[Rondec]

add to that gem of wisdom

to have fun with your photography

( unless you are one who is making a successful business from photography )

any way

what is SOOC

you have preselected your options via your camera settings have you not ?

as opposed to modifying the photo post production ( whether the camera saved the image as RAW or Jpeg )

please remember that I don't claim photography expertise, I'm just someone who posts a lot

I did mention some of that in my fifth point.

There has to be balance. If we consistently hate the images we take and are frustrated with the process of getting them, we will stop using cameras and just pull out our phones when we want a snap of something. So, you need to enjoy the process of making the image, but you also need to get images that you like.

[biz-engineer]

3. Efficiency is key. I am convinced that those who are most bothered by post processing are not efficient. They haven't learned hot keys and syncing that can really speed up the process. I am not saying this in a disparaging way. I just mean that whether you use Raw Therapee or Lightroom or some other piece of software, figuring out how to do things quickly using keyboard short cuts can save a bunch of time. It is worth the effort to learn your preferred software.

There is a nice feature in the K1, be able protect images (raw or jpegs). So, I changed the way I deal with unwanted images from trying to delete the ones I don't want to protecting the keepers then delete the entire folder (scary! you have to trust that camera firmware won't bug). I reduced time spent on processing images by being more selective about what I put in front on the camera, before taking the shot.

I wondered if there are any of the more seasoned members who could perhaps share their thoughts on this being a help or hindrance? I'd like to think I've improved as a photographer, with the main are being my composition of shots. I doubt this would have come about had I spent so much of my time trying to edit the images I capture to become something beyond what I saw.

Working primarily on the input , i.e what is in front of the camera before pressing the shutter button. I should tell, but I've analyzed the online content of photography workshops, and this helped me a lot to prepare for 1) what I'm going to photograph, 2) where I'm going to photograph it, 3) time of the year I'll be traveling there and 4) How long I'll stay in the area. Doing so, I've cut down a lot the quantity of images I take, and the quality has increased a lot, very little processing on computer needed if the subject matter and the light are right.

[CedrusMacro]

3. Efficiency is key. I am convinced that those who are most bothered by post processing are not efficient. They haven't learned hot keys and syncing that can really speed up the process. I am not saying this in a disparaging way. I just mean that whether you use Raw Therapee or Lightroom or some other piece of software, figuring out how to do things quickly using keyboard short cuts can save a bunch of time. It is worth the effort to learn your preferred software.

This for me is true- I'm not a particularly efficient individual, being more reactionary than planned in my behaviour. I think I've yet to find a preferred software to experiment with (Gimp I've tried...so many times...and always feel a little frustrated- Snapseed is current, but not sure I like it's interface....much could be I'm using a Chromebook to do everything on these days).

There's certainly an agreed theme I see cropping up here, that we all see the world differently and these unique moments we capture is what makes this hobby/skill so compelling.

Rondec; your closing comment is pretty much the entire reason I got into photography as I wanted a more carefree way to engage with my world that gives me a creative outlet.

You are probably better off with some cheaper 2010 camera.
The limited dynamic range, smaller viewing size, likely deeper apparent contrast due to limited DR (hence also deeper colors), all make it easier for SOOC than current cameras.
Don't forget that advanced cameras (especially Pentax) aims to bring the image to the most neutral.
A 'neutral' white 'balance' and exposure.
Sharpness settings which don't fully utilize what is possible with better computation power on a PC.
Blacks and whites are aimed towards the center with the intention to be stretched later by the photographer in post.

I'm interested in your views on this Pinholecam. I own a Fuji X10, my KS-1 and a Sigma DP1s (which is really my partners, but I sneak goes with it). Of them all, I actually find the Sigma the most alluring with the images it produces (specifically SOOC). They are all captivating for different types of images (black and white for instance on street I love the Fuji).

Vintage lenses have recently made me more appreciative of the KS-1's qualities, especially with it's ability to render night shots.

Is it just personal experience with pre 2010 cameras that give you this view? I know from the clubs, many here love the 10mp CCD sensors, and I'm certainly aware now there is less to MP chasing to produce great images.

[biz-engineer]

The most important thing isn't even the image. I am being a little silly here, but I really do think that the journey, the experience, and the joy of photography are the most important things.

I have to admit, preparation is a rather enjoyable journey itself, thinking about the elements I want to put together, until conditions finally line-up and the photo is taken.

[Lowell Goudge]

I love these raw vs jpeg discussions. It is interesting how long this debate has gone on, and I suspect it will go on for years to come.

Fundamentally the issue can be broken down into several simple points.

- image adjustment (cropping, straightening and framing). This is irrelevant as to shooting raw and jpeg.
- the image and exposure and color balance. This is where the debate gets interesting. Coming from slide film, as many others here did, there was a ton of emphasis in getting it right on the slide, because that is all you had. At the time, I had multiple bodies, not to reduce changing lenses (which is why I use multiple bodies today) but to shoot multiple different films. You picked different films based on warm vs cool colours, incandescent vs daylight balanced, different iso for different levels of light and overall B&W vs Color. Today this can all be done with the push of a button , turn of a dial, or picking a menu item. The cameras today, and even the very first Pentax (*istD) in my view far exceeded any film I had used. And really the decision of raw vs jpeg can be ignored with one caveat, specifically that you store jpegs in the highest quality possible.
- saving a missed shot / error correction. This is where raw comes into its own. When it comes down to it, the fundamental differences between raw and the highest quality jpeg are, the initial color balance, and the color depth. If you have the wrong color balance (WB) in your shot, it is hard to recover, and since raw has the full dynamic range of your sensor, and saves the data in 12 or 14 bit resolution, has much more data especially as you approach the extremes of exposure. Years ago, I did an experiment with my *istD. I shot a series of shots of a cement wall, at every exposure combination possible. Using my photo editor, and the histogram on a 5% selection in the center of the image, I plotted the greyscale exposure value as a function of FStop. Since this in jpeg is a range of 0-255, I took 128 as the mod point. What I found is that the change in grey point value was linear with exposure in stops, for a range of about greyscale 25 to grey scale 230 with each stop being a greyscale value of about 40-45. At each end, it became non linear, above or below 230 or 25 respectively, the next stops were greyscale values of 16, 7, and 3 respectively. What this means is you lose definition in shadow and highlight detail with jpeg, and if you missed exposure, or had extreme contrasts scenes, it was hard to get detail outside the middle 5 stops of the image, this is where raw saves people. But if you get your shot right in the camera, your subject is usually in the middle 5 1/2 stops and minor adjustments in this range are not an issue.

For me, I shoot jpeg, and use raw occasionally if the situation is important and / or a one of a kind event, just in case.

[Madaboutpix]

From the heady days of the digital camera boom, helping to bring that boom about in the first place, even our most advanced DSLRs have retained that potential to be shot in both ways, essentially like a point-and-shoot (with good-enough-and-ready-to-use JPEGs) and/or to the best possible standard and end result (which would usually mean RAW). The conjunction and/or is appropriate, since you can tell your camera to save both JPEGs and RAWs, giving you the best of both worlds, or just the JPEGs, or just the RAWs.

Therefore, do whatever suites you, both approaches are perfectly legit. You needn't even go for the extremes, there are quite comfy positions in many places between. However, do spare us the winging five, ten, fifteen years down the road from now, along the lines, "Gee, I so wish a had some nice DNGs from that day when my daughter was wed / when we went down to Bryce Canyon / when Rosa had her cute kittens / ... and could really make them sing!" If you had RAW deselected on that fateful day in the past, you're going to be left with JPEGs that have lost tons of all those beautiful data that the camera once captured, with all that entails. I'm well aware that JPEG engines and editing have become better in recent years, but guess what, advances in RAW editing have been at least as impressive. I guess I'm trying to say that the choices we make as photographers (like elsewhere in life) have consequences.

[noelpolar]

Some people are just incompatible with jpeg only shooting. I can say this because I am. There must be at least one other out there.... hence the "some".

[normhead]

Some people are just incompatible with jpeg only shooting. I can say this because I am. There must be at least one other out there.... hence the "some".

Despite my testing I still don't use jpeg images. I keep them on the second card just in case, but never use them. This is no benefit for about 90% of my shooting. This is about the last 10% where I can do better than the jpeg engine. There's always that last little bit you can squeeze out of an image. On many images it doesn't matter. On others it does, but those on which it does tend to be my best images.

Or as I look at it, more latitude to play around with. To me the analogy. would be really good lenses. You may not notice much difference on every shot, but when you get one that takes advantage of the lenses characteristics, you get a better image. Only you can decide if it's worth it. With a good set of presets I suspect it is.

[Madaboutpix]

Some people are just incompatible with jpeg only shooting. I can say this because I am. There must be at least one other out there.... hence the "some".

You can safely count me among them. Although I'd feel kinda stupid wearing an "I shoot RAW" T shirt at this point.

[normhead]

You can safely count me among them. Although I'd feel kinda stupid wearing an "I shoot RAW" T shirt at this point.

Reminds me of the old joke.

Sergeant "Fire at will men."
Soldier "Which one's Will?"

'I shoot Raw."
"Do they taste good? How do you cook them?"
or
"That's better than shooting things that are cooked."

Come on, it was almost funny.

[aslyfox]

Reminds me of the old joke.

Sergeant "Fire at will men."
Soldier "Which one's Will?"

'I shoot Raw."
"Do they taste good? How do you cook them?"
or
"That's better than shooting things that are cooked."

Come on, it was almost funny.

I would say

don't quit your day job

but I won't because I liked it

[normhead]

I would say

don't quit your day job

but I won't because I liked it

Since my day job is living the retired lifestyle, there's only two ways to quit, get a job, or die. Neither of them is terribly appealing.
Thanks for commenting.

[automorphism]

Shooting SOOC could be a good exercise to force you to think more about exposure and settings. But in the end for many shots, they will look a lot better if you just postprocess them yourself when it comes to emphasizing tonal differences in the parts of the image you want them emphasized. Just basic stuff like exposure, sharpening, etc. can be done well in the camera, but if things like custom tone curve are better done editing. Not saying you can't get good SOOC jpegs, but in the long run you will miss out on a lot if you don't postprocess. Not everyone cares about reaching that level though, just like not everyone cares about tack sharpness, so you have to make a choice about what you do care about.

[35mmfilmfan]

Having read copiously on the subject, when I got my first DSLR (K20), I decided to only shoot RAW (PEF at first, now DNG), for the simple reason that I wanted more control over the images I produced, and I felt that RAW would give me that. I used to enjoy B&W printing (when allowed time and peace so to do), and (as has been said) RAW is a way of simulating that control, with the advantage that I can sit down (at my age, more comfortable) in light conditions more suited to my eyesight. I can also sit and stare out of the window while processing, if I so wish, without any issues concerning the image.

Finally, shooting RAW permits me to re-arrange reality to a result I find more pleasing.

[normhead]

Having read copiously on the subject, when I got my first DSLR (K20), I decided to only shoot RAW (PEF at first, now DNG), for the simple reason that I wanted more control over the images I produced, and I felt that RAW would give me that. I used to enjoy B&W printing (when allowed time and peace so to do), and (as has been said) RAW is a way of simulating that control, with the advantage that I can sit down (at my age, more comfortable) in light conditions more suited to my eyesight. I can also sit and stare out of the window while processing, if I so wish, without any issues concerning the image.

Finally, shooting RAW permits me to re-arrange reality to a result I find more pleasing.

Reminds me of the time, I was consulting for the dark room in a new building after agreeing to transfer there and set up the photography program. I was called in for the final inspection. Beautiful centre sink design with 6 sinks around the island in the middle. Beautifully illuminated by two windows. My then department head said "Great view." I said, "But it's not dark." "Oh, we'll contact the contractor." We ended up with a 16 million dollar building with sheets of plywood over a couple windows.