| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2007 08:16:24 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by TJinGuy:
Since everyone is talking about raws, I was curious how big everyones raw files are. My 8MP CR2 files range from 6-11MBs. How about everyone else's? |
My 10mp DNGs are 16mb, I think my PEFs are similar but I dont shoot in PEF... |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 08:20:07 PM · #27 |
When I learned to use a light meter, I stopped shooting RAW. The workflow was a bitch and I found I was making very few adjustments, 90% of the time it was convert & go. Is the cost of a light meter worth the time saved in workflow? Was for me.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 08:38:38 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by idnic:
When I learned to use a light meter, I stopped shooting RAW. The workflow was a bitch and I found I was making very few adjustments, 90% of the time it was convert & go. Is the cost of a light meter worth the time saved in workflow? Was for me. |
When you say light meter do you mean a spot meter? I ask because I have heard others say this as well.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 08:44:45 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by idnic:
When I learned to use a light meter, I stopped shooting RAW. The workflow was a bitch and I found I was making very few adjustments, 90% of the time it was convert & go. Is the cost of a light meter worth the time saved in workflow? Was for me. |
Time, maybe. Quality? No. JPEG artifacting just is not worth it. I've hated JPEG since it was invented. (And yeah, I have been using computers and photos that long and longer. :p)
Lossy compression formats are great for size, and they maintain enough quality to be useful for many purposes, but I can't stand the idea of my images being short-changed... pixelated or blocky. |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 08:47:16 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by chimericvisions:
Originally posted by idnic:
When I learned to use a light meter, I stopped shooting RAW. The workflow was a bitch and I found I was making very few adjustments, 90% of the time it was convert & go. Is the cost of a light meter worth the time saved in workflow? Was for me. |
Time, maybe. Quality? No. JPEG artifacting just is not worth it. I've hated JPEG since it was invented. (And yeah, I have been using computers and photos that long and longer. :p)
Lossy compression formats are great for size, and they maintain enough quality to be useful for many purposes, but I can't stand the idea of my images being short-changed... pixelated or blocky. |
Amen to that, Portable Network Graphics (.png) all the way lol. Their not bad at all and thats why i bought a 500GB HDD. Lossless Pictures, Audio, and lightly compressed home footage.
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 00:47:58. |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 09:15:01 PM · #31 |
I shoot all raw and have been for close to a year, a camera that does fast capture in raw couple with cheap memory card prices has made this an easy decision. Whereas it is not all that hard to get very good images using jpeg mode if there is any adjustment needed I find it much easier to do in raw. And I like the bit of extra headroom that I get from it.
I really donĂ¢€™t see the workflow being any harder using raw so for me at least this is a not an issue.
Scott
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 09:20:21 PM · #32 |
a funny quiz - which combination would you rather have:
1. sharp lens + jpeg
2. normal lens + raw
and next, which combination below:
a. low pixel count + raw
b. high pixel count + jpeg
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 01:20:41. |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 09:28:02 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by crayon:
a funny quiz - which combination would you rather have:
1. sharp lens + jpeg
2. normal lens + raw
and next, which combination below:
a. low pixel count + raw
b. high pixel count + jpeg |
2, b.
There's nothing wrong with a normal lens, and I prefer raw. I would rather have the extra data for manipulation, even though I'm no Photoshop pro.
A low pixel count means low data which means low quality - either pixelation or noise (fight amonst yourself about whether they differ or not). There's no saving that with any amount of processing, at any usable size.
Higher pixel count with JPEG is, as I said earlier, acceptable for many applications. I probably wouldn't want to blow it up and make a 40x30 out of it, but for many purposes it would be fine. |
|
|
|
04/16/2007 09:28:08 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by crayon:
a funny quiz - which combination would you rather have:
1. sharp lens + jpeg
2. normal lens + raw
and next, which combination below:
a. low pixel count + raw
b. high pixel count + jpeg |
I'd answer 1 and b to your questions. But with that said I would still shoot RAW as I find the coversion (using RSP) very simple, more so than running JPG's through PS. If I really need to do a bang up job for a large print then I use Nikon Capture NX to convert which is more work. So the only real downside for me is the card space issue. If that is reaaly important then I go ahead and shoot JPG.
Now, if Cindi wants to teach me how to use a light meter the maybe .....
Edit:
BTW - someone asked about the best RAW converter. In my opinion it is RAW Shooter Pro (or Essentials) as it is so simple and fast. But they bought it out so that Lightroom would have no competition (I know, they said it was to incorporate its features into Lightroom but I've tried Lightroom and there is no comparison in my book). You can still get a copy if you know someone who has it but it is no longer supported. Eventually I will have to switch but not yet.
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 01:36:58.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 10:01:05 PM · #35 |
One advantage with shooting RAW being able to edit in 16-bit mode. There are just many more colors that you have to work with, as opposed to 8-bit mode jpgs.
In 8-bit mode, you are basically starting out at a disadvantage (color depth-wise).
|
|
|
|
04/16/2007 10:16:54 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by option:
I am done shooting jpeg. |
would you bring your camera to be repaired should the jpeg capability stopped working? |
No, I'd probably take it to be repaired.
haha-edited to correct the spelling error that spoils my little dig at US un-grammar. D'oh!
Message edited by author 2007-04-17 02:19:28. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 02:57:24 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by raish:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by option:
I am done shooting jpeg. |
would you bring your camera to be repaired should the jpeg capability stopped working? |
No, I'd probably take it to be repaired.
haha-edited to correct the spelling error that spoils my little dig at US un-grammar. D'oh! |
if this board had a rep system, i'd give u rep ;)
RAW all the way, i used to shoot JPEG because of the speed that my old workstation took to process 800 shots from a wedding, but now i've upgraded, its RAW all the way :D |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 03:14:01 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by idnic:
When I learned to use a light meter, I stopped shooting RAW. The workflow was a bitch and I found I was making very few adjustments, 90% of the time it was convert & go. Is the cost of a light meter worth the time saved in workflow? Was for me. |
My largest prints are always kept in 16-bit mode (convert raw to tiff, then 16-bit psd from there on). There is added sharpness in the eyes and small details in 16-bit mode that just isn't there once I convert to jpeg. So even if I totally trusted my exposure was perfect, I'd still shoot raw for any portrait work I do.
Now that hardly makes up for "talent" ... and when you're as talented as you are, who's looking at the fine details anyway?!? ;-)
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 03:17:39 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
I really donĂ¢€™t see the workflow being any harder using raw so for me at least this is a not an issue. |
I agree.
When I'm dealing with hundreds of images where people have moved from one light source to another in varying intensities of light ... it takes me seconds per image to make adjustments in raw. But the moment I load the file into PhotoShop to make adjustments we start talking minutes, not seconds per image. Everyone complains about raw taking longer, but raw *saves* me tons of time.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2007 03:30:58 AM · #40 |
| For prints I've found converting from raw to 16bit TIFF using Adobe98 workspace gives me far better results than srgb jpegs. Another advantage of raw for me is that my verticle photos are autorotated in raw, using microsoft raw viewer, but my jpegs aren't. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 03:31:04 AM · #41 |
I shoot Raw+jpeg(medium). Used to shoot only RAW but with high school sports, jpeg makes it easier to post quickly to the web. The RAW are saved for prints I need to make later. I don't mind the larger file size - I have 6G of card space and a portable drive to download to. I notice a difference when printing large between jpeg and RAW and I prefer to print RAW files. I also use 16bit and save as tiffs. Course, I also have a total 250G of HD full and about 50 cd/dvds.
The workflow is not harder, just different. |
|
|
|
04/17/2007 05:32:35 AM · #42 |
Hey guys. A couple of people PM'd to ask me about using light meters, so I'm going to start a thread for that purpose. Give me a few minutes to gather my thoughts and I will post it.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 06:20:27 PM EDT.
