Professional glass and JPEG?
-
#1. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 0
lovemy8514 Registered since 05th Oct 2007Thu 13-Dec-07 07:22 PMThere are benefits to using lenses which open up to large apertures, like 2.8, besides image quality (Which isn't always better!)
One of the biggest benefits is the ability to use the lens in lower light without the need to use the camera's flash. This is called 'available light' photography. The ability to use a faster shutter speed helps prevent blur when no flash is used, and many times this can only be accomplished with a 'fast' lens.
The second benefit is the depth of field available with a lens that has the ability to open up it's aperture to 2.8 or larger. Opening a lens up to 2.8, 1.8, 1.4, etc. can isolate the subject from the rest of the image, and render the background elements in a pleasing, blurred way. The term for an out of focus, blurred background is bokeh, and some lenses are better at producing a pleasing affect than others with this aspect of photography.
That probably didn't help, huh?!
J a m e s
My Gallery
Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.
All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#2. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 1
Hello James,
Thank you for your reply! Yes, I am familiar with both these concepts (available-light photography and DOF) as I was using prime lenses shooting slides in my film days.
My question, however, is if it makes sense to use high quality class (primes or zooms) if I intend to produce JPEG images directly out of the camera. I am a computer programmer and cannot bring myself to dealing with RAW files + Post Processing which translates into spending a lot of time in front of a computer - it makes me feel I am at work
Thanks!
Dimitry
-
#5. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 2
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Thu 13-Dec-07 08:52 PMDimitry:
I think you have to look at it this way. Shooting JPEG is like shooting Slides, except you do have some ability to adjust the image in any of the available post processing SW. So your question as to whether you need high quality glass, would be the same question you might ask if you were shooting film and wanted to shoot slides and not do your own print processing. You already know the advantages of fast pro glass, so your question really isn't about quality, it is about control. I use a D200 and have both manual focus AI'd, AI, and AIS lenses as well as 3 modern lenses (12-24 Dx f/4,35-70 AFD f/2.8, and 70-200 VR f/2.8). If you never intend to post process your pictures in any way, shoot JPEG, and make sure all of your in camera controls are properly set to give you the best JPEG you can get out of your camera. But in doing so, you miss out on the most important improvement available in digital photography, shooting in RAW. RAW embeds a JPEG image, so you can easily extract the JPEG if you need it. But RAW allows you to adjust all of the camera adjustments post shooting, including exposure, white balance, color mode, etc. You can do all of this without impacting the original image. You can open and close a RAW image millions of times without impact to the quality of the image. If you try that with a JPEG file, each time you save it, a little of the quality is lost. In general if you are shooting well composed and exposed images, RAW processing only takes a few minutes for each image, but if you did something incorrectly, only RAW would allow you to recover. While some people only shoot in JPEG, I would never shoot any other way but RAW.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it. -
-
-
#3. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 0
I'm not sure if this is what you want to hear either, but I'm going to say it anyway. Shooting in RAW can give you the best out of your lenses, especially if you're looking for that professional feel. Plus, it can save your butt later on if you end up making mistakes in the field (e.g., setting an incorrect white balance). There are certain mistakes that you cannot correct if you only shoot JPEG, thus you may have more throw away shots. I have also realized that processing RAW files doesn't even take as long as I thought it would. Again, it's probably not what you want to hear, but I want you to get the best out of your images.
Honestly, I really recommend that you shoot RAW/NEF + JPEG before coming to a final decision. Or, at least use RAW/NEF + JPEG when you have to take a really important shot. In the beginning, I didn't want to mess with RAW files either, so I started out shooting JPEG. In all honesty, the JPEGs turned out to be pretty nice. But as soon as I shot one RAW file, fooled around with it in Capture NX, and then compared it to the quality of some of those shots I took in JPEG format, I said to myself, "I WILL NEVER SHOOT IN JPEG (ONLY) AGAIN!!!
My philosophy has become this: Why spend so much money on high dollar cameras and high dollar lenses if you're not even going to use them at their highest ability, or highest settings?
</RANT>
Brandon
Nikon D80
"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins
Brandon
Nikon D80, D300, & F3
"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins
www.photobrandon.com
-
#4. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 3
Hi Brandon,
Thank you for your reply! I have to admit that your arguments are very convincing. Could you please point to me to the right direction (book or on-line article) which describe the RAW post-processing flow which doesn't take a lot of time and effort?
Thanks,
Dimitry
-
#6. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 4
MYSTIFY Registered since 19th Oct 2007Thu 13-Dec-07 08:53 PMhahaha...
Glad to see that you've kept an open mind.
One of the best web sites I've come across is http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototip-archives.html. It has so much information about post processing on it, and it explains a ton about image editing. It is a very comprehensive website!
The book I bought is called "Capture NX" written by Ben Long. It's a very informative book with simple explanations, simple instructions, and examples with pictures. It covers a lot of the key features, and it explains how to use them. If you're going to buy any book, I suggest that you follow along with it while you play around with some of your shots in the actual image editor. You'll learn quicker with hands on experience rather than just reading through the book straight through.
The thing that I love about the Capture NX software is that it has an "Edit List" with all of the important adjustments, and it basically resembles an ordinary "To Do List." That way, when you've edited something or have made an adjustment, you can go to the list to see exactly what you've done and you can easily figure out what you still need to do. Another key selling point for shooting RAW is that any adjustment you make in Capture NX is completely reversable; they call it non-destructive editing.
You can download the 30-day free trial of Capture NX at: http://www.niksoftware.com/cep2nx/usa/entry.php?view=intro/capturenx.shtml
I will warn you that the program requires a lot of memory, and I suggest that your computer has at least 2GB to 3GB of RAM installed because otherwise your computer will run very slowly when Capture NX is open. Plus, you'll definitely want to check out the Nikonians Post Processing forum here at: https://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID36&conf=DCConfID9. They should be able to answer any of your post processing questions in particular, and you find that they've covered a lot of things already.
Brandon
Nikon D80
"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins
Brandon
Nikon D80, D300, & F3
"Great art not only brings forth the ordered essence of human experience, but of the world we live in, too - this is what we call beauty. Art and love are man's greatest gifts to himself; and there can be no art without love. Art is always the making of the soul, the craft of a human being's touch ..."
- David R. Hawkins
www.photobrandon.com
-
#7. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 0
As others have mentioned, you are given more flexibility shooting raw but this really does not have anything to do with a given lens used.
-
#9. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 7
Thank you very much to all who responded!
So here's what I learned from you guys today:
1. High quality glass will show its high quality properties in either JPEG or RAW images.
2. RAW post-processing flow produces higher quality images (as compared to JPEG images with all other parameters equal) but requires special software, more powerful computer, and time investment for image processing.
Did I get it right?
Thanks again for your insight!
Dimitry
-
#10. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 9
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Thu 13-Dec-07 11:14 PMPretty close. I would modify it to say that your post processing SW needs to support RAW plug-ins rather than needing special SW. Capture NX was mentioned, and it is Nikons RAW processor that can also process JPEGs; Adobe Photoshop CS2 or CS3 also has a RAW plug in that will process Nikon NEF (RAW) files, and as others have mentioned Adobe Lightroom, which is more atuned to photogaphers. There are others as well. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. I personally use Capture NX for my RAW processing and finish up in Photoshop CS3 Extended. Ultimately you always need to convert your final image to TIFF or JPEG for most browsers to be able to display your file. Here on Nikonians it has to be JPEG.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#11. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 10
Bob,
Once thing which scares me is the amount of work required to get to the final image. Do you do it for each and every image you shoot? What if you shoot several hundred images when you visit some place? Do you go through this flow with each and every one of them? Besides it, it sounds like there are multiple variables/parameters to play with. How do you know the right combination of these parameters. To be honest, it all sounds a bit overwhelming to me. May be I am just missing something - again, I am new to digital photography...
Dimitry
-
#13. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 11
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Fri 14-Dec-07 04:45 AMHi, Dimitry.
You could check out our Digital Postprocessing Forum to find a lot of great discussions and advice on software and workflow
Brian
Welsh Nikonian
-
-
-
#14. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 10
TomNJ Nikonian since 23rd Nov 2006Fri 14-Dec-07 07:30 AMHi Bob,
I was just about to buy Photoshop Elements 6.0 with the assumption that it can process Nikon NEF raw files. Do you know if it has this capability?
TomNJ
-
#20. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 14
HBB Basic MemberFri 14-Dec-07 10:58 AMTom, Dimitry et al:
Tom: Yes, Elements 6.0 can process Nikon NEF files. I keep a copy of elements 5.0 here in my computer so I can help friends who are using it. I use Photoshop CS3 for all my processing.
When new RAW capable cameras are introduced, Adobe will publish an updated RAW plugin module which must be downloaded before it can be used. This is a simple process.
Dimitry: As other have indicated, RAW processing is a very easy step in your workflow. I shoot exclusively in RAW with a pair of D2X bodies,, always in manual mode and at an ISO of 100, including the night shots where I use my herd of twelve SB800 speedlights.
It is not necessary to process every image in RAW. I usually select only those that appear to have the potential to make great prints, leaving the others alone.
I try and produce the best possible images in the camera, keeping post camera processing at a minimum. Most of the time, I will make minor adjustments to white balance and exposure and that is it. This takes a couple minutes or less at the most. Again, the better the image coming out of the camera, the less work in Photoshop.
RAW processing gives you tools that are very easy to use, specifically white balance and exposure. Like you, many people think that RAW processing is very difficult. I agree with others in this thread, it is very easy.
Hope this helps a bit.
HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.
HBB in Phoenix, Arizona
Nikonian ... Member
Photography is a journey with no conceivable destination.
-
-
#12. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 0
I'd recommend shooting JPEG for a while as I did and use whatever software you have, if needed, to get the image you want. Then try RAW. At first it was a step backwards as I always needed to adjust something. After a while the benefits should become apparent. On a recent outing to the north coast of Oregon with all its foul weather and beautiful vistas, I spent about 6 minutes, average, on abut 900 images in post processing to scrape together a useful set of memories. I couldn't have done it with JPEG files...at least I'm convinced of that.
I haven't looked back...but convert to JPEG for printing at commercial establishments.
Have fun.
//Del
-
#22. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 12
dslater Charter MemberFri 14-Dec-07 05:06 PMDimitry,
One caveat about working with JPEG files - since JPEG is a lossy compression format, every time you save a JPEG file, you will lose a little more detail. Therefore, when you bring your images into your image processing software, you will want to save any intermediate images in a different file format like TIFF or for Photoshop .psd.
Dan
Visit my Nikonians gallery
#15. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 0
I have a somewhat clear understanding of the terms "lossy" and "lossless", but after reading numerous discussions on the following question, it remains unclear.
While indisputable that a jPEG file will be further compressed every time it is edited and then re-saved, if an image shot as a jPEG is downloaded and immediately converted to a TIFF format, will it become a lossless file for future editing just as though it had been shot as RAW? Not talking about general advantages of RAW here.
Peter
-
#16. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 15
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Fri 14-Dec-07 08:18 AM>While indisputable that a jPEG file will be further
>compressed every time it is edited and then re-saved, if an
>image shot as a jPEG is downloaded and immediately converted
>to a TIFF format, will it become a lossless file for future
>editing just as though it had been shot as RAW?
Once saved as a TIFF, the image may be opened, edited and re-saved without any further compression losses. But it's not really the same as RAW, since the initial JPEG compression will have lost some image data.
Brian
Welsh Nikonian -
#17. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 15
benveniste Nikonian since 25th Nov 2002Fri 14-Dec-07 08:23 AMIf you convert a JPG to a TIF, you will still have the losses incurred in the creation of the JPG, but the "rot" will stop. Many digital editing operations are also lossy, though, and using TIF won't help you there.
When I'm intending to make a print, I start with an NEF and convert to a TIF. Once I'm done editing I save a .JPG version for screen use.
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck
-
#18. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 15
Elements works fine with RAW files. I use capture NX though as I find the results far better and then finish things off in elements.
If you shoot RAW, you can view your images immediately just as you can with a jpeg. You don't need to do anything to them at all if you don't want to - but this is unlikely as the possibilities are so numerous.
If you feel really daunted at first, shoot both at the same time. Ie. Shoot RAW+Jpeg. When you put the files on your computer, save the nefs off into a file and store it. Then just use the jpeg images. If you find one of them to be the best image you've ever taken, great. Use it. If you find one has perfect composition etc etc but is lacking in one area (let's say shadow detail or white balance) hunt down the RAW file and use it.
I've got raw files from years ago which I spent hours fiddling with to get the best out of them. If I open these RAW files now and edit with Capture NX, I can do so much more with them. In 5 years, when another RAW software development is upon us, I'll be able to use them again and get even better results than I can now. A jpeg isn't close to being this versatile. Shoot RAW even if you never use the files, save them for later use. It's like throwing away a slide just because you've made a print from it already otherwise.
As for lenses. How will you use them? Pro glass tends to be housed in a pro lens body and will take far more punishment than a consumer lens. It's also generally more able to hold it's value second hand so not really that much more expensive.
Hope some of that helps,
Richard
#21. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 0
I only convert RAW files to jpeg for a project or sending a pic to someone or if I need to have a print made.
Regarding the lens - I have found with "faster" lenses that the Auto White Balance seems to be a lot more accurate - otherwise I am in agreement with all that has been said by others above.
Regards,
Clive Liddell
Pietermaritzburg
South Africa
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#23. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 21
Cookies35 Nikonian since 17th Apr 2007Fri 14-Dec-07 10:40 PMDear Dimitry,
I'm a serious newbie (have to stop calling myself an "utter" newbie now that I've entered my second month of taking pictures ), and like everybody else is saying, "RAW" sounded scary. But I went for it. My husband and I got "real" cameras together, but he made it clear from the beginning, he just wanted to have fun taking pictures ... no, absolutely none, NADA photo-editing and fancy equipment.
It took me two weeks to start shooting everything, E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, in RAW+JPEG. And once I had figured out the secret, it took me five minutes to convince my husband. Except he doesn't even bother with the JPEG + " bit -- he, with his D40x and absolutely no-fancy-gear-allowed and all-time-spent-behind-a-computer-is-wasted-time approach to photography -- now shoots ONLY RAW.
Everybody I meet thinks that the point of shooting in RAW is if you plan to edit your photographs.
The REAL reason to shoot in RAW is if you think you ever might make a mistake.
JPEG photos are simply finished. You can e-mail them, print them, give them to other people on disk, hook up your camera to a printer or stick your memory card into a slot at a photo store and out pop prints, without there needing to be an actual computer anywhere on the premisis.
The bad part is the JPEGs are exactly like prints used to be: some come out, some don't, and you're stuck with what you get. Should have set the camera for a lighter/darker day? Oh, well, look at these five or six that still came out really great!!! Forgot to set the camera to "incandescent" when you came in from the picnic? Gee, look, everybody looks like they have Martian somewhere in their ancestry; oh, well, look at these three or four that really capture the great expressions!!!
And so on. You take the pictures, the moment passes, and you only find out after you print or view the things on a screen whether the settings were actually right in the first place.
If you shoot with JPEG+RAW, you get two sets of photographs: every single picture comes out of your camera twice. So you take the JPEGs and print them, or whatever you were planning to do with them, and don't look back.
Unless you notice that the people are slightly yellowish-green, or they're all too dark ...
THEN, and only THEN (using my husband's approach to photography, which seems like something you can appreciate) you open the RAW files. And you realize, "Oh, yeah! I forgot to change the camera setting to incandescent!" And you go to the RAW settings in your program (Capture NX rocks!!! but only if you buy Ben Long's book, which MEGA-ROCKS!!! for beginners!!!), and find the "incandescent" button, and check it.
And voila, you have experienced honest-to-goodness time travel: you've gone back into time, back at the party, reset your camera the way it should have been set in the first place, taken the picture, and ...
now you can save the file as JPEG, and print it, and e-mail it, and ...
The ONLY required added work with a RAW file is opening it in a photo-editing program and choosing SAVE AS, and saving it as a JPEG. Anything else is truly 100% of 100% optional.
Meaning, RAW isn't more work, and isn't for people who want to post-process the death out of their pictures. It's for everybody, really, to give you a chance, if you need it, to fix a mistake thatyou forgot to fix when you were still at the party taking pictures.
In terms of the loss of quality, which is why I STARTED taking RAW in the first place (I discovered the real jackpot by accident), remember that if you shoot in JPEG you lose a heck of a lot of information just getting the picture out of the camera. This gets back to you original question: you clearly want to get as high quality pictures as possible. Why would you want to shoot in a file format (JPEG) which trashes a huge amount of information (photo quality) before you even get it out of the camera? If you ever e-mail anything, or crop anything, or use one of those killer digital photo album maker services, you have to sacrifice quite a bit of photo quality in order to get your pix into the right format. Why on earth would you want to START that process with a photograph which has already had a significant amount of its information/quality trashed in the first place? If you're required to trash information/quality in step 2, don't you want to start step 2 with as much of the original information/quality as you can?
That, my man, is RAW.
Good luck!!!
-- LaDonna
PS: I just (as in y-e-s-t-e-r-d-a-y) figured out how to deal with Nikon RAW files in Photoshop Elements 5. It's not obvious. You have to download a plug-in, then take the equivalent (original) plug-in OUT of it's Plug-In proprietary home, and move the new plug-in in. If you'd like to do all your work in one program, and that program is Elements, get back in the forum and ask for some help, if the Adobe instructions don't give you enough guidance. Very easy to do, but not something you'd necessarily figure out on your own. Still, for fixing photographs (as opposed to manipulating photographs), Capture NX rocks, amigo, it really and truly does.
If you let His Sainthood Ben Long show you the ropes.
Ciao!
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
— LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Visit my Nikonians gallery.-
#24. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 23
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Sat 15-Dec-07 04:17 AMVery well said. You can just batch process all your RAW files after you work on them and it will then make a set of JPEGs with one click. By shooting only RAW, you also save both memory card and hard disk space as you are not getting two sets of files, just one. The JPEG image is already embedded in the RAW file anyway.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#25. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 24
Cookies35 Nikonian since 17th Apr 2007Sat 15-Dec-07 09:16 AMBob's right: you can just shoot RAW, get more mileage on your memory card, and then just convert them all to the JPEG size of choice in Capture NX with one click, as long as your computer is up to it. On my computer, batch processing takes forever and a day (as in, I set the computer its task -- super simple once you know which button to use, and then go to bed. When I wake up the next morning they're all finished.
I'm not kidding! So don't try this if you're in a hurry and your computer has less than top-of-the-line RAM. I just shoot in RAW + JPEG, and use a fantastic little image tank from JOBO. You can get it used, but for all practical purposes brand new, for the price of a large high-speed memory card. Mine is the Giga One (slower than the Giga One Ultra, but tons cheaper now that the Ultra has been released), which is so small and light I store it in my camera bag. Then I only need two memory cards. One is in the camera. When it's used up, I put it into the Giga One (in the camera bag) and start transferring the files. The other one comes out of the Giga One and goes into the camera. It takes maybe 10 minutes to transfer 2 GB, something which would be aggravating if I were sitting around waiting on it, but which is for all practical purposes a "split second" since I'm NOT waiting for it; it happens in the background of my shooting day.
More expensive models have screens, are much heavier, much more expensive, weigh a ton ... and are not remotely needed if all you're trying to do is simulate 40 GB of memory cards for the price of one.
Note, this set-up does mean that you have to re-charge the battery every night after you use the Giga One; its battery is somewhat limited. AND, you have to plug the Giga One simultaneously into an outlet as well as your computer while you transfer the files from the Giga One to your computer -- again, its limited little battery.
But it WORKS for me!!!
In addition, as soon as you start shooting RAW, consider a Sandisk Extreme III card reader. It makes night and day difference when transferring tons of GB, particularly from fast memory cards. Again, can be had for a song, even new!, on eBay, and after my camera and my Giga One it is the best money I've spent on my new hobby so far.
-- LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
— LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Visit my Nikonians gallery.-
#26. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 25
Dimitry
As mentioned above, I totally agree that your choice of lens and the results you achieve will apply to both RAW and Jpeg images. But my experience finds that the better the quality of the glass, the less the distinction between the RAW and Jpeg image results. More on this later. As to whether use of so called "pro glass" makes a difference, it depends on the situaions described previously, such as the need for high shutter speed in low light, subject isolation, etc. Different lenses have different qualities that apply to different situations. That's why there are so many options. Define your photographic need, and it's much easier to suggest a particular lens or lenses to suit it.
On the other issue discussed in this thread, at the risk of sounding like a heretic in this discussion, I'd like to promote the benefits of shooting only Jpeg, at least in certain situations. As primarily a sports shooter, when I'm at an event, I'll be shooting at least 1500 to 2000 images in just a couple of hours. To process those in RAW would be a real problem, particularly if there are short time frame deadlines to meet. And shooting RAW + Jpeg just uses up too much buffer and memory as well as slows the overall shooting speed. So I shoot all Jpeg, and have absolutely no problem with the excellent quality of the results.
It's all a matter of how you set up the camera for the desired results. Then it's easy to make adjustments on the Jpegs, if any are needed at all, in Photoshop or other PP software, with, again, excellent results. To do this, I have accumulated a large assortment of custom actions and batch settings that do all the heavy lifting for me in PS, and most are tailored for Jpegs. All this comes with experience, and knowing your equipment and post processing software intimately.
Frankly, there have been times I've taken a RAW + Jpeg image, and tinkered with the RAW one to achieve the best I thought possible. When I compared it with the out of camera Jpeg, while it was marginally better, it wasn't enough to make up for the time involved with manually adjusting it. And then, depending on the dynamic range available in the Jpeg, and how optimally it was exposed, if it needed modest adjustments, it would often end up to be very close to the RAW processed results. This is particularly true with the newer bodies, and more so with the D3 and D300, both of which produce excellent out of camera Jpegs.
As mentioned above, if you need to convert the image for any use other than your own, it needs to be in another format, most frequently Jpeg. It's the more universally used format for web, printing, etc. When I produce CDs for the team members from the events, obviously it's going to be in Jpeg format so they can take it to their preferred photo printing source like Walmart, Walgreens, etc. So it's very much easier if it's already in that format, only needing automated cropping, sharpening, printer profiling, etc., in Photoshop. Then it's printed via QImage, and/or burned to a CD (usually without a printer profile, although I will convert duplicates to Costco profiles if the team has access to one, due to their excellent profiling system from Dry Creek Photo).
Finally, there ARE situations where I find RAW very beneficial. If there is a different venue other than sports going on, such as a wedding, prom, graduation, orchestra concert, etc., I'll revert to RAW + Jpeg due to the much less strenuous demands in terms of volume and (usually) deadlines. And it's often the difficult lighting conditions these events present that brings out the real benefits of RAW. If the volume is relatively high, and the results look good out of camera, I'll often use Jpegs for many situations, such as the candids at a wedding reception. Then I'll use the RAW for those special shots where the best results really pay off for everyone.
To sum it up, today's digital bodies can and do produce excellent out of camera Jpeg images. As a starting digital shooter, you're well advised to take advantage of this for the most easily achieved initial best results. As you become familiar with the equipment and post processing software, you will probably want to use RAW in a variety of situations, but not necessarily all the time. It's all a matter of what works for you, and that will only be determined after you've worked at it for a while. Good Luck!
-
#27. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 26
Cookies35 Nikonian since 17th Apr 2007Sun 16-Dec-07 08:31 AMFANTASTIC post, Integrity!!! You've mentioned some things that I am only in the process of learning, and which would have dawned on me in another few months of shooting (in one of those "oh, Iiiiii gedit!!!! moments I have). Thanks for shortening the learning curve! Let's hear it for heretics -- you can learn so much from them.
I'd like to refine a couple of your points.
Firstly, especially for a "starting" digital shooter, I find RAW the preferred format to shoot in, precisely because I don'tcolor> know the "right" settings yet, don't have a library of settings files built up, haven't even ever been to most of the places I'm shooting before, and hence don't even know yet whether the setting I use are going to work out. The LCD screen is far too small to see this. I'll only know once I get back to my computer. By then, if either I, or the cameracolor> (think complicated lighting and/or auto-focusing situations) got it wrong, and I've only shot JPEG, I'm stuck. And the difference between MY JPEGs and my corrected RAWs is enormous ... precisely because I'm a beginner. As I get better, I suspect (hope?!?) the difference will get smaller, and then you're absolutely right: whether RAW is "worth it" depends on the relative value of each of the following to me for this particular situation: my time, the camera's buffer space, and the marginal increase in final quality.
A fantastic point you've made, woven all through your post but which really needs to be highlighted explicitly, is it depends on how much it matters to you that your final pics are as exquisite as possiblecolor>. In some situations (journalists sending something to a newspaper, high school sports pics for the team's memory CD, weekly e-mails to the grandparents) the difference in quality simply isn't even visible in the final picture, much less worth it. In other situations (the amazing vacation prints that you want to frame on the wall, photos of your church that you want to use for your ads and/or information fair slideshows, wedding portraits), you might value every extra bit of quality you can reasonably get. But this goes to the point of "RAW if for when you plan to work on your photos in post." The main point I was making is that RAW isn't JUST for those who plan to edit in post: it's also for those of us who still make mistakes when taking the pictures in the first place.
Thanks again for taking the time to help us learn!!!
-- LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
— LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Visit my Nikonians gallery.-
#28. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 27
LaDonna
Thanks for the kind words. I only wear the "heretic" moniker on those rare occasions where it fits!
To further address your point above, here's a suggestion to those new to DSLRs that will provide good results without the need to immediately learn RAW processing, which for some may be more intimidating than mastering the basic camera settings. Use the camera defaults and set it to Program mode, which lets the internals get it right. This is why the D40/D40x is such a successful starter DSLR - it gets Jpegs right out of the box! And then the necessity to convert to Jpegs from RAW isn't an added burden, and the photographer doesn't need to know the intricasies of post processing. For those beginning with a more advanced body, this will also hold true.
From my experience, there are many photographers out there who are comfortable with cameras from their film days, but aren't very PC/Mac literate, and some that are even scared of computers. Going digital needs to be made very easy for these individuals, which is what is being done by Nikon on the starting level. While RAW is an option down the road, most will be comfortable with Jpegs as the beginning standard, particularly if they've had any experience with the digital point and shoot variety. They only need this format to get started and can progress from there. Make it too difficult for them in this leap to a DSLR and you've lost them for a long time.
As for those more experienced with DSLRs and even RAW processing, the move to more advanced bodies can be intimidating. Fortunately, such sites as Nikonians provides lots of guidance! For the D200/D300 there are the Excel spreadsheets with all the setting options well defined. This should help to get the images "correct out of the box", which is the most desired result whether shooting RAW or Jpeg!
-
#29. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 28
Cookies35 Nikonian since 17th Apr 2007Sun 16-Dec-07 07:56 PMDear Integrity,
You should wear the heretic label more often. It suits you.
And my words weren't "kind." Like I tell my students, my words are, to the best of my ability to make them so, "fitting." If they come across as "nice," you've missed the point.
Anyway, I still take issue with what you say about converting JPEG to RAW. I completely, utterly, 100% of 100% agree with you about keeping things simple. I know like no other that if a task is easy and handy it is picked up quickly. The more complicated you make it, the more you scare people away, and then they're much further away than before they started. However, the issue of RAW and JPEG isn't one of "conversion." It's a matter of opening a document ("RAW") and choosing "Save As," which anybody who gets on a computer needs to learn the second day they're on the computer anyways, for so many, many, MANY reasons. And since most newbies want to do things with their digitals other than just print them (e-mail is the big issue), they have to learn how to change file formats (to make the pics smaller), which is much harder to learn to do, even in so-called auto-format-for-e-mail programs, than it is to learn to "save as." However, this still is a "step," which can be avoided altogether if newbies are taught, with cameras other than the D40, just to shoot "JPEG fine + RAW." Then, on whatever day they find themselves stumped, they can ask a question on Nikonians, the answer to which will invariably start "if you shoot in RAW ..." and not have to feel utterly frustrated (like I did) on account of an entire weekend of un-reproducable memory moment has been lost, and all I have is crappy unfixable pictures to show for it.
My husband has a D40. It does NOT consistently produce quality pics out of the camera, when set to auto-anything. It doesn't take much at all for it to overexpose everything, and I do mean badly. I've seen it happen on several occasions, and my poor husband was so stumped. Completely blown highlights can't be retrieved anyway, but as soon as he started shooting in RAW, he could at least re-set the EV (something which I only showed him when he was weeping over his pics, NOT on day one!), and most of the pictures just popped out like magic! Very happy husband.
And as for those spreadsheets, those are absolutely FABULOUS starting points! Boy do I wish somebody had shown me those a month ago. Perhaps there should be a permanent post on the newbie forum telling all newbies which posts to go to FIRST, to use or ignore as they see fit, but at least they know they're there. Nevertheless, those spreadsheet settings give starting pointscolor>, at least the D80 one does. They work fantastically whenever they work at all. But throw the camera a curve ball (which seems to be the only thing I've been able to do ) and they don't work AT ALL. The exposure, in particular, has been simply awful in the horribly-lit indoor places I've been. One prominent bottle of purple sheen spray (church youth in a really intensive hands-on-crafts-n-faith project)came out stark-raving BLUE. I photographed the bottle because I figured that, in a really funny way, that bottle would bring back more memories from the entire group (some 150 teens) than any other single picture I could take (other than the gnome, but that's another story). So for the retreat memories CD, I shot the spray sheen bottle. Had I not been shooting in RAW ... I mean, BLUE??? This thing was so purple that I'm sure the kids never even actually looked at the label. If it had turned up blue in the photos, I don't even think they would have recognized it.
Ok, stupid example, not precisely a make-or-break memory shot here, but the point I'm trying to make is, the "standard" auto settings are no more than that. And after six weeks of shooting (me) and three weeks of shooting (my beloved), both of us would be lucky if the typical auto settings worked more than 60% of the time.
That's not very good.
In fact, it's enough to drive a newbie to despair, and curse the day s/he spent that kind of money on a camera. And if Photoshop Elements Smart Fix happens to fix it up for you, fantastic. But if not ...
Hence, enter RAW.
I'm not advocating that newbies learn how to DO anything with RAW on day one; I'm just advocating that their workflow be set to shoot in it. That way, as soon as they feel courageous enough to do anything with it, the next hurdle will be so very low. Basically, what I'm saying is that two very little hurdles, one on the first day you hook up the camera to the computer, and the second as soon as you have a picture that you'd like to fix, is far better than no hurdle at all at the beginning, and then a largish one later. I think most folks would simply never make the second step. Shooting in JPEG is both too easy (easy to be lazy and stay frightened, harder to do something about it) and too (relatively speaking) un-rewarding. If newbies were taught to shoot in RAW from day one, I think you'd have far fewer people selling their D40s, wondering why on earth they bought it in the first place. My husband would have been one of them: he seriously couldn't see the point of this big (relatively) heavy camera at all -- until I showed him RAW. Up until then, his itty-bitty Canon point-n-shoot took better pictures, and he didn't need to learn how to set a thing.
-- LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
— LaDonna
_________________________________
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing
Visit my Nikonians gallery.-
#30. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 29
Dear Nikonians,
I was on a business trip and away from my computer for a few days. When I got back I found so many wonderful and informative posts!
Thank you all from the bottom of my heart! I will read all the posts very closely and post my comments/additional questions if I have them.
Again, thank you all!
Dimitry
-
-
-
#31. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 28
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Mon 17-Dec-07 03:41 AMWhile I will agree that many professionals shoot only JPEG because they say they don't have the time to process RAW, or their customers demand immediiate results and want JPEG, I still think shooting in RAW makes the most sense. The guys that do Photoshop User TV have all moved to shooting in RAW, because it is so easy to produce any format you want from the RAW image. As far as image processing goes, I am self taught. I shot film for years, both slides and print film, and even had a darkroom. I had no autofocus lenses, everything was manual focus and my best camera was an F3. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix E950 2 mp camera, and I started to learn to process those iamges, all JPEG. When I got my D200, I sold my F3, but kept my old manual focus lenses. The difference in shooting film vs shooting digital, is that digital is a whole lot easier. The art of photography remains the same, the tools just change. If you were the kind of photographer who shot film and sent them off to the lab and got slides or prints back, throwing out what didn't look good, then shooting JPEG is pretty much the same. Send you card to a lab and get your printed pictues back or print them on your home printer and go through the same procedure. When I shot film, I took a lot of action shots, all manual focus, and I guarantee you that I did not shoot hundreds of images hoping that one would come out OK, even though I did my own processing. I thought about what I was shooting and how I was going to do it, and I still threw away some images. By shooting digital I do have the option to shoot lots of pictures at no real cost to me, except the initial card and time taken to look at them on my computer. But I think it makes a lot more sense to shoot less pictures, do it in RAW and have control over the picture. If a picture looks good with in camera settings, then do a final sharpening or keep the sharpening you had in camera and save the iamge as a JPEG. If you find one you want to make the best possible image you want then spend a few minutes and process the RAW image and then save it as a JPEG or a TIFF or whatever. I think the real point of this whole thread is many people are afraid of RAW, because they do not understand it. It is not intimidating. If you do any processing at all, the process and time spent is really no different between RAW and JPEG, except the RAW image never changes, only instructions are saved with the file and you can go back and change your mind later and the picture will never degrade. Shooting RAW is total power over your image. Shooting JPEG is shooting with shackles that you had to put up with in film, but don't in the digital age. JUst think about ISO. In film days, if you loaded a slow film, you were stuck shooting with that film until you completed the roll. Today, I can select a different ISO for every image I shoot, giving me more control over exposure than I ever had. Shooting film, unless I had a polaroid back, ment waiting for processing to know if I captured what I saw. Today I can get instant feedback and make adjustments on the fly. Does that mean that I think that beginners need to start shooting in RAW? No, as first they need to learn to understand their cameras and camera settings, and rudimentary processing on their computer. But once they learn how to do simple processing of their images, then they should move to RAW without fear. If they never want to do any simple processing on their computers, but want to drop them off at Costco, then yes shoot JPEG and use a point and shoot.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#32. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 31
Windzweaver Registered since 01st Dec 2007Mon 17-Dec-07 03:19 PMOk. I'm another heretic. One problem that may not be readily apparent at this point but may become a big issue in the future is the fact that raw file formats are brand sometimes even camera specific there is no standardization at this point. So the question becomes in 20, 30, 100 years from now will there be a program around that will translate your file into a meaningful picture. Especially when it is as specific as one camera whose new version will come out in 2 to 3 years.
-
#33. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 32
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Mon 17-Dec-07 04:18 PMGuys - this is the Nikkor LENSES Forum...
Thanks!
Brian
Welsh Nikonian-
#34. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 33
Ok Brian, but I want just this one shot at all these people that think anything but raw is being a heretic? Couple questions.
1. For all you rawianins {new term}, how many images do you have stored? Personally I have 100 GB currently stored in either jpeg, or psd, {elements 5.0}. Which would relate st what 400 GB in raw? In another year of storing images I will be near a TB if stored in raw? I hate to see what size the file is when using a EOS 1Ds mark III in raw?
2. I also use layers in Photoshop, {lostless}. Save most in psd format, {lostless}. Anyone else? Get it right the first time, raw is used too many times by someone that thinks raw is a cure all. Raw can't bring back details that were never recorded the first time by wrong exposure!
Finally: put your money in lenses. Cameras go and come, a lens is almost a permanent investment.
-
#35. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 34
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Tue 18-Dec-07 11:31 PMBrian please move this thread to the post processing forum as it appears it has gone way off the original topic of pro lenses, as it is clear to answer this latest post it would be out of line with what you want and it does need to be answered as it contains incorrect assumptions.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it. -
#36. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 34
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Wed 19-Dec-07 05:50 PMRongarrett:
I am glad this has been moved as I would like to address your comments. I am also sure others more knowlegable than me will chime in. Yes it will take more storage for a RAW image initially, but as soon as you start processing a JPEG and adding layers, etc, you are increasing the size of a JPEG file. In RAW you are only saving instructions, so the file does not grow much while still in the NEF envbironment. I have well over 1200 images stored on my PC and they are a combo of RAW, Jpeg, PSD, etc and take up 256GB of space.
RAW just captures very thing that hits the sensor, contrary to your assertion that RAW can't bring back details that were never recorded the first time by a wrong exposure, that comment really applies to JPEG. RAW is the total of what the sensor saw and is not effected by WB, exposure,etc, those are all processes that are applied to the RAW data to create a JPEG. It is true however if something is not in the total sensor data, you can't create it, but a JPEG image is not giving you all the data the sensor saw. So when you open a RAW file you can now adjust the image within limits of the camera sensor and select your WB, your exposure, color mode, etc. You can do some of this by processing JPEGs in the RAW Processors of Capture NX and Adobe, but you certainly do not have the complete data or control that you get by starting with a RAW image.
And yes to get back to the original question, the answer is to put your money in the lenses, and in doing so process to get the most out of that expenditure.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#37. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 36
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Wed 19-Dec-07 06:32 PM>RAW is the total of what the sensor saw and is not effected
>by WB, exposure,etc, those are all processes that are applied
>to the RAW data to create a JPEG.
Ummm - I'd quibble with your inclusion of exposure in that list. Exposure (at least in its traditional sense, which I believe still applies today) refers to the amount of light hitting the sensor at the time of image capture. This absolutely does affect the RAW image data. If the image is so over-exposed that a highlight is completely "blown", no amount of post-processing can recover that data.
Brian
Welsh Nikonian-
#38. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 37
My money is in my lenses/cameras and NOT my computer so I can't shoot Raw. (1G memory on an AMD Athalon.)
That will change as I have beaten all the life I can out of this computer and will soon have to build a new one. :'(
-
#39. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 37
LaDonna, Bob, et al:
Back to basics. What works for some won't be what works for others. If you're comfortable with computers and post processing software, have the time and enjoy working with RAW formats, fine- DO IT! However, the question posed was from a photographer new to digital images. How does he meet his immediate needs was the question. As Brian most recently points out, if it isn't right in camera, within certain latitudes, it won't be recoverable. As a film shooter, it's much more important to get it right in camera from the beginning. If you can do that, you're ahead from the start. Then all you need to do INITIALLY, is shoot Jpegs, until you become educated and comfortable in processing RAW images, again if that's what you want.
Also, to address one of LaDonna's more recent posts, it's not just taking a RAW image and doing a "save as" to Jpeg. Depending on the camera body, including make and model, and the RAW processing software, the results can be strikingly different. That's why recent DSLRs have been optimized for Jpeg out of camera, including the D40. If LaDonna's husband is having trouble obtaining good images with this body, it's possible the settings have been altered in some way. Try resetting the defaults and working with that. If it's still a problem, again being a "heretic", try the settings advocated by Ken Rockwell at this link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/index.htm
If you don't know Ken, he's a constant self-promoter who is very opinionated, and often receives lots of flack for his outspoken manner and sometimes flakey facts. But he's prolific, and if you can weed through the garbage on his site and in his articles, he has some very good basics on photography. As he mentions in his shootout comparison with the other recent Nikon bodies, the D40's meter can be less than perfect, but it's easily adjusted, using the LCD to tune it to the differing exposure conditions. And to keep on the point of shooting Jpegs initially, that's all he uses, although he has the wherewithall to process RAW, just not the time or storage for all his shooting.
Finally, in the case of experienced digital photographers, I'm not advocating for or against RAW, or any other format including TIFF and Jpeg. They have decided for themselves what works best for their work flow. What I'm suggesting is an introductory process for those new to digital photography, and particularly post processing, to make the transition as painless as possible.
-
#40. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 37
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Wed 19-Dec-07 09:39 PMBrian what I was trying to say, but apparently not very well is that RAW is just that, all the data that the sensor captured. The camera then takes that data and applies its algorithns to it to produce a JPEG that takes into account how the camera was set, i.e. the f stop, and shutter speed to make up the exposure, the WB, the color mode, etc. So when you are done you get a JPEG that processed that data to produce an image. If you or your auto exposure were good, you would have a good image. If slightly off, then so would be your image. I know that after I shoot in RAW, I can adjust the exposure at least +/- 2 EV without problem. I can change the color mode, the WB, the curves, D lighting, sharpness, etc all non distructively, which was the other point I was trying to make in that you never actually touch the original data when you are processing in RAW, but just adding instructions on how to interpret the RAW data, which makes for smaller processed files that can be corrected again and again without any loss. Everytime you change and save a JPEG you loose a bit of the information. I was not trying to say that you ever could recover more data than what hit the sensor. I am surprised how much people misunderstand how easy RAW is to use and how beneficial it is to shoot in RAW. I also agree that many people would just be fine shooting JPEG, as long as they do not intend to do a lot of post processing. The initial RAW file will take up more storage space, but it will also be of better quality.
Here are 2 links that may give a bit more balanced view.
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_raw.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#41. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 40
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Thu 20-Dec-07 04:54 AMThanks for the clarification.
>Brian what I was trying to say, but apparently not very well
>is that RAW is just that, all the data that the sensor
>captured. The camera then takes that data and applies its
>algorithns to it to produce a JPEG that takes into account
>how the camera was set, i.e. the f stop, and shutter speed
>to make up the exposure, the WB, the color mode, etc. So
>when you are done you get a JPEG that processed that data to
>produce an image.
My debate was (and is) about your inclusion of f stop and shutter speed in the list of things that the camera applies as part of its processing to create a jpeg. That's just not correct, sorry! The f/stop and shutter speed affect the RAW image data too.
Brian
Welsh Nikonian-
#42. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 41
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Thu 20-Dec-07 03:48 PMBrian:
Again I need to clarify. I agree that the exposure will impact the light that falls on sensor sites and thus effect RAW data. The RAW file will keep the exposure data in a header. When the camera produces the JPEG it processes the RAW data, creates an 8 bit file and you get the result. When you use RAW, the file is processed on a computer and it is a 12 bit file ( I think 14 on a D3) and you can convert it to a 16 bit TIFF. You also can change the exposure by up to +/- 2EV depending on how good your exposure was to start with. So you are working with more leveles as the two articles I included show, and therefore have a better image.
So in the end, if you have a powerful computer and adequate storage space, and the need for the best image that your camera can produce use RAW, if it is a snapshot or the final source does not need the best possible image or you need to hand over an image right out of the camera, shoot JPEG.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#43. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 42
Bob
I really think you're missing Brian's point. Instead of argueing for the use of RAW vs Jpeg, consider this: The result of shooting even 1 stop differently will make a substantial impact on the final image, which RAW processing won't affect. If you use f2.8 at 1/200th vs f5.6 at 1/50th you have the possibility of entirely differently appearing photos, with bokeh, action blur, etc. impacting them. RAW doesn't negate this impact of the user in setting the camera correctly for the desired results. (Note: The important emphasis is on the "desired results", not whether or not it's "correct".)
RAW isn't a solve-all for the novice, or indiscriminate, or, for that matter, any shooter. It's simply another format that allows modification with certain software, each with often substantially different impact on the resulting final image. With the processing power of today's software, such as PSCS3, the ability to modify any image type is substantial, including Jpeg! I'm amazed at the latitude I now have using PS on my sports Jpegs, when I find a special one that needs modification. While RAW might have made it slightly easier to obtain the desired results, it's a rare situation where I can't obtain them with the Jpeg. And the advantages and efficiencies of getting it correct in-camera vastly outweigh whichever format I use anyway.
But as with all things in life, different strokes for different folks. I've seen enough of life in my old age to become irritated when anyone says there's only one "best" way to do something, particularly when it's an art form, as photography is. Jpeg isn't the only way, nor is RAW, or TIFF, or GIF, or any other format. What is the "best" way is what works for the individual. I hope anyone reading this thread comes away with this final thought from me.
-
#44. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 43
robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Thu 20-Dec-07 11:44 PMIf that was his point I certainly did miss it.
I agree RAW isn't a solve-all for alll images.
I agree that the important thing is to try and get it right in the camera.
I also agree that RAW is not going to change things like Depth of field as obviously the same overall exposure can be arrived by changing the combination of shutter speed and aperture, giving you very different pictures. But you can't change that with a JPEG either.
And yes we CAN do a lot more with JPEGs in photoshop than we could before, but you are still working with less of the original data.
If I was trying to say one thing consistantly, considering the original post asked about shooting PRO lenses and the impact of using JPEG or RAW, it is that the RAW image has more data and therefore will lead to a better result for those that want to take the time to work with it. The old slide vs print issue.
When I shot film, I took many slides and knew that I had better get it right or the picture was a toss away. Print film gave me more control over the entire image and using all the darkroom skills I could muster, I might have made that print better than a slide of the same subject might have been, except I have to admit, I always liked slides better.
So in summary I was saying if you want the maximum potential out of your image, understanding that you need it as good as you can get in the camera, RAW gives you that potential, because it keeps all of the data and processing in RAw is non distructive. I was also saying that many people seem to be afraid of RAW, not understanding it spotential and ease of use.
But I am not saying that everybody should shoot RAW, but they should take some time to understand its potential and decide for themselves if they want to work in that environment.
Bob Baldassano
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
camera"
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.-
#45. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 44
briantilley Nikonian since 26th Jan 2003Fri 21-Dec-07 06:14 AM>If that was his point I certainly did miss it.
Yes, basically it was. Thanks for explaining it better than I could, Richard
Brian
Welsh Nikonian-
#46. "RE: Professional glass and JPEG?" | In response to Reply # 45
Brian
You're welcome! Just one of those rare instances where I could help in repayment for all the times you've supported various positions of mine and others that could use clarification and more lucid explanation.
And Bob, thanks for a clarification of your postition, which now more nearly aligns with mine. Have a great holiday, all!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
G
I recently switched to digital photography and have a naive question. If I am planning to shot only in JPEG (as I don't want to mess with RAW files and post processing), does it make any sense to use the top-notch quality professional glass (like the f2.8 lenses) or the quality of these lenses will exhibit itself only in the RAW files + Post Processing? Thank you in advance for your insight!
Dimitry