Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Digital Photography Question


Recommended Posts

There are a good amount of photo editors that work with RAW images, including Lightroom and Luminar, getting you where you need to go quickly and efficiently, and also organizing your images if you so desire.

 

RAW: photography negative

JPG: print

 

That's somewhat pedantic, but reasonably accurate.

 

You have considerably more latitude with adjusting RAW files, and later on, it sort of future-proofs your image as post-processing software becomes better and has greater ability to extract information from your RAW file.

 

When you photograph JPG only, you are essentially ceding control, letting the camera make decisions for you. If that's okay with you, you're good to go. However, I like control over my image. I want to maximize my ability to shape the image as much as possible. Now, obviously, I'm going to try and nail the image as much as possible in-camera. But I also like the maximum potential for shaping my image in post-processing, particularly since I do night photography, where it's all but essential. This is much like how the greats, such as Ansel Adams, would spend as much as EIGHT HOURS processing his negatives in the darkroom. If Ansel Adams were still alive, I 100% guarantee he would be photographing in RAW.

 

 

 

 

When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, if you think in terms of sound, you'll get:

 

RAW == wav file.

 

jpeg == mp3 file.

 

So, if your camera can, save both; jpeg quick and easy, RAW in the archive for possible high quality work later.

 

Maurizio

Nord Wave 2, Nord Electro 6D 61,, Rameau upright,  Hammond Pro44H Melodica.

Too many Arturia, NI and AAS plugins

http://www.barbogio.org/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAW is absolutely the best format to work with but you need something to process the RAW files. Lightroom (from Adobe) is one of the most liked and most hated (for their subscription model). There are many others.

 

The RAW file can be manipulated so far in terms of shadow recovery, highlight reduction not to mention other things like white balance which aren't baked into your file. It is the best way to go.

-Mike Martin

 

Casio

Mike Martin Photography Instagram Facebook

The Big Picture Photography Forum on Music Player Network

 

The opinions I post here are my own and do not represent the company I work for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But seriously... I've never worked with RAW photographs before. They are huge and a bit tedious to work with. Does everyone here also recommend this format?

100% yes. There are many benefits to shooting RAW : better dynamic range, being able to adjust white balance, and more. I started out shooting jpeg when I started in digital photography, but once I got better at editing, I found able to get much more out of a RAW image than a jpeg, especially if I had a shot where the exposure was off. Yes, RAW files take up more space, but $100 gets you 4 TB storage these days. Shoot RAW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, RAW files take up more space, but $100 gets you 4 TB storage these days. Shoot RAW!

 

I was referring to the SD cards... that's gonna get expensive. I was advised not to use micro-SD cards with an adapter, (which I have several I'm not using.)

 

 

When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that we as technically-able people tend to like RAW because it allows us a lot of control.

 

However, I am of the unpopular opinion that I prefer JPEGs over RAW.

 

Why? Because what I like about photography is the immediacy of it. Yes, I certainly can really drill down into improving my images with raw files. And sometimes I do. About 2% of the time I take a photo where I feel the need to really get the maximum this and that.

 

But 98% of the time, the JPEG looks great.

 

And as it is, I already spend 8 hours a day or more in front of a computer for work, and several more hours doing music stuff. Do I REALLY want to spend even MORE time making everything perfect? Hell no.

 

And honestly, sometimes I shoot photos for my job (which kind of makes me semi-professional I guess), and even then, the JPEGs do the job most of the time.

 

Anyway, I guess, I feel like if you enjoy shooting photos, go shoot the photos, (using both JPEG and RAW) and then only use the RAW when something is wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to the SD cards... that's gonna get expensive. I was advised not to use micro-SD cards with an adapter, (which I have several I'm not using.)

Ahhh I see. I view SD cards as a temporary storage medium not to be trusted long term. After a shoot, I download to my main computer, then backups are automatically created in my NAS and with a cloud backup service (Backblaze). Every couple of shoots I will completely reformat the card to start fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is mainly in the lack of compression as mentioned and technically speaking the color component resolution. Instead of the habitual maximum of 8 bits per Red Gree and Blue components, RAW formats (I use .DNG) offer mor8re bits per color components, and there's all the information without lossy compression. Also, the normalization (max pixels values from sensor to max pixel value in file) might be absent, which gives a better feel for what higher and lower light levels have been in the photo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RAW file is fantastic -- for shadow recovery alone. And the program for handling RAW files that Nikon provides is free and pretty good. Not as good as some of those you can buy. But at least good enough to get started (and did I mention it's free?!).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and yes.

 

If I am trying to compose, scope out just the right lighting, take a portrait, or do something heavily artistic, I will run my Nikons at jpeg+raw. If I recall correctly, the raw format is always at the highest resolution the camera allows, so in that case I often go with a lower resolution jpeg, mainly for quick previewing.

 

Conversely, if I am going to the park, or to a friend's concert, or visiting my kids (and their kids) I'd rather be able to get lots of shots before buffering slows me down, so I go with the highest resolution jpeg I can muster.

 

Even without raw format, modern editing programs like GIMP can do wonders with jpeg input.

 

By the way, here's another trick: 5 megapixels is enough to fill almost any print or screen, unless you plan to zoom in and in and in. So you can also save space -- and perhaps more importantly, save write time -- by limiting even your jpeg pictures to something like 3000x2000 pixels, especially if you have zoom lenses that allow you decent latitude for framing the picture in the first place.

 

Maybe I should change my sig line to say D90, D3000, 40mm f/2.8 macro, etc. :)

-Tom Williams

{First Name} {at} AirNetworking {dot} com

PC4-7, PX-5S, AX-Edge, PC361

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a stickler for razor-sharp images so I've been using RAW and JPEG fine. :laugh:

 

I remember a few years ago our church hired an agency to create a picture directory of our members and staff. One of the folks at church took a picture of the front of the building (for the directory cover) when the roses were in bloom outside, but it was so fuzzy! This particular person has a pro DSLR but that picture was... well. :(

 

I was amazed that they actually used it.

 

My father was also a photographer and often stressed the importance of sharp images. We had a black and white darkroom set up for quite a few years as well. Great experience.

 

Anyway, I "processed" some RAW images yesterday--both with my laptop and tablet--and was amazed how much depth they had. One photo I had taken in the evening a few days ago was under-exposed but I was able to bring up the brightness and detail... even with minimal noise in the sky. Amazing!

 

 

When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a designer I have to begin with raw files before any retouching or making ready for print production, usually in a variety of physical sizes. Its impossible to generate consistent images down the line, otherwise. If youre serious about photography and you have aspirations of having your work reproduced anywhere, you need to learn about print technology. And you never know when someone may ask for your image for their church magazine or whatever.

 

I have a feeling the Roses church cover image was fuzzy because it was a low res original enlarged beyond its capacity. And Ill bet the church pressed the agency to use the image anyway and the designer warned them, but the customer didnt really want to hear the technical details and then were dissatisfied when they got what theyd asked for. Happens all the time.

____________________________________
Rod

Here for the gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the Roses church cover image was fuzzy because it was a low res original enlarged beyond its capacity.

 

It's only a 5x7 image on the directory cover. Almost looks like it was shot with an old Kodak Instamatic. I'll have to verify where it actually came from.

 

I'm also a graphic designer so I'm familiar with print technology btw.

 

 

When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAW files are best. They open up all sorts of possibilities & are more versatile, creative & fun to work with. I store mine on a 4 tb external hard drive ( and back that up to two other locations. )

 

Jpegs will restrict you in many ways.

 

If you want Lightroom but do not want the expensive Adobe subscription, lightroom 6 is still available as a standalone purchase. I use it and find it excellent.

"Turn your fingers into a dust rag and keep them keys clean!" ;) Bluzeyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only two weeks into this and I'm already gassing for more lenses and accessories. :facepalm:

 

I've been watching this guy's YouTube channel:

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DkFux8Iv-aYnTRWzwaiBA

 

 

Peter's channel is great. He's up in the short list of highest paid "Youtubers". Entertaining and inspirational.

-Mike Martin

 

Casio

Mike Martin Photography Instagram Facebook

The Big Picture Photography Forum on Music Player Network

 

The opinions I post here are my own and do not represent the company I work for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only two weeks into this and I'm already gassing for more lenses and accessories. :facepalm:

 

I've been watching this guy's YouTube channel:

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DkFux8Iv-aYnTRWzwaiBA

 

 

That's a great channel. Thanks!

 

I ended up buying this 50 mm f1.4 USM Canon lens:

 

https://amzn.to/2QDUwe4

 

Light weight and does what I wanted and more for video.

www.youtube.com/c/InTheMixReviews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter's channel is great. He's up in the short list of highest paid "Youtubers". Entertaining and inspirational.

 

I've watched some of his videos twice. So much info... gotta go back!

 

 

When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about the Flickr website:

 

I joined yesterday and started uploading pics (hopelessly slow). I wanted to change the background banner on my homepage but the photo I selected was too large and I received an error message. I found out the correct (maximum) pixel size and I uploaded a new photo to fit. However, the website just layered that new picture over the previous one and now it's stuck like that. It didn't change the actual homepage picture, it's just stuck... I can't make any change to my banner pic now, no matter what size I use.

 

Any fix available?

 

$%#&@ ! :taz:

 

 

When an eel hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's a Moray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

There are a good amount of photo editors that work with RAW images, including Lightroom and Luminar, getting you where you need to go quickly and efficiently, and also organizing your images if you so desire.

 

RAW: photography negative

JPG: print

 

That's somewhat pedantic, but reasonably accurate.

 

You have considerably more latitude with adjusting RAW files, and later on, it sort of future-proofs your image as post-processing software becomes better and has greater ability to extract information from your RAW file.

 

When you photograph JPG only, you are essentially ceding control, letting the camera make decisions for you. If that's okay with you, you're good to go. However, I like control over my image. I want to maximize my ability to shape the image as much as possible. Now, obviously, I'm going to try and nail the image as much as possible in-camera. But I also like the maximum potential for shaping my image in post-processing, particularly since I do night photography, where it's all but essential. This is much like how the greats, such as Ansel Adams, would spend as much as EIGHT HOURS processing his negatives in the darkroom. If Ansel Adams were still alive, I 100% guarantee he would be photographing in RAW.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...