[Oldbayrunner]

Card just emptied itself! Seriously piss.. off. Put in a new card and I'm still getting underdone photo's even in bright midday light. If I get this sorted I'm sticking to Auto Pict in future. Let the camera do the work. RAW is definitely not for beginners like me.

Now that's the attitude of a true point N shooter... To be rather blunt, your problem isn't raw it's your lack of knowledge of your camera, Ev and using reciprecol exposure settings.

[Dewman]

Hello,

So do mine. I read an online article (not here) about shooting in RAW being better than saving in JPG. Thought okay, she's the professional, if that's what she advises then that's what I'll do. So I read my K-r manual and followed the instructions. Ended up with what seemed like underexposed shots. Thought what the heck is going on? Couldn't find out in the manual how to get back to JPG's only and ended up losing the lot. Even all the prevoius shots that I'd taken as JPG's using the camera's default setup in AUTO PICT. (100+). Card just emptied itself! Seriously piss.. off. Put in a new card and I'm still getting underdone photo's even in bright midday light. If I get this sorted I'm sticking to Auto Pict in future. Let the camera do the work. RAW is definitely not for beginners like me.

I've never tried RAW as of yet. I've spent time with my camera so that I'm now pretty familiar with it and it's capabilities. The digital world is definitely a different breed of horse than the old film and darkroom era, but the basic tenets of photography still hold true. Things like subject matter, composition and proper "development" (read: digital manipulation) after the initial exposure still applies. At first, I was totally overwhelmed but now, I've completely embraced this new and exciting facet of photography and it has totally revived my interest in picture-taking. My photos now have good contrast and I've mastered the internal settings of my camera to the point that I have confidence that I can capture the image I percieve in my mind. Spend time with your editing software. Learn what each aspect will do. Ask questions. The members of this forum are very knowledgable and are more than willing to answer your questions. Don't be afraid to experiment. Try different settings on your camera and see what they will do. I've learned to absolute love the manual setting. It's akin to shooting with my old ME Super and I was very good with it and I feel very comfortable in that mode. Hang in there. There IS a light at the end of the tunnel.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[abmj]

... RAW is definitely not for beginners like me.

Exactly right.

[mgvh]

The edited photos some have provided do show the potential in your camera.
One thing no one appears to have commented upon is the CPL filter you are using. There is a wide variety of quality in these filters. They all will affect your picture in some way. You might want to try a pic with and without the CPL and then see how they dress up in post-processing.

[timcatn]

About CPL's. I first bought a really cheap one for my DA*300 just to try out what it was all about. It sort of Works, but i loose a lot of resolution, and the bookeh looks really weird With it. Contrast is also suffering.


I recently bought a smaller one to use on the DA 50 1.8. This was a Hoya Pro1D. My what a difference! First it did a much better job of the polarizing job. There is also no visible loss of detail and contrast.


Also supporting what others are saying. RAW is the way to go. Especially when you have Photoshop.

[abmj]

... RAW is the way to go. Especially when you have Photoshop.

"Aye, there's the rub" (with apologies to W. Shakespeare)

For those who will do the work of post processing, Raw definitely provides a better palette from which to start. For a beginner who is still struggling to learn the basics of photography and who does not wish to spend time on the computer in post-processing, Raw is decidedly NOT the way to go. The "dull, flat, underexposed" images folks here and elsewhere have complained about are typical of unprocessed Raw files that have simply been converted to Jpg without any processing. For those folks, letting the camera's default processor do the work will make for better images in almost every case. Such new users should concentrate on learning the basics of photography first and worry about improving upon that with Raw+post only when they have learned to get decent Jpgs out of camera.

Learn how to "take" a good picture first. After that is mastered, one can move on to "making" a better picture.

It is sometimes difficult for those of us who are serious about our photography to understand but the vast majority of new camera owners want nothing to do with Photoshop, Lightroom or any other computer-based image work. They simply want to point the camera, take pictures of the family or whatever and then take the memory card into the local drugstore to have prints made, much as they did with film in the old days. Those users just need to know how to make the best pictures they can without involving extra time in front of a computer. For them, Jpeg is the better way to go.

[Dewman]

"Aye, there's the rub" (with apologies to W. Shakespeare)

For those who will do the work of post processing, Raw definitely provides a better palette from which to start. For a beginner who is still struggling to learn the basics of photography and who does not wish to spend time on the computer in post-processing, Raw is decidedly NOT the way to go. The "dull, flat, underexposed" images folks here and elsewhere have complained about are typical of unprocessed Raw files that have simply been converted to Jpg without any processing. For those folks, letting the camera's default processor do the work will make for better images in almost every case. Such new users should concentrate on learning the basics of photography first and worry about improving upon that with Raw+post only when they have learned to get decent Jpgs out of camera.

Learn how to "take" a good picture first. After that is mastered, one can move on to "making" a better picture.

It is sometimes difficult for those of us who are serious about our photography to understand but the vast majority of new camera owners want nothing to do with Photoshop, Lightroom or any other computer-based image work. They simply want to point the camera, take pictures of the family or whatever and then take the memory card into the local drugstore to have prints made, much as they did with film in the old days. Those users just need to know how to make the best pictures they can without involving extra time in front of a computer. For them, Jpeg is the better way to go.

My problem is NOT learning how to take a good photograph. I've been doing so for almost 50 years. The "Rub," lies in the digital camera operation, it's settings and the PPing involved. The problem with THAT is the highly technical language those who would offer help insist on using without considering that THAT is one of the problems in itself! Alphabet acronyms, text-speak and the like are most confusing. And, when you ask for clarification, the usual reply is, "Google is your friend." If I wanted to use Google, I would have went there to begin with, but their information is NOT geared to those who are beginners in the digital world. Maybe someday there will be those who understand the REAL problems us newbs face and will phrase their answers accordingly. This does not mean to imply that I'm not eternally greatful for any and all replies I've had to my endless questions, it simply points out the flaws in the learning process I've faced and I'm sure others have faced, also.
Dewman

[SpecialK]

Processing raw is no more difficult or time-consuming than processing jpgs. It also gives you a chance to straighten the horizon.

Seriously. Open the raw file. Hit "Auto" in Elements, slide the exposure, brightness and contrast to suit. "Open" the file. Straighten the horizon. Clone out bits and blobs if needed. Save.

Takes 15 seconds.

[abmj]

Processing raw is no more difficult or time-consuming than processing jpgs. It also gives you a chance to straighten the horizon.

Seriously. Open the raw file. Hit "Auto" in Elements, slide the exposure, brightness and contrast to suit. "Open" the file. Straighten the horizon. Clone out bits and blobs if needed. Save.

Takes 15 seconds.

You miss my point. Of course it really isn't all that difficult to make a passable image from a RAW without much effort. But you said it yourself, "Open the raw file. Hit 'Auto' in Elements."

The point is the vast majority of new users don't have Elements and don't want to do anything with any file. They have already "taken the picture" and just want to plug the camera USB cord or the memory card into the magic machine at Costco and get prints in a few minutes. For them, RAW is an unnecessary and overly complicated waste of time and effort. They just want their snapshots without any extra hassle.

You and I - and most folks here - know how to open a file, slide exposure, brightness and contrast to suit and clone out bits and blobs but most newbies don't. They don't want to learn a bunch of gobbledygook, they just want the pictures they snapped without any more fuss. And with modern digital camera technology and some basic good photography technique, it is completely possible to get perfectly acceptable pictures that way. I even know some well regarded pros who shoot exclusively in Jpeg. If the camera technique is good, high quality cameras can produce very good results.

None of that is to say a good image can't almost always be made better with some manipulation in post. Of course it can. But most new users need to learn to walk before they try to run. Learn the camera and the technique first. Worry about the rest after the basics are mastered.

[NorbertR]

"Aye, there's the rub" (with apologies to W. Shakespeare)

For those who will do the work of post processing, Raw definitely provides a better palette from which to start. For a beginner who is still struggling to learn the basics of photography and who does not wish to spend time on the computer in post-processing, Raw is decidedly NOT the way to go. The "dull, flat, underexposed" images folks here and elsewhere have complained about are typical of unprocessed Raw files that have simply been converted to Jpg without any processing. For those folks, letting the camera's default processor do the work will make for better images in almost every case. Such new users should concentrate on learning the basics of photography first and worry about improving upon that with Raw+post only when they have learned to get decent Jpgs out of camera.

Learn how to "take" a good picture first. After that is mastered, one can move on to "making" a better picture.

It is sometimes difficult for those of us who are serious about our photography to understand but the vast majority of new camera owners want nothing to do with Photoshop, Lightroom or any other computer-based image work. They simply want to point the camera, take pictures of the family or whatever and then take the memory card into the local drugstore to have prints made, much as they did with film in the old days. Those users just need to know how to make the best pictures they can without involving extra time in front of a computer. For them, Jpeg is the better way to go.

"It is sometimes difficult for those of us who are serious about our photography to understand but the vast majority of new camera owners want nothing to do with Photoshop, Lightroom or any other computer-based image work. They simply want to point the camera, take pictures of the family or whatever and then take the memory card into the local drugstore to have prints made, much as they did with film in the old days. Those users just need to know how to make the best pictures they can without involving extra time in front of a computer. For them, Jpeg is the better way to go."

Thanks for your understanding abmj. You obviously know me. I just want a camera as an experience recorder. The exotic cars I come across, my grandson's first exposure to the ocean, the thirsty wild koala drnking from a water bottle held by my wife in our garden. And I want to see that I've recorded that event satisfactorily when I'm there, not when I'm sitting in front of a computer. Neither do I want to go into the depths of the camera menu before or after the shot and do some "tweaking". The whole reason I bought a beginners DSLR is because I didn't want to do all the stuff I used to have to do when I had a Asahi Pentax SP1000. Manual focusing, light metering, f-stopping, flash synchronising and so on. I could do it okay but I never enjoyed it. I enjoy process in cooking, I don't enjoy it in photography. And now I'm stuck with a camera that I don't know how to get out of the RAW format. I suspect Ieven though I don't want to that 'm going to have to visit a camera store about an hours drive away and hope the guy behind the counter is familiar with the software of a camera he doesn't sell.

Regards,
Norbert.

---------- Post added 07-31-14 at 10:01 AM ----------

Processing raw is no more difficult or time-consuming than processing jpgs. It also gives you a chance to straighten the horizon.

Seriously. Open the raw file. Hit "Auto" in Elements, slide the exposure, brightness and contrast to suit. "Open" the file. Straighten the horizon. Clone out bits and blobs if needed. Save.

Takes 15 seconds.

"Open the raw file. Hit "Auto" in Elements, slide the exposure, brightness and contrast to suit. "Open" the file. Straighten the horizon. Clone out bits and blobs if needed. Save."


With all due respect you lost me in the first sentence. I'm not a geek. Yes I've built a desktop computer from parts but not because I enjoyed it but because it was a cheaper way to get my kids a computer. I can pull things apart and fix them if I need to but it's not a rush for me. I don't get a kick out of it. I'd rather being doing somethig that I enjoy and "tweaking" digital photos isn't one of those. Yes I get it that that probably puts me in a minority in the DSLR community but I make no apologies for that. We can't help the wiring we were born with.

Nevertheless I appreciate you taking the time to comment.

Regards,
Norbert.

[Nakedgun]

Black print on dark grey is too difficult to read. Did you intend it that way?

[clackers]

I'd rather being doing somethig that I enjoy and "tweaking" digital photos isn't one of those. Yes I get it that that probably puts me in a minority in the DSLR community but I make no apologies for that. We can't help the wiring we were born with.

Sounds like it's best to treat your DSLR as a Point and Shoot, Norbert. Leave it on JPG.

The camera will make all the decisions like in the days when you sent off film for someone else to process.

Many people on this forum I suspect aren't willing to forego RAW for potential keepers, but it's the only way in the phone camera world.

[builttospill]

I may be the odd man out, but I don't ever shoot RAW. I tried it and didn't want to mess with adjustments in post-processing. I spend very little time editing my images so getting it right in-camera is essential.

With all the suggestions being given here, I have a couple to add as well.
1- Upgrade your lenses. There are no special lenses in your collection. This will make a huge difference. If you were closer to SE instead of SW Idaho I'd say a meetup would be warranted and you can try some of mine.
2- Don't move your camera adjustments too much. I use my trusty K10D with all the sliders in the center. The only thing I changed is the color from normal to vivid. I think moving the sharpness or saturation sliders degrade the quality of the image.
3- Make sure you're doing the thinking for the camera. Your pictures will turn out better in manual exposure or aperture priority exposure compared to the auto setting.
4- Throw your filters away. I don't use any filters unless absolutely needed (e.g., ND filter). I think it's a shame when someone puts a $10 piece of glass in front of a $1,000 Pentax lens. I've done some testing and the filters really degrade the image quality.
5- Practice. You're smart to come here and ask for feedback. Don't give up. Keep practicing and posting pictures on the Forum for critique and suggestions.

[Dewman]

I may be the odd man out, but I don't ever shoot RAW. I tried it and didn't want to mess with adjustments in post-processing. I spend very little time editing my images so getting it right in-camera is essential.

With all the suggestions being given here, I have a couple to add as well.
1- Upgrade your lenses. There are no special lenses in your collection.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this decision as I've never posted a list of the lenses in my collection. I can assure you I have many more than just the kit lenses that came with my camera. I began "dabbling" in photography almost 50 years ago, so it's not like I don't know my way around what makes a good photograph, only that I don't know the in's and out's of DIGITAL manipulation.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[Daniel Darko]

My 2 cents:

1.

Seriously. Open the raw file. Hit "Auto" in Elements, slide the exposure, brightness and contrast to suit. "Open" the file. Straighten the horizon. Clone out bits and blobs if needed. Save.

- if that's going to be the workflow template, you've pretty much just taken the automatic camera function to output to JPGS and turned it into a manual step. Just save straight to JPGs instead and then only adjust images individually if need be. If you want, save as RAW+ so you've always got the raw file to refer if you really want.

2.

I just want a camera as an experience recorder. The exotic cars I come across, my grandson's first exposure to the ocean, the thirsty wild koala drnking from a water bottle held by my wife in our garden. And I want to see that I've recorded that event satisfactorily when I'm there, not when I'm sitting in front of a computer. Neither do I want to go into the depths of the camera menu before or after the shot and do some "tweaking". The whole reason I bought a beginners DSLR is because I didn't want to do all the stuff I used to have to do when I had a Asahi Pentax SP1000. Manual focusing, light metering, f-stopping, flash synchronising and so on. I could do it okay but I never enjoyed it.

Are you sure a DSLR (even beginners) was the right camera choice for you? DSLR's look way cooler I know, but lets face it - SLRs weren't made for recording experiences, they were made for creating experiences, and they do it by giving tweak access to viewpoint, focus and depth of field. When you choose AUTO over manual setting, you are giving up around 1/3 of your artistic control. Would you be willing to give up another 1/3? I don't know the PnS field but I would think you might get something that will "do auto, but better" than your DSLR does it and lighter and cheaper. Best of all, you could actually put it in your pocket and spend time having the experience first hand instead of experiencing through the viewfinder or with your hands full. Personally I find mobile phones to be quite excellent experience recorders in that they are compact, always with you anyway, and take remarkably good pictures for their size.