deleting obviously dud shots at the time of capture, having a duplicate copy of your shot can be a potential life saver if you delete the wrong image in haste. Even if that doesn't apply to you, if your card corrupts there must be more likelihood of successfully restoring an image if there are two coppies of it to start with? Also I sometimes need to email a jpeg to the office, so having a small/basic copy in those instances saves me time. I always use Extreme Pro cards so have never experienced any issues with the camera slowing down even when shooting reasonably lengthy continuous sequences.
SkintBrit said:
......... Also I sometimes need to email a jpeg to the office, so having a small/basic copy in those instances saves me time.
That makes a lot of sense
Not sure about the redundancy / backup philosophy
I never start deleting until I am back in the office and only then, after LR has automatically made a back up copy while importing
I think many posters still missing the point that Nikon already has a jpg file inside their nef file, that can be extracted very quickly. There is no reason to shoot nef+jpeg.
Inexpensive programs like Breeze Pro do this, as well as more expensive software, like lightroom, NX2, Adobe CS etc..
Tom Hogan writes:
"There's no need to shoot RAW+JPEG. Two points: If you're shooting a Nikon you've already got a JPEG file embedded in the raw file, all you need is the extraction software to get it; and most good software allows you to quickly batch out JPEGs from your raw files. Someone using Aperture, Lightroom, or Photoshop in their workflow really shouldn't worry about having a JPEG copy of the photo around. But..."
Thom writes in depth about Nikon's raw files in depth here:
sevencrossing said:
That makes a lot of senseNot sure about the redundancy / backup philosophy
I never start deleting until I am back in the office and only then, after LR has automatically made a back up copy while importing
No and that's a good habit to get in to, but many people prefer to delete pics as they go, so they don't have to wade through 100s of slingers when they get back home.
TriShooter said: There is no reason to shoot nef+jpeg.
I have had a reason. Once I did an event shoot that needed raw finals but jpeg proofs on demand (right there). I don't have a laptop (and they weren't allowed anyway) so My sole option was to do one of each... I wish the cameras has a delete all jpegs option like you can delete by date...
sevencrossing said:
But why bother with a DSLR at all
why even bother with a camera
most phones now take excellent family snaps
your phone is nearly allways with you, not only for taking, but also showing the family snaps
Then why bother coming to this site?
I think we should post what is relevent to the people that comes here and who care about picture quality and skill.
At first I was shooting jpeg and have regrets about it. I wish I had the option to be creative with my older shots.
Pierre said:
To be fair, you should talk about your multitude of shots that did/would benefit of the raw.
To be fair, you shouldn't make assumptions. Very, very few images I choose to shoot in Jpeg, do I ever wish they were in RAW. I do however find many I shot in RAW make little to no difference if they were Jpeg. If one understands Dynamic range, how your camera handles it at various Isos, and how much is present at the time of capture you can quickly know if you need Raw or not.
I take great care in understanding and making sure all my settings are are correct when I shoot. I set my WB, color (vivid,standard, etc. along with all contrast settings), D-lighting, etc. I know how noise reacts at every iso and with most settings and how to avoid or compensate for it. I rarely bracket anything or do much editing at all in post. Maybe 1 in a 500 I actually use Photoshop out side of Lightroom or Nik.
I find that if you hit an image when you take it post is simple and takes less than a minute to make adjustments. The idea spending more than 5-10 minutes for an image to me is a waste of time if I could have taken a few seconds more when I take it. I'll spend a few minutes before a shoot to walk around with a meter and take some test shots to know what the outcome will be before I have to shoot for "real". I look at it this way with 500 shots taken and 50 to present; I can spend 20 minutes before understanding the areas in a venue, and/or a few seconds to check my settings before the shot I want. Or I can just shoot and then spend the time waiting for batch editing, and spending 10 minutes per image setting the color, contrast, fill light, black point, noise reduction. So maybe 30 minutes spent at the time of shooting and an hour of editing for maybe 2hrs in all. Or one could spend over 8 hours editing(50 images x 10 min) to complete the project. To me that is waste of my time and saves the stress or worry if I can "work an image back to health."
You must log in to post.
