[Gooshin]

I shoot jpg because i usually take 1200-1500 equine action shots a weekend. Keeps the file sizes down. Usually a photo needs a minor tweak in PS for levels or WB correction, thats about it.

I do shoot in Raw, but my knowledge of it is not limited BTW.

You keep doing what you like, and I'll keep doing what I like. Seems to work, as i am making money.

Dave

i can make money standing on the street with a paper cup whistling away on a hormonica, whats your point?

[er1kksen]

His point is that it works. Are you just trying to start an argument? There's no need to be combative about such things.

[Gooshin]

the point, is,

that the statement "i make money from my photography" is a bad argument in the "raw vs jpeg" debate.

the statement "i shoot 1200-1500 photos" is also a bad argument, when he specificaly stated that "all photos need some post processing", if you're going to go through them all, you might as well ahve the best base,

his rebutal is that 15 megabytes per file is a hurdle is also laughable, because memory is cheap, and the computers that can process those files are also laughbly cheap.

so in conclusion, mr.penkton has ascertained that raw is a gimick, jpegs are perfectly fine, that he, as a working man doesnt want to invest into more memory (which is only going to grow), and that any opposition should sit down and keep quiet because he happens to be making money from taking pictures.


you can venture a guess as to why i am being "combative"

[Isaac314]

the point, is,

that the statement "i make money from my photography" is a bad argument in the "raw vs jpeg" debate.

the statement "i shoot 1200-1500 photos" is also a bad argument, when he specificaly stated that "all photos need some post processing", if you're going to go through them all, you might as well ahve the best base.

shhh!

with sports, the more photos the better, in order to catch that perfect moment. then you will process the good photos which you want to use. You make money because you have good photos, you can either get those photos by having good pixel quality (only editors give a s**t), or you can do it by taking a lot of photos and catching those perfect photos. Your choice, and i hope you feel like your opinion is valued here.

his rebutal is that 15 megabytes per file is a hurdle is also laughable, because memory is cheap, and the computers that can process those files are also laughbly cheap.

I am a teenager, in education, i'm so sorry if my budget is laughable to you.

[Gooshin]

shhh!

with sports, the more photos the better, in order to catch that perfect moment. then you will process the good photos which you want to use. You make money because you have good photos, you can either get those photos by having good pixel quality (only editors give a s**t), or you can do it by taking a lot of photos and catching those perfect photos. Your choice, and i hope you feel like your opinion is valued here.



I am a teenager, in education, i'm so sorry if my budget is laughable to you.

if you are a teenager in eduction then you are not working taking photographs

because if you were (like he is) working, that means you are making an income and have your own business

a solid business plan includes inventory control and long term investment, with depreciation expenses and a general plan for your equipment. Memory cards make a very small portion of that budget, and a computer rig used for photo editing should be as important as the camera itself.

if you dont fit into that category, please dont comment.

and dont tell me to "shhh!", i have been employed full time since age 17, even while attending university. Dont tell me you're broke because you're a student, i have known plenty of students, some my close friends that for some reason went through their teenage life with money, who work their ass off, and pay for their hobbies and entertainments without ever complaining.

[Eigengrau]

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to shoot in RAW - perfectly good pictures can be created in JPEG. Sure, there might be some positive difference, but the $400 (minimum!) on a better computer plus the cost for software isn't laughable. In fact, there are a good number of Pentax lenses that could be purchased for around that amount, and there are many cases where having the right lens is going to go a lot farther than having a super photoshop setup back home.

So, don't act like your way is the only way to do it. I'm moving towards shooting exclusively RAW myself, but there are a lot of scenarios where I think JPEG is a viable, and sometimes even better choice to get the job done.

[Syb]

The only thing with RAW only is that they cannot be directly previewed by my computer. I do not like to have both PhotoBrowser and PhotoLaboratory open. I always get confused between them.

So I use the JPEG for quickly exploring the images in Microsft Picture Manager or something like that, and then edit the best ones with PhotoLab/GIMP.

Maybe this is getting a little bit too much about me, though.

[Gooshin]

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to shoot in RAW - perfectly good pictures can be created in JPEG. Sure, there might be some positive difference, but the $400 (minimum!) on a better computer plus the cost for software isn't laughable. In fact, there are a good number of Pentax lenses that could be purchased for around that amount, and there are many cases where having the right lens is going to go a lot farther than having a super photoshop setup back home.

So, don't act like your way is the only way to do it. I'm moving towards shooting exclusively RAW myself, but there are a lot of scenarios where I think JPEG is a viable, and sometimes even better choice to get the job done.

jpeg is a compromise of time and space, there are no benefits to jpeg.

i am not saying my way is the only way

i'm saying that if you are going to tinker with the photo anyway, you might as well not bother.

ALSO, keep in mind how this thread started

Isaac states that he wants to minimize in-camera sharpness only to use a third party program to bring it back up

only the third party program is going to be working from an in-camera processed jpeg, so really, he is gaining nothing, and only losing time adjusting sharpness after the fact, with a result that is not better than otherwise.

and he definetly wont gain any speed increase in write times.

[Gooshin]

The only thing with RAW only is that they cannot be directly previewed by my computer. I do not like to have both PhotoBrowser and PhotoLaboratory open. I always get confused between them.

So I use the JPEG for quickly exploring the images in Microsft Picture Manager or something like that, and then edit the best ones with PhotoLab/GIMP.

Maybe this is getting a little bit too much about me, though.

maybe you should invest into lightroom

lightroom stores all your images as a single catalogue that is easily navigated, and allows preview all of the images right there!

not only that, you can also sort them by metadata... date, iso, aperture etc etc

[Isaac314]

I'm not complaining about being broke! I think i've done pretty well to afford a k20d plus lenses and a slow laptop in the half a year i have been doing this, for which i have earned more than half of from photography!

Despite your rudeness you have put up a few good points. I've found that sharpening RAW images leaves noise alone whereas unsharp mask tends to bring it right out if you dont do it right. I'm still not happy using up so much memory and processing time though, so i'm going to think of ways to use the jpeg+raw function or to use Raw shots as a final part after setting up a shot with a few jpegs.

Lightroom sounds good, ill have a look.

[dylansalt]

I'm not complaining about being broke! I think i've done pretty well to afford a k20d plus lenses and a slow laptop in the half a year i have been doing this, for which i have earned more than half of from photography!

Despite your rudeness you have put up a few good points. I've found that sharpening RAW images leaves noise alone whereas unsharp mask tends to bring it right out if you dont do it right. I'm still not happy using up so much memory and processing time though, so i'm going to think of ways to use the jpeg+raw function or to use Raw shots as a final part after setting up a shot with a few jpegs.

Lightroom sounds good, ill have a look.

Lightroom is also expensive (for a student)

Try using Faststone Image Viewer (its free) which recognizes all raw formats and if you have a good exposed shot you will get decent results with it's small pp section.

[Ron Boggs]

A good argument is always fun! And it's often best when the two parties are on totally different planes of thought--One seeking to explain the best way to work with an image and the other seeking to explain a personalized workflow to sell images. These two angles don't have to be mutually exclusive, but can be.

Just to fan the flames (yeah, I was always the guy standing in the circle egging on the fist fighters in the center), my most significant sale of a digitally shot image was made with a Pentax EI 200 2 megapixel point and shoot. The image was used for full color glossy national magazine ad campaigns by two unrelated companies. It appeared in dozens of major magazines. Both companies also used the image in their glossy catalogs and one company made big banners which were distributed to dealers with my image blown up as a 2 foot by 2 foot photo (Genuine Fractals?). Best yet, this fits both sides in the current argument as the image was a JPEG but I didn't know what post processing was at that time (barely do now) so it was a "sold as shot" JPEG. Might as well have been film (trying to increase the number of fighters here).

Some painters like watercolor, some like oil based paints some prefer mixed media. Unless you are playing the full time pro game, WHATEVER YOU ENJOY DOING THE MOST IS THE BEST CHOICE! Call me a hedonist, but the pleasure principle shouldn't be ignored.

[Gooshin]

A good argument is always fun! And it's often best when the two parties are on totally different planes of thought--One seeking to explain the best way to work with an image and the other seeking to explain a personalized workflow to sell images. These two angles don't have to be mutually exclusive, but can be.

Just to fan the flames (yeah, I was always the guy standing in the circle egging on the fist fighters in the center), my most significant sale of a digitally shot image was made with a Pentax EI 200 2 megapixel point and shoot. The image was used for full color glossy national magazine ad campaigns by two unrelated companies. It appeared in dozens of major magazines. Both companies also used the image in their glossy catalogs and one company made big banners which were distributed to dealers with my image blown up as a 2 foot by 2 foot photo (Genuine Fractals?). Best yet, this fits both sides in the current argument as the image was a JPEG but I didn't know what post processing was at that time (barely do now) so it was a "sold as shot" JPEG. Might as well have been film (trying to increase the number of fighters here).

Some painters like watercolor, some like oil based paints some prefer mixed media. Unless you are playing the full time pro game, WHATEVER YOU ENJOY DOING THE MOST IS THE BEST CHOICE! Call me a hedonist, but the pleasure principle shouldn't be ignored.

clients dont know any better, someone who has no clue about photography will have little ability to understand what is good photography

you can sell 2 megapixel jpegs to clients, and the pictures will be good (because composition is never a factor of camera), and the clients will be happy

but if i was in either of your shoes, i would feel like i'm selling myself short as an artist, because i'm delivering a less than optimal product, even though no one but me will know this.

but thats my point of view, since you wanted to fan the fire.

[er1kksen]

The reason not to be combative is because doing so adds nothing to the discussion; the poster has stated that his jpeg workflow is what he's found to work best for him. He never said that you, or anyone else, ought to be doing it his way. You might feel like you'd be selling yourself short as an artist, well that's you and you're entightled to feel that way. I feel similarly and I shoot RAW as a result. But I can understand quite well why others might feel differently.

Bottom line is, the OP is here asking for advice on improving his jpeg-based workflow, not to get preached to about how he ought to switch to RAW. If that's what you want to do, start another thread about it and argue away.

[Gooshin]

Bottom line is, the OP is here asking for advice on improving his jpeg-based workflow, not to get preached to about how he ought to switch to RAW. If that's what you want to do, start another thread about it and argue away.

please read everything i have said in this thread again.

the OP's proposed work-flow is flawed, turning sharpness down in camera, only to turn it back up in post processing is a fruitless endavour

because if he shoots jpegs, the camera will provide him with a de-sharpened jpeg, a jpeg he then wishes to sharpen again, only the result will not be better than simply letting the camera sharpen in the first place

if however he shoots RAW, turning down the sharpness, again has little impact since none of the in-camera parameters with the exception of noise reduction (AFAIK) will affect the image.

i degress to my first post in this thread.

somewhere along the way people got offended.