Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-02-2010, 09:37 AM   #91
Pentaxian
Clicker's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,241
Whoo ...long thread but i follow this rule of thumb RAW for big prints 30x40 + JPGs for everything else. This is why some manufacturers put dual card slots in their "mortgage your house" cameras

This is one of those discussions for a meet.

01-02-2010, 10:27 AM   #92
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
Doing HDR with jpegs equals shooting one's own leg. Same with exposure fusion. 16bit TIFFs are good for fusion if the camera can spit them out.
01-02-2010, 11:10 AM   #93
Veteran Member
Raybo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 871
I have been shooting Jpeg from the get-go and my reasoning is.......my "eye" will develope to the point of knowing what settings to use in different conditions. I will get some so-so images along the way but I think it will pay off in the long run.
01-02-2010, 12:37 PM   #94
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Western PA
Posts: 67
Very interesting thread.

I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save.

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision.

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

01-02-2010, 12:47 PM   #95
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
Very interesting thread.

I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save.

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision.

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?

Go back maybe 3 pages in this thread, i posted a very clear example.
01-02-2010, 12:53 PM   #96
Veteran Member
keyser's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Tsawwassen, BC
Posts: 376
Some interesting views in this thread. I'm a jpeg shooter because there are few areas where my post production is at all impacted by the use of compression. I find RAW files too big to properly archive, too unweildy to use and more of an annoyance than a help.

It's been said before here... get your exposure right in the camera, not the computer. You may be able to 'save' a shot using RAW processing, but why bother? I can guarantee that if the shot doesn''t look great out of the camera, it's never going to be perfect!

The only time I'm going to feel stupid is if I'm selling a shot an they demand the RAW.... I'm not even close to that stage yet.
01-02-2010, 12:55 PM   #97
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
How is storage a problem? Memory is cheap as chips.

As for exposure, i am done repeating myself but get back to me when the light range exceeds that of the sensor and man, some of you guys must have a lot of time to NAIL every single exposure bar none, that is quite remarkable.
01-02-2010, 01:14 PM   #98
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
I am talking about the entire work flow. With LR you can batch, if you have jps and raw files you can't batch because you need different sharpening, levels and contrast/sat/clarity etc.

That's my entire argument, its easier to shoot all raw and batch than it is to deal with jpgs at and the odd raw file.
Agreed here, batch develop on import is awesome, effectively making RAW turn into JPEGs with more headroom. However, LR2's NR sucks. Some times I'd rather have K-x's JPEG engine do NR than have to open up another program!

Space used to be an issue for me, but K-x's RAW are nicely compressed and not all that much bigger.

01-02-2010, 02:02 PM   #99
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Maffer Quote
Doing HDR with jpegs equals shooting one's own leg. Same with exposure fusion. 16bit TIFFs are good for fusion if the camera can spit them out.
go back a few pages

pentax raw is only 12 bit to start with, so this entire argument is not as strong as people think.

The bottom line is what ever people are comfortable with,

if you have the time and situational awareness to set your JPEG settings to match lighting conditions. (Just like old time film shooters did between different types of film) then shoot jpeg. If you want to go out and shoot and correct later because that is what you are accustomed to, then fine, go out and do that to.

THe whole point here is there are options and there is no 100% answer. Some situations may deserve RAW whole for others it is a complete waste of time.
01-02-2010, 03:23 PM   #100
Senior Member
CRPhoto's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 254
QuoteQuote:
Do people really shoot in JPEG???
yes..people still do shoot jpg, and we also print 8x11, 11x17, 20x30 and even on 30x40...and the clients love it. So, if they like it and it works for me then I 'll keep using jpgs.
01-02-2010, 06:54 PM   #101
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by keyser Quote
It's been said before here... get your exposure right in the camera, not the computer. You may be able to 'save' a shot using RAW processing, but why bother?
I can guarantee that if the shot doesn''t look great out of the camera, it's never going to be perfect!
Why do you assume that only exposure errors are the things that can be improved through PP? There are *tons* of things that can be done to improve pictures in PP even when the exposure is perfect. Feel free to settle for whatever exposure curve the camera forces upon you, but some people like more control over the results than that. Of course, you can do much of this same sort of improvement in JPEG, but again, not with nearly as much latitude or nearly such fine control, because you've got much less data to work with (8 bits demosaiced versus 12 in the original state).
01-02-2010, 07:01 PM   #102
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing.
sounds like you've got a camera, so it's easy enough to test this for yourself. Shoot a scene in tungsten light with the WB set to daylight (or vice versa), then try to fix the color. Trivial in RAW - you can get it just as good or even better than if you had set the correct WB in the first place. But you'll never do as well with JPEG.

Of course, it's not just about fixing mistakes, but this makes for an easily reproducible example.

QuoteQuote:
Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?
The one that came with the camera is free, although it's rather cumbersome compared to the programs that truly make shooting RAW as easy as or even easier than shooting JPEG.
01-02-2010, 07:44 PM   #103
Senior Member
Mark Castleman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 298
QuoteOriginally posted by jeryst Quote
Very interesting thread.

I'm an old film photographer, and have just gotten into DSLR's with my K20. I have been shooting jpegs, and only experimented a little with the raw settings. I really didnt see much difference, and the raw seemed to take longer for the camera to save.

But I'd like to get as much out of my photos as possible, so I was wondering if anyone could post some examples (of the same photo), where a pic could be saved or made better in processing a raw photo, but the same results couldnt be achieved through jpeg processing. Trying to see differences in two completely different photos of two wildly different subjects just doesnt give me what I need to make a decision.

Also, are any of the mentioned raw processing tools free, or do they have to be purchased?
The two that are used most often are Lightroom and Aperture. Lightroom is available for Windows and Mac while Aperture is a Mac only program and while neither costs as much as say CS4 they are certainly not free. Many pros use Bridge along with Photoshop but I have never tried that combination. I use Aperture myself and I have been quite happy with it.
01-02-2010, 08:29 PM   #104
Veteran Member
Raybo's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 871
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Why do you assume that only exposure errors are the things that can be improved through PP? There are *tons* of things that can be done to improve pictures in PP even when the exposure is perfect. Feel free to settle for whatever exposure curve the camera forces upon you, but some people like more control over the results than that. Of course, you can do much of this same sort of improvement in JPEG, but again, not with nearly as much latitude or nearly such fine control, because you've got much less data to work with (8 bits demosaiced versus 12 in the original state).
I can adjust my images 'till i'm blue in the face, it's somewhat like adjusting your new HD TV, to many options and never being happy with the results.

To much of a "good" thing can just kill the whole experience of getting a natural image.
01-02-2010, 08:40 PM   #105
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
all I know is that I am happy to be a part of the Jpeg only club
I know there are 4 or 5 of us and that's cool.
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!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you shoot in Raw Vs JPeg?? Softsoap Photographic Technique 14 02-25-2010 02:52 PM
The K-7 makes me want to shoot JPEG aerodave Pentax DSLR Discussion 66 11-14-2009 03:10 PM
Winners: Point & Shoot Contest #23 - "People" and Pentax Compact Cameras 2 09-26-2009 09:33 AM
Point & Shoot Contest #23 - "People" and Pentax Compact Cameras 22 09-26-2009 05:19 AM
Finding people to shoot xecutech Photographic Technique 171 03-11-2009 06:54 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:07 PM. | 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