Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2012, 02:59 PM   #16
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
Originals and Exif here

If anyone enjoys Exif files or would want to see the original size photos then please go here. Welcome:
‘Tippen‘
All sizes | Tippen_250412_Jakob_Trägårdh | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
‘Amazon and Torpedo‘
All sizes | Amazon_Torpedo_250412_Jakob_Trägårdh | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

04-28-2012, 01:28 AM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I am notsurenthere is any answer to the generic question of which color better renders the scene, that of a jpeg in camera or a raw process.

One thing that has always disappointed me with photography, since I began over 30 years ago is the limited exposure latitude of the medium. Your eye combined with youur brain can figure out about 22 stops. So whence see things we have recollections that simply can't match what the camera/computer/printer can cope with.

As a result, part of your process as you correctly state is to determine the settings you want, either for RAW conversion at a later date or for direct JPEG.

I find that for a lot of situations, using JPEG and both shadow and highlight correction, there is sufficient capabili to first of all, capture the sky as something other than a burned out white.

The other thing to consider , especially in your case where you are doing B&W, is to consider the use of color filters and a polarizer.

I too shoot exclusively JPEG forthe same reasons you state. It is perhaps a little more thought intensive at the time you shoot, but much better than sitting behind a computer
Hello Lowell, We have amazing eyes. Don´t we! Most lenses have only 6-7 stops. Another point is, that I go lazy, if I set my attitude to: ‘I´ll fix it in PP later‘. And then I shoot less good shots.
Sometimes in very difficult light, I will shoot-to-fix-later. For instance, I was taking photos of a class of young ballet dancers training in their gym recently. And as I almost exclusively shoot using existing light, I had problems (grave ones). They were all jumping about in a room with white walls and mirrors everywhere, a dark oak floor and 4 uncovered, very bright fluorescent lights in the ceiling, but very low ambient light. The little angels developed wings instead of arms at around f:1/30sec. So, to gain speed, I shot them photos at about -2 EV (still with burnt out light sources—but no so bad) and lighted them later. I had also decided in advance to shoot bw jpgs and did so. A clear case of almost completely unprepared and spontaneous shooting in some hellish circumstances. It went OK.
The other comment: I use the program yellow filter and yeah, polarizers (?), could be used to work/deflect the highlights from water, shiny metal etc. or see the cars interior in the ‘Amazon and Torpedo‘ photo—Isn´t it so? Never have used one. Thank´s

Last edited by jt_cph_dk; 04-28-2012 at 03:00 AM.
04-28-2012, 01:51 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
one should not be under the impression that JPGs are inflexible - like slide film - JPGs are still very versatile and capable for post processing - for example: dynamic range one can do a limited amount of highlight recovery (in reality it's just a lowering of the highlight levels) by using ACR on the JPG (use Open as.. Camera RAW)
Hello UnknownVT, You are right and I have the ‘RAW‘ button set to ‘RAW+JPG‘ just in case. I also use CS5/Bridge and open jpgs in the Camera RAW app. Then I save a copy as DNG and work out the issues on that file, finally saving a new jpg_edit file. Or I just edit the original jpg as a psd file in Photoshop with Levels, Curves, Unsharp Mask etc. as you suggest.
By the way, that´s a good concert shot you captured there! Regards Jakob
04-28-2012, 02:17 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by jt_cph_dk Quote
Good point. Thank´s
Great shot! Works really well in B&W. And it is exactly the kind of shot, I could waist hours on needlessly correcting it in Camera Raw if I hadn´t already decided to be happy about it when shooting.
Problem with concert photography is the stage lighting that is constantly changing if you want to have some effect on that you can only shoot in RAW and perfect it later.




For other types of shooting it comes down to what you prefer.
I find shooting in JPEG less creative in certain ways, the time you spend on processing a photo and make it come to live how you had it in your head when you took the photo i find amazing.

04-28-2012, 02:20 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by jt_cph_dk Quote
Hello Lowell, We have amazing eyes. Don´t we! Most lenses have only 6-7 stops.
It's a camera thing and the K5 for example has almost 15 stops.
04-28-2012, 02:28 AM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Problem with concert photography is the stage lighting that is constantly changing if you want to have some effect on that you can only shoot in RAW and perfect it later.
-
-
For other types of shooting it comes down to what you prefer.
I find shooting in JPEG less creative in certain ways, the time you spend on processing a photo and make it come to live how you had it in your head when you took the photo i find amazing.
Wow, that rocker/grunge/indie bassist looks great burning away in flames. I love those shots! I understand what you are saying about your creative process. Optical or in-camera filters are probably not the way to get your results and in that sense less creative/limiting/analogues. Nice work! Regards
04-28-2012, 03:00 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
Thanks those are one of my better ones.
You can probably do it in camera but to get the right settings would be too problematic in these situations because the lighting is different every second.

I'm also very happy the latitude RAW gives me because i shoot these in manual as well.
04-28-2012, 03:09 AM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
I shoot in very low light and high contrast/differential lighting and have to face this all the time - yet I shoot exclusively JPGs -
Would you tell us some more about your settings on this photo. That would be interesting to read about. Is there more detail in the shadows in the original? Can you link to it? Regards

04-28-2012, 03:38 AM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter
RM Barker's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 312
"Blue Sky"

This has been a most interesting discussion and the first in which I have been engaged in Pentax Forum. I have appreciated, particularly, the patient, and respectful, explanations Forum photographers offer one another.
It would not be very helpful to try to engage readers in a theoretical debate about the virtues of RAW and .jpg formats. I am happy using both. Some of the comments in this "thread", however, are at variance with the way I understand the mechanics of digital photography and this "understanding" affects my workflow as a photographer. A "RAW" file is the digital information from the sensor and represents the light from the scene we are looking at. The camera then applies our "settings" (WB, EV, contrast, B&W, etc.) to the RAW file. Most digital cameras, certainly the Pentax, will also convert the RAW data to other file formats, for example, JPEG or TIFF, which are formats created out of the RAW data according to a formula which involves the loss of RAW data (hence, the smaller file size). When one says he/she is shooting in JPEG, what is really being said is that the RAW data file has been discarded and the converted JPEG file retained.
My point is, we do not really shoot in .jpg, nor in B&W. We shoot in RAW. I am most sympathetic to the idea of "getting it right" in the camera, because it does save some time in subsequent processing. But is it not a mistake to think that the "settings" we apply to the RAW data in camera are somehow more "correct" than those applied "out of camera"? Realizing that the digitized RAW data that comes off the sensor is "processed" according to our settings, I have chosen to work with this saved RAW file instead of the secondary .jpg. Of course, sooner or later, a few, actually very few, of these photos will have to be converted to .jpg becasue of the use to which they might be put - e.g. posting on Pentax Forum, for example.
I have taken too much of everyone's time and I apologise but I really want to understand what it is I am doing in the hope of it making me a better photographer.
04-28-2012, 04:29 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by RM Barker Quote
This has been a most interesting discussion and the first in which I have been engaged in Pentax Forum. I have appreciated, particularly, the patient, and respectful, explanations Forum photographers offer one another.
It would not be very helpful to try to engage readers in a theoretical debate about the virtues of RAW and .jpg formats. I am happy using both. Some of the comments in this "thread", however, are at variance with the way I understand the mechanics of digital photography and this "understanding" affects my workflow as a photographer. A "RAW" file is the digital information from the sensor and represents the light from the scene we are looking at. The camera then applies our "settings" (WB, EV, contrast, B&W, etc.) to the RAW file. Most digital cameras, certainly the Pentax, will also convert the RAW data to other file formats, for example, JPEG or TIFF, which are formats created out of the RAW data according to a formula which involves the loss of RAW data (hence, the smaller file size). When one says he/she is shooting in JPEG, what is really being said is that the RAW data file has been discarded and the converted JPEG file retained.
My point is, we do not really shoot in .jpg, nor in B&W. We shoot in RAW. I am most sympathetic to the idea of "getting it right" in the camera, because it does save some time in subsequent processing. But is it not a mistake to think that the "settings" we apply to the RAW data in camera are somehow more "correct" than those applied "out of camera"? Realizing that the digitized RAW data that comes off the sensor is "processed" according to our settings, I have chosen to work with this saved RAW file instead of the secondary .jpg. Of course, sooner or later, a few, actually very few, of these photos will have to be converted to .jpg becasue of the use to which they might be put - e.g. posting on Pentax Forum, for example.
I have taken too much of everyone's time and I apologise but I really want to understand what it is I am doing in the hope of it making me a better photographer.
I think the difference is what is the expectation of the shooter. I shoot, as I said earlier JPEG (ok I accept I shoot raw and let the camera apply my settings and post process instantly to JPEG) I do this but also, when I feel the situation warrants, push the RAW button and save both files. For me, I find that the images I shoot satisfy me, my family friends etc, and for a hobbiest that is all that matters. Could each be tweaked slightly, probably, but here is the catch. I will use an example from when I was a student to illustrate. I worked for years in a television store in the late 1970's (actually it paid for my university ) if you took a television set, starting from scratch, and adjusted the color, you could get what you felt was the correct image, starting by adjusting the color guns to produce first a pure black and white (along with shades of grey) image. Then you would increase saturation and modify the hue until you got what you felt was natural, specifically skin tones. Then you adjusted every set in the store, using the same process, and you quickly discovered that every one was a little different

So here is the point, if you are going to tweak every image, then you have the risk of making it impossible to show images in sequence because people will notice the color shifts etc. so you end up batch processing your images to apply a standard adjustment. The only real differences then between RAW and JPEG is a) where that adjustment is made and b) if you wish, shooting raw, you can go back and change your mind later, where as with JPEG you are comitted.

I do not discount this second option, which is why I use the RAW+ mode occasionally, but I find that in most situations that I shoot, my JPEG settings do the job.

If I was inclined to do more "artistic" work high key, low key, etc, or to apply deliberate color tintings etc, then RAW is the way to go. Similarly if I was heavily into image manipulation, where I might want to reuse images for different purposes, again raw is the way to go. But for many, JPEG is all that is needed, and spending time learning how to set the JPEG settings is important, even if you shoot raw, because many RAW processing programs can start by displaying the in camera settings, and will display the thumbnails using in camera jpeg settings, and if these settings are very close to what you need, then the final adjustments are also minimal and less time consuming. At one point, in another thread where there was a typical RAW vs JPEG debate, I described my approach, and someone said that I was "pre post processing". I laughed at the time, but it is actually quite correct.

The other thing to remember is that there is a very high similarity to correct settings in JPEG and shooting film. People like to compare RAW to film. Specifically the film image is the basic data set unaltered. But this is not correct. When I shot film, and again, I am repeating something I already posted, I selected the film based upon shooting situation, and the effect I wanted. If I wanted warmth and high contrast I shot Kodachrome, if I wanted a colder image I shot ektachrome, if I wanted lower contrast I shot print film, lots of grain, I wold shoot 400 ISO B&W pushed to 3200 ISO. In B&W you would alter contrast by using colored filters to distinguish red and green. So in effect, the negative really carried our current JPEG settings already imposed upon them. The real difference with RAW is we can alter that thinking after the fact. We can get an image, and apply it for multiple uses, as opposed to being stuck as you would be on film. If this is what you want, and I do not argue a pro would want to have as many different ways to use an image as possible, the RAW is correct, but it does not mean that JPEG does not matter
04-28-2012, 08:24 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by jt_cph_dk Quote
Would you tell us some more about your settings on this photo. That would be interesting to read about. Is there more detail in the shadows in the original? Can you link to it? Regards
Since the scene is high contrast/differential lighting I tend to shoot with both highlight correction and the lowest shadow correction On
and generally with -1/3 stop comp - but I change the latter a lot depending on the scene/shot

Here's the original resized only with the EXIF metadata attached:


I have a whole thread of K-x usage with a lot of these low light high contrast photos -
Kx in Use ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
Photos from that gig are in Post #316

In some areas at that venue the light is so low, that it is below both the metering and AF limits of the K-x with the two kit zooms.
Please see Post #132, where I experimented to find the metering limits.
04-28-2012, 08:45 AM   #27
Site Supporter
RM Barker's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 312
Thanks, Lowell. Very sensible approach. I think I may be guilty of under-valuing JPEG as it relates to the DSLR's. I don't when I'm using my Point & Shoot Sony which only produces JPEG. Again, thanks.
04-28-2012, 10:17 PM   #28
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
Since the scene is high contrast/differential lighting I tend to shoot with both highlight correction and the lowest shadow correction On and generally with -1/3 stop comp - but I change the latter a lot depending on the scene/shot
Thank´s for sharing. Interesting links too (great shots and data).
04-28-2012, 10:41 PM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 493
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
The other thing to remember is that there is a very high similarity to correct settings in JPEG and shooting film.
I agree. That is exactly how I see it too. Add to that. When shooting a series of photos (for an exhibition etc.) it will give all your photos the same basic look and tie them together. In the same sense I also choose specific prime lenses (e.g. 28, 50, 135 mm.) and perhaps even aperture and way of lighting. All To get a unison expression. Applying strict settings actually makes it possible for the viewer, to experience subtle details and variations in a series of photos, that would ‘drown‘ in a more casual mode of shooting. Which is also why I try not to correct every image by the Histogram as I shoot, but let the settings rule. Small corrections are OK. But if a scene has a divine silvery, bleached light, then do not destroy that by compensation. Express it. Regards
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bias, camera, da, dslr, ev, exp, iso1600, k7, ltd, photography, smc, time, value
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
want RAW+ along with JPG on Pentax K-7 penties rider Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 68 10-10-2011 04:30 PM
How to change from JPG to RAW ? isagold Pentax K-5 6 08-05-2011 10:36 PM
K20D switching from raw to jpg on its own??? ismaelg Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 04-11-2011 05:25 AM
Help - K-7 jpg settings to use for a raw shooter? Arpe Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 10-11-2010 02:02 AM
Maya - blue JPG, BW, RAW betsypdx Post Your Photos! 0 02-22-2008 11:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top