Photography lessons

[Genius.]

So i think im going to buy the Nikon D40. How do i get started learning the modes?

Do u think buying a book would be best? Not really keen on paying for photography classes.

[bwana]

Books - or online material - are good but they're hardly a substitute for even an informal lesson or two from a seasoned photographer.

[arf9999]

Try one of Peter iNova's e-books. They're pretty good.

http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/D40/index.html

[Genius.]

So i walked into a store yesterday and said i was interested in buying the Nikon D40.

The guy behind the counter said i should bite the bullet and save to get the Canon 400D. Negatives about the Nikon he said was that the 6MP is so low, Nikons service is very bad and their parts arent that easily available.

Now i was kinda dead set on the Nikon - should i take his advice and hold on?

Theres another store selling the Nikon D40 for R4799 and you get a R750 photography class from Nikon. Its a whole day thing from 8am to 5pm.

Im a bit stumped. Any help?

[Wynsam]

There is nothing wrong with a Nikon D40. If that fits your budget then go for.

The 400D is a much more pricey camera in a different league.
6mp is plenty.

What is your intended use?

[Genius.]

There is nothing wrong with a Nikon D40. If that fits your budget then go for.

The 400D is a much more pricey camera in a different league.
6mp is plenty.

What is your intended use?

It gonna be my first DSLR. Thought that the Nikon would be a good start. Intended use? Is to take my hobby to another level.

[Calico182]

yea, definitely nothing wrong with the Nikon D40

[mercurial]

Canon 400D is about R6500. I'd save up and get it. It's better than the Nikon D40. It's your choice though. What's your budget? Have a look here http://www.orms.co.za/

[Genius.]

My budget was around 5k actually.

[bwana]

What's the importance/relevance of only being able to use AF-S and AF-I lenses with the D40?

[mercurial]

Here's a Nikon D40 for R5000 http://www.orms.co.za/product.php?a=view&product=809

[Genius.]

Dont understand that jargon yet?

[Genius.]

Here's a Nikon D40 for R5000 http://www.orms.co.za/product.php?a=view&product=809

Check my previous post. I found one for R4800 with a Nikon R750 training voucher

[mercurial]

Check my previous post. I found one for R4800 with a Nikon R750 training voucher

What previous post?

[Genius.]

What previous post?


So i walked into a store yesterday and said i was interested in buying the Nikon D40.

The guy behind the counter said i should bite the bullet and save to get the Canon 400D. Negatives about the Nikon he said was that the 6MP is so low, Nikons service is very bad and their parts arent that easily available.

Now i was kinda dead set on the Nikon - should i take his advice and hold on?

Theres another store selling the Nikon D40 for R4799 and you get a R750 photography class from Nikon. Its a whole day thing from 8am to 5pm.

Im a bit stumped. Any help?
.

[mercurial]

Which store is that?

[Genius.]

Which store is that?

SA camera

http://www.sacamera.co.za/productdetail/NIK-D40/Nikon-D40-with-Nikon-18-55mm-3.5-5.6-IF-ED-Lens-%28Includes-R750-Training-Voucher%29.html?gclid=CKDu6_LL2ZQCFQcUQgodwhQ8lA

Outside of Canal Walk.

[Wynsam]

If you think your hobby and the budget you are prepared to spend on it might grow alot then the D40 might not be the best buy because of the lens type limitation with that body. it will limit your access to cheaper older good lenses.

If you think you will keep that body for longer than 24 months then it wont make any difference as by then the newer bodies will be out.

[mercurial]

Then go for it :)
Just my 2c: I'd save up a bit and go for the Canon.

[ldmelsa]

Canon 400D... ...It's better than the Nikon D40.
I would not say one is better than the other.
They are very similar.

The next step up is the Canon 40D / Nikon D300.

[mercurial]

I would not say one is better than the other.
They are very similar.

The next step up is the Canon 40D / Nikon D300.

Damn Nikon fanboy :p
I'd take the Canon over that Nikon anyday.

Genius: Click here (http://www.google.co.za/search?hl=en&q=Canon+400D+%2B+Nikon+D40&meta=)

You can read through the articles and make up your mind for yourself.

[ldmelsa]

Damn Nikon fanboy :p

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/2686709558_4342ec41c7_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/2686709558_7079609153_o.jpg)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2711867210_22b7d5d084_m.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/2711867210_94454465ee_o.jpg)

Next on my list is probably a Canon 40D.


Canon fanboy :D

[mercurial]

:D Who's cameras are those?

[BitRogue]

Not sure if it was the best thing for you to ask on the forums :-) People just overload you with every other suggestion under the sun.

A few things to consider though - how serious are you likely to take this hobby? And can you use equipment from your previous camera or your friends cameras?

You can do a LOT worse than getting the Nikon D40, and if you're desperate to get into the game ASAP and start playing, then I'd say just go for it. Also, don't worry about the 6MP. This is plenty - its more than your monitor can handle (3000x2000 odd pixels). Whats more important is the quality of your CCD and theres nothing wrong with the D40's, for amateur photography anyway. I have a Nikon D70s with the same tech and Im still having a ball with it 5 years after buying it.
Of course, if you think you're going to grow into the hobby quite seriously, going for something which can let you flex your wings a bit more will definitely be beneficial, and so saving up for something a little better like the 400D Canon or a Nikon D80 is well worth the time and money.

Which brings me to my next point - as has been hinted in the earlier posts, there is something of a war going on between Nikon and Canon users. Truth is that they're both really good camera makes and you dont lose by going for either of them. Problem is, is that whichever make you buy, you are effectively stuck with future upgrades and lenses for that make as you cant interchange lenses between Nikon and Canon (and any other make for that matter) without starting from scratch again, so maybe your choice might depend on who joins you on your photographic expeditions.

Personally, I have used both 300D and 400D Canons, and in comparison I find my Nikon is more solid and easier to wield and feels better to hold. And quieter too. And faster to get going from switching on. And has more shots per second in rapidfire. and and and. Of course these lines blur with the (far) more expensive Canon 40D, so pretty much of a muchness when you've actually got money to throw around.

Good luck with your choice.

[ldmelsa]

Yeah
+1

can't go wrong with either

[koffiejunkie]

The guy behind the counter said i should bite the bullet and save to get the Canon 400D. Negatives about the Nikon he said was that the 6MP is so low, Nikons service is very bad and their parts arent that easily available.

Megapixel Shmegapixel. Anyone who tells you Camera A is "better" than Camera B simply because of the pixel count is destined to stand behind the counter instead of in front of it buying the kit.


Theres another store selling the Nikon D40 for R4799 and you get a R750 photography class from Nikon. Its a whole day thing from 8am to 5pm.

That's an excellent deal - take it. The R750 training (assuming it's human to human, even if it is on 30 minutes) is probably worth more than anything else.


The 400D is a much more pricey camera in a different league.

Three people have alluded to this now. How is it in a different league? MP aside it's very similar. Search this forum and you'll find lots of debate on this.


6mp is plenty.
+1


What's the importance/relevance of only being able to use AF-S and AF-I lenses with the D40?

I may have the details wrong (haven't gotten my head about all the Nikon jargon yet), but I believe the one has a motor in the lens, the other doesn't and relies on the screw drive from the camera. If I'm not mistaken the D40 doesn't have an in-body motor. This does not mean you cannot use older glass, it just means you cannot auto-focus with it. And if someone is looking to broaden their photographic horizons, learning to focus manually will surely not do them any harm.


You can do a LOT worse than getting the Nikon D40, and if you're desperate to get into the game ASAP and start playing, then I'd say just go for it. Also, don't worry about the 6MP. This is plenty - its more than your monitor can handle (3000x2000 odd pixels). Whats more important is the quality of your CCD and theres nothing wrong with the D40's, for amateur photography anyway.

Not only is there nothing wrong with it, it's one of the last 6MP CCD bodies released, and benefits from lessons learned in all the ones before it, which makes it one of the best 6MP DSLRs out there. In My Not So Humble Opnion :)


Of course, if you think you're going to grow into the hobby quite seriously, going for something which can let you flex your wings a bit more will definitely be beneficial, and so saving up for something a little better like the 400D Canon

Four extra MP won't allow you to "flex your wings" and the 400D, excellent camera that it is, doesn't offer you anything else that will.


Which brings me to my next point - as has been hinted in the earlier posts, there is something of a war going on between Nikon and Canon users.

And so far two Canon shooters have said go for the Nikon D40....


Problem is, is that whichever make you buy, you are effectively stuck with future upgrades and lenses for that make as you cant interchange lenses between Nikon and Canon (and any other make for that matter) without starting from scratch again, so maybe your choice might depend on who joins you on your photographic expeditions.

If you're on a budget, have no DSLR experience, and you're not expecting your old man to kick the bucket and leave you his collection of superb lenses from manufacturer X, you really shouldn't be concerned about which brand (of in this case two who both make excellent cameras) to go for. You don't have anything to base that decision on, except the price, really. Get the cheapest DSLR you can find, and learn to use it. Go out and shoot as much as you can. Read the manual (over and over) until you know every little detail of the camera. Once you've mastered that camera, and established your style and have a good idea of where you want to take your photography next, you're in a much better position to choose a system for long term investment.

[bwana]

Megapixel Shmegapixel. Anyone who tells you Camera A is "better" than Camera B simply because of the pixel count is destined to stand behind the counter instead of in front of it buying the kit.But he didnt just base it on the MP count did he.

I may have the details wrong (haven't gotten my head about all the Nikon jargon yet), but I believe the one has a motor in the lens, the other doesn't and relies on the screw drive from the camera. If I'm not mistaken the D40 doesn't have an in-body motor. This does not mean you cannot use older glass, it just means you cannot auto-focus with it. And if someone is looking to broaden their photographic horizons, learning to focus manually will surely not do them any harm.That's pretty much my take on it too.

[waynegohl]

my brother took up photography i think this year or the end of last year and has about 3 or 4 pictures on news24 today. he took pictures of the 2 ships stranded here in melkbosstrand. he must also do a fashion shoot at the Cape Town International Convention Centre sometime. you photography guys take good pictures man.

[koffiejunkie]

But he didnt just base it on the MP count did he.

No, but after-sales service hardly makes it a better or worse camera. Besides, I don't really care what people say about one company's service over another. One guy will say a company is fantastic, the next will have nothing but trouble with it.

Has anyone here actually had:

1. A new DSLR malfunction (i.e. break all by itself) within the warranty period, and

2. Had it fixed/replaced under warranty?

Please share your experiences.

[bwana]

I've had the one dreadful experience with Canon SA so yeah, local support could be a consideration.

[Wynsam]

Had a fantastic experience with Sony. Cant praise them enough on the service and commitment to their brand I got. 10/10.

They upgraded me to a new replacement body when they could not source a part quick enough. That's putting your money where your mouth is!

[koffiejunkie]

I've had the one dreadful experience with Canon SA so yeah, local support could be a consideration.

I guess that levels the playing field then (between Nikon and Canon) :)

[bwana]

I guess that levels the playing field then (between Nikon and Canon) :)Playing field? I didn't realise you all were competing. :)

@Genius. I'll pass on something I heard the other day which boiled down to . . shoot what your friends and family shoot - you'll have a readily available support base and might even be able to borrow their stuff. :D

[koffiejunkie]

Playing field? I didn't realise you all were competing. :)

I was referring to after-sales support. I guess I've come to expect bad support, so I tend to rather base my decision (after technical and ergonomical merits) on how likely I am to need support.

In my previous company we supplied our clients with Notebooks from either HP or Acer - about half half split. One out of every three or four HPs came back and had to have the motherboard replaced. In three years I we never once had a return on an Acer. Guess which one I'm likely to buy if I had to choose...

@Genius, I still say get the Nikon D40. One thing to keep in mind is that the camera is almost certainly not going to be your last photography purchase. You'll want a bag for it. And before long you'll want a tripod, remote/cable release, filters, flash, etc. You'll want the 50mm f/1.8 too :D

[Genius.]

ldmelsa, BitRogue, koffiejunkie...

Thanx a million. Your posts really made me make up my mind. I really appreciate it.

I think i will go for the Nikon. Im pretty excited actually. I am 100% sure i want it now.

[bwana]

I just realised that it appears nobody responding to this thread (thus far) actually has a D40 :D

[UnoPanelvan]

I just realised that it appears nobody responding to this thread (thus far) actually has a D40 :D

Do You? Is it an Olympus?

[bwana]

Do You? Is it an Olympus?Me? No, I have a brace of Canon 400D's.

The D40 is a Nikon

[UnoPanelvan]

Me? No, I have a brace of Canon 400D's.

The D40 is a Nikon

OK I was wondering becos I saw a camera with nice lens but it was a Cannon 450D. What is the normal price?

[bwana]

OK I was wondering becos I saw a camera with nice lens but it was a Cannon 450D. What is the normal price?I think about r9k with the kit lens.

[koffiejunkie]

I just realised that it appears nobody responding to this thread (thus far) actually has a D40 :D

Why do you think we're cheering for it? Need to get one of those amongst us :D

[koffiejunkie]

ldmelsa, BitRogue, koffiejunkie...

Thanx a million. Your posts really made me make up my mind. I really appreciate it.

I think i will go for the Nikon. Im pretty excited actually. I am 100% sure i want it now.

LOL great! bwana is right, none of us actually have one. I have a Canon 40D but very almost bought the D40 - it was just to small for my hands. Did spend a day shooting with it, and based on what I saw that day I'm happy to recommend it.

If you're worried about 6MP, check out this (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3163/2357669956_89642ab36b_o.jpg) image. Taken with another 6MP DSLR and kit lens.

Buy this book (http://www.kalahari.net/books/Understanding-Exposure/632/27568352.aspx) with the difference - you won't be sorry.

[Genius.]

I ordered the Nikon D40. Will be getting it early nxt week.

[mercurial]

Buy this book (http://www.kalahari.net/books/Understanding-Exposure/632/27568352.aspx) with the difference - you won't be sorry.




I have the PDF of this book, but haven't read it yet.

[koffiejunkie]

I ordered the Nikon D40. Will be getting it early nxt week.

Sweet dude - we want a first pic, OK?

[Genius.]

Sweet dude - we want a first pic, OK?

For sure man.

[ldmelsa]

Remember, the D40 overexposes by default, like most digital cams. Use exposure compensation and colour histogram to make sure you're not blowing out the colours in your shot. You can't shoot like you use to on print film. Not to worry. Just take a shot and look at the screen. (the d40 has an excellent screen). If it's blown out, adjust exposure compensation. Try -2/3 of a stop. Take it again and look at your screen. Remember to set your white balance. (actually, the D40 does a great job in auto WB)
Oh, one more thing: Use auto ISO!

Want your shots to look colourful and punchy?
Firstly, make sure your camera is set to jpeg.
Menu > Shooting Menu > Optimize Image > Custom
Tone Compensation: Leave it at "Auto". (Nikons automatically adjust the contrast of every shot.)
Colour Mode: Set it to "IIIa" (lovely colours) Use it! (Don't use IIa - that's AdobeRGB and will give your crap colours. Always use sRGB. AdobeRGB is for press and only to be used when you're printing your own work and have everything calibrated to AdobeRGB. Don't even waste a second thinking about this!)
Saturation: Use what looks right to you. When I used the D40 I set this to "+". Looked great!

If you use raw, none of this applies and you can't take advantage of Nikon's wonderful in-camera jpeg processing.

[bwana]

If you use raw, none of this applies and you can't take advantage of Nikon's wonderful in-camera jpeg processing.Let me rephrase - If you use raw you needn't dont worry about all that crud. You can make adjustments in post as you see fit rather than Nikon interpreting things for you. :D

:p

[mercurial]

In any case, I can't understand why anyone would spend so much money on a SLR and shoot JPEGs :confused:
Then you might as well spend R1000 on a point-and-shoot.

[ldmelsa]

Let me rephrase - If you use raw you needn't dont worry about all that crud. You can make adjustments in post as you see fit rather than Nikon interpreting things for you. :D

:p


In any case, I can't understand why anyone would spend so much money on a SLR and shoot JPEGs :confused:
Then you might as well spend R1000 on a point-and-shoot.

Please don't start this pointless raw vs jpeg thing with me.

After shooting both jpeg & raw on:
Canon 10D
Nikon D100
Canon 300D
Canon 5D
Nikon D40
Canon 40D
Canon 450D
Nikon D60
Nikon D300

I can tell you that jpeg is the way to go.
I know pro photographers here in EL that shoot jpeg on Canon 5D, Canon 1DsMKIII, Nikon D3.
Their shots look great, and the clients just keep coming back.

If you know how to drive your cam and don't want to waste time, shoot jpeg.

[bwana]

I can tell you that jpeg is the way to go.
I know pro photographers here in EL that shoot jpeg on Canon 5D, Canon 1DsMKIII, Nikon D3.
Their shots look great, and the clients just keep coming back.It's conclusive then and I stand corrected. Jpeg must be the way to go.

[ldmelsa]

It's conclusive then and I stand corrected. Jpeg must be the way to go.

:o

Everybody must shoot what he/she prefers.
It's all subjective, bwana.

BTW, I shoot raw for long exposures, because CameraRAW is goos at taking out hot pixels.

It's just this dude is talking about a Nikon D40, and Nikons are great at jpeg.

[mercurial]

Idmelsa, you are entitled to your opinion. My take is that RAW is obviously better, as is the same with WAV files when it comes to audio or VOB files when it comes to video - the simple reason that the data is uncompressed means that more data/details are available.
Just my 2c.

[ldmelsa]

Idmelsa, you are entitled to your opinion. My take is that RAW is obviously better, as is the same with WAV files when it comes to audio or VOB files when it comes to video - the simple reason that the data is uncompressed means that more data/details are available.
Just my 2c.

I agree with you 100%, technically speaking.
It makes sense that RAW holds more info than jpeg, however people must not think that it is a "digital negative". It's by no means a negative. Print film has a huge latitude and amazing highlight handling. What I'm trying to say is that you have to get it right, in-camera, just like slide film. Raw is not going to save you. It's lighting, timing and composition that make a shot. Not whether it's shot on digital(raw/jepg), print film or slide film. Each medium is different and you have to know how to use you chosen medium. Once you understand the limitations of your camera, medium and lens, you can make great shots using lighting, timing and composition. Arguing about jpeg/raw is missing the point. It's about photography.

Look at these examples:

Sigma SD14: better raw than jpeg
You have to use that camera in raw to get the best from it. It's not very good at jpeg.

Nikon D300: amazing jpegs

See what I mean? It's about the specific camera.
For example, my Canon 300D was better in raw. (old camera)

It's just that I love the way that Nikon processes their jpegs, but you're right, it's subjective.

[mercurial]

I understand and I think we both agree with each other to some point :)

[koffiejunkie]

In any case, I can't understand why anyone would spend so much money on a SLR and shoot JPEGs :confused:
Then you might as well spend R1000 on a point-and-shoot.

How about incentive for getting it right? RAW is really cool, and I use it, but bloody hell it takes a lot of time to process all the images. I strive to get it right with the camera. If I nail it in the camera, I don't need RAW. I would still shoot in raw, on the off chance that there's something I *want* to do with it afterwards, but I would be happy if I can apply the same settings (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc) on all my images and it looks good.


the simple reason that the data is uncompressed means that more data/details are available.

Compression has nothing to do with it. The RAW files coming out of most cameras are compressed. RAW is [i]not an image format[/d] - it's simply a dump of everything that came in through the sensor. That has to be interpreted and processed to become an image. Now, if you're a wizz at post processing, and have the time to dedicate to it, sure, then RAW is the best for you. But if you nail the exposure chances are the camera will do a pretty decent job making a good looking image out of it. I have my camera set to shoot JPEG+RAW, and I compare every image coming out of it. When I do get the exposure just right, there's usually no way I can make it look better from the RAW, in fact, I mostly just try to replicate the same result. RAW is useful to me when I get it wrong with the camera. So RAW for me is dealing with the symptom and ignoring the problem.

Of course, RAW opens up slightly broader creative possibilities, but again, this is dependant on your post processing skills.

[ldmelsa]

Okay, I'm off to dpreview to go and post my thoughts on jpeg. :D (kidding)

It was nice knowing you guys! :(

[bwana]

How about incentive for getting it right? RAW is really cool, and I use it, but bloody hell it takes a lot of time to process all the images. I strive to get it right with the camera. If I nail it in the camera, I don't need RAW. I would still shoot in raw, on the off chance that there's something I *want* to do with it afterwards, but I would be happy if I can apply the same settings (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc) on all my images and it looks good.But you can in aperture. :confused:

Sounds like you just need to tweak your workflow. :)

[koffiejunkie]

But you can in aperture. :confused:

Of course I can, but I mean one set of settings across all pictures, or maybe a few presets - like the "pictures styles" in the camera. Unless I nail it every time, I still have to do some extra work on each image.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against that, but most of what I end up doing is correcting something or other I did wrong while shooting. That's unnecessary.

[ldmelsa]

You guys make as if one can't adjust jpegs:

______________________________Click for larger view.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2743761779_12248f1ffe_m.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2159/2398786990_b23e644a98_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldmelsa/2398786990/sizes/o)

[koffiejunkie]

You guys make as if one can't adjust jpegs:

______________________________Click for larger view.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3145/2743761779_12248f1ffe_m.jpghttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2159/2398786990_b23e644a98_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldmelsa/2398786990/sizes/o)

I certainly don't think you can't adjust JPEGs, but if you're going to adjust them anyway then there's no real argument against RAW.

[bwana]

Of course I can, but I mean one set of settings across all pictures, or maybe a few presets - like the "pictures styles" in the camera. Unless I nail it every time, I still have to do some extra work on each image.You correct one and carry those corrections across to all the others that you shot under the same conditions - you can even save it as a pre-set.
You guys make as if one can't adjust jpegs:I dont believe anyone is under that impression - I thought the whole idea was to get it right in the camera anyway :)

[marine1]

Started using RAW and it smashes JPEG out the park. It is amazing what you can do with RAW.

[koffiejunkie]

You correct one and carry those corrections across to all the others that you shot under the same conditions - you can even save it as a pre-set.

Yes yes, I know. Provided I get consistent results out of the camera. Which I'm not at the moment, but I'm getting there.

[koffiejunkie]

Started using RAW and it smashes JPEG out the park. It is amazing what you can do with RAW.

OK, I'm going to stick my foot in it. If RAW "smashes JPEG out the park" then your camera simply produce poorly processed JPEGs. The DSLRs I've shot with produce excellent JPEGs, and anyone who's well versed in Photoshop can do wonders with just about any image.

/me runs for cover :D

[koffiejunkie]

The only real big advantage for RAW to me is being able to easily correct white balance after the fact.

[marine1]

ROFL Koffie, no what I mean is that in terms of photoshopping and such, JPEG does not come close. I was also die hard JPEG fan but started on the weekend with RAW and I cannot believe what you can do with Lighroom for example.

[bwana]

Yes yes, I know. Provided I get consistent results out of the camera. Which I'm not at the moment, but I'm getting there.So that we're on the same page you're blaming yourself for the inconsistent results?
The only real big advantage for RAW to me is being able to easily correct white balance after the fact.How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

[marine1]

How about 16bit image vs 8bit?really? I didnt know that.

[koffiejunkie]

ROFL Koffie, no what I mean is that in terms of photoshopping and such, JPEG does not come close.


I know, I just couldn't resit :p


I was also die hard JPEG fan but started on the weekend with RAW and I cannot believe what you can do with Lighroom for example.

Most of my pictures don't even exist in JPEG, except for the ones I sent to friends or uploaded to flicker. I'm still learning how to properly PP images so that they look natural but still have some punch. But Lightroom/Aperture is not just about RAW. It's about workflow. I just started using keywords for the first time - OMG! Most of the organisational bits and bobs I've picked up so far don't make a lot of sense to me, but dropping keywords into the mix made a few things come together nicely, and as my photo library starts growing (I'm near 5000 shots on the 40D, plus maybe about 1000 on my Cybershot at the same time, although I don't keep all from either) it's really starting to make sense.

[marine1]

Agreed with you on those points, in the beginning when Bwana started throwing all the terminology at me I had to go and look what the bloody hell he was on about :D

[koffiejunkie]

So that we're on the same page you're blaming yourself for the inconsistent results?

Absolutely. The only thing I've ever blamed the camera for is it's dog-pile implementation of AutoISO, but I've stopped using that for the most part.


How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

Oh, and that :)

[koffiejunkie]

Agreed with you on those points, in the beginning when Bwana started throwing all the terminology at me I had to go and look what the bloody hell he was on about :D

Him and ldmelsa still has me running for google from time to time :)

[ldmelsa]

Started using RAW and it smashes JPEG out the park. It is amazing what you can do with RAW.

What camera do you use? Sony A700, right?
That's odd, because that camera is excellent.
Maybe you just don't know how to use the jpeg yet.
I've never used that camera before so I would not know, but the Nikon D300/Canon 40D make superb jpegs.
Maybe the Sonys are poor at jpeg.



How about 16bit image vs 8bit?

Jpegs are 8bit
They have the bit-depth where it counts.
This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain:
Jpegs have 8 bits per pixel and raw usually has about 12 bits per pixel.
However, raw's data is a linear 12 bits of information, whereas jpeg is encoded in a non-linear transform. The data is logarithmic and therefore can have the bit-depth where it counts. The parts of the photo where 12 bit encoding would be useful can't even be picked up by the sensor in the first place.

[bwana]

Him and ldmelsa still has me running for google from time to time :)lol - I'm living in google these days. If only technology would stand still for a while and let me catch up?


Jpegs are 8bit
They have the bit-depth where it counts.
This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain:
Jpegs have 8 bits per pixel and raw usually has about 12 bits per pixel.
However, raw's data is a linear 12 bits of information, whereas jpeg is encoded in a non-linear transform. The data is logarithmic and therefore can have the bit-depth where it counts. The parts of the photo where 12 bit encoding would be useful can't even be picked up by the sensor in the first place.Thanks for taking the time to explain to this luddite :) but I cant find any references to back the idea that having less data at your disposal is better than having more. Its all bit depth (http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/why_shoot_raw_02.html), bit depth (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml), bit depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Benefits), and it goes on. A lot of people seem to agree that being able to use the extra bit depth to bring out detail from the shadows (and to a lesser degree from the over exposed highlights) is a good thing.

[ldmelsa]

lol - I'm living in google these days. If only technology would stand still for a while and let me catch up?
LOL
Where do you think I got that gobbledegook? :D


I can't keep a straight face any longer:

This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain
:D:D:D

[Calico182]

just my 2 cents regarding the RAW vs JPEG debate.

I have only used RAW ever since being contacted a couple years back by a French company interested in using my images on advertising billboards over there. Unfortunately they would only accept the original RAW files :(

Since then I only use RAW, wouldn't want to be in that situation again :) - but I actually prefer the control I get from the RAW files compare to JPEG.

That's just my opinion anyway

[arf9999]

Jpegs are 8bit
They have the bit-depth where it counts.
This is not something you have to concern yourself with, but let me explain:
Jpegs have 8 bits per pixel and raw usually has about 12 bits per pixel.
However, raw's data is a linear 12 bits of information, whereas jpeg is encoded in a non-linear transform. The data is logarithmic and therefore can have the bit-depth where it counts. The parts of the photo where 12 bit encoding would be useful can't even be picked up by the sensor in the first place.Not entirely true. A 12 bit raw file will allow for a much higher dynamic range than a jpeg. What this will mean that in an image where there is a very high contrast a jpeg will usually clip the highlights and/or lose shadow detail. RAW allows the photographer to decide how to treat the image, and good RAW software will allow a much higher latitude than the in-camera RAW/jpeg conversion. The real problem with jpegs isn't loss of detail, but rather this loss of dynamic range.

Also, image adjustments on an already (lossy) compressed format are destructive... they add additional artifacts. They might not be that noticeable, but they're there.

The only real disadvantages of using RAW is the file size and corresponding slower operation of the camera (file transfer and buffer), as well as the additional steps required in your workflow.

[ldmelsa]

A 12 bit raw file will allow for a much higher dynamic range than a jpeg.
This is a common misconception.



What this will mean that in an image where there is a very high contrast a jpeg will usually clip the highlights and/or lose shadow detail.
Not true. The highlights get clipped by the chip, before it even gets to the DSP. If you clipped your highlights too much, you have to ditch the shot. Unlike film, chips don't have a gradual overload. Fuji SuperCCD cameras do, but most digital cameras don't. Having said that, the Fuji cameras work just as well in jpeg. And what about film scanned to jpeg? No highlight clipping there!
Actually, the only reason a person gets overexposed shots is because he/she does not know how to drive their camera. The format has nothing to do with it.



RAW allows the photographer to decide how to treat the image
So does jpeg. The only benefit of soothing raw, that I can see, is being able to set your WB in post. This can be helpful if your camera has bad WB under tungsten light, for example. Smaller WB adjustments can easily be done on jpegs.



and good RAW software will allow a much higher latitude than the in-camera RAW/jpeg conversion.
Today's digital cameras make great jpegs, and shooting in raw is throwing half of the camera away. The camera is not just a chip. The Nikon D300 makes the best jpegs I have ever seen. I can't recreate that in raw, and why should I if I can get the jpeg from the cam?



The real problem with jpegs isn't loss of detail, but rather this loss of dynamic range.
Nonsense. The dynamic range of the photo is created by you, the photographer, and your ability to see light and knowing how to use your chosen format (knowing its limits), whether it's print film, slide film or digital.



Also, image adjustments on an already (lossy) compressed format are destructive... they add additional artifacts. They might not be that noticeable, but they're there.
The compression from the camera is low enough. It's not mathematically lossless, but it's very good. As I said before, it's got more to do with the sensitivity of your chip, which makes this a moot point. Get over it. It's all in your mind. :D



The only real disadvantages of using RAW is the file size and corresponding slower operation of the camera (file transfer and buffer), as well as the additional steps required in your workflow.
Not the only disadvantages. The other disadvantage is that you can't use the cameras in-camera jpeg processing. It has become so good, that even the engineers working on raw software are saying that they're having a tough time keeping up with Nikon and Canon's in-camera jpegs.

[bwana]

JPG vs RAW - it's all down to the individual.

If you're not adept at post processing or find the cost/benefit doesnt add up then of course you should stick with the camera manufacturer's interpretation of what your image should look like. I used to develop and process my own film so the benefits of shooting in RAW were obvious even more so after years of shooting exclusively in JPG.

Drive or be driven - I doesn't matter as long as you get to where you want to be. :)

[arf9999]

This is a common misconception.
Nope it's true. Sampling at 12 or 14 bits will always produce a higher range compared to 8 bits. When the camera applies jpeg conversion with the corresponding colour space and gamma curve it will make decision on how to treat the image. Typically most modern digital cameras will "underexpose" slightly in this process in order to preserve highlights, at the expense of shadow detail, because the cameras treat midtones as the most important for detail. If you are careful with your subject and your manual exposure settings, you can obviously mitigate this to a certain extent, but not the level where you just have more information at hand.



Not true. The highlights get clipped by the chip, before it even gets to the DSP. If you clipped your highlights too much, you have to ditch the shot. Unlike film, chips don't have a gradual overload.Of course chips clip highlights, but that's not the point. JPEG will flatten highlights or lose shadow detail before posterising midtones. RAW with more samples gives the photographer more control over the final image which may even be a JPEG.



Fuji SuperCCD cameras do, but most digital cameras don't. Having said that, the Fuji cameras work just as well in jpeg. As far as I can see Fuji cameras only operate in JPEG... I didn't know they still made a DSLR. And IIRC the Super CCD tries to increase sensitivity range (i.e. luminance), by incorporating additional luminance sensors. Not really relevant in this discussion.
And what about film scanned to jpeg? No highlight clipping there! As soon as you apply a colour space and a gamma curve, you need to discard some information. I can't see why this is such a big issue for you. If you're happy with JPEG, carry on.



Actually, the only reason a person gets overexposed shots is because he/she does not know how to drive their camera. The format has nothing to do with it. I'm glad the meter in your camera is god-like perfect. I really don't believe that every mixed lighting shot you've taken has turned out perfectly exposed with all the detail that you wanted. If that was the case companies Nikon and Sony wouldn't integrate D-Lighting (http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d300/expression/page4.htm) and DRO (http://www.apical-imaging.com/iridix) processing engines into their cameras. By using this technology, they overcome some of the problems prevalent in in-camera RAW-JPEG conversion - but at an expense: processing times are longer. Using RAW files and post-processing gives the same or better results.


So does jpeg. The only benefit of soothing raw, that I can see, is being able to set your WB in post. This can be helpful if your camera has bad WB under tungsten light, for example. Smaller WB adjustments can easily be done on jpegs.Actually smaller/finer adjustments are harder to do since there are not as many levels in an 8-bit file.


Today's digital cameras make great jpegs, and shooting in raw is throwing half of the camera away. The camera is not just a chip. The Nikon D300 makes the best jpegs I have ever seen. I can't recreate that in raw, and why should I if I can get the jpeg from the cam?The Nikon RAW conversion software uses the same engine as the camera, so there is no reason that you "can't recreate that in raw", it does however give you control over some of the decisions that the camera is making for you.


Nonsense. The dynamic range of the photo is created by you, the photographer, and your ability to see light and knowing how to use your chosen format (knowing its limits), whether it's print film, slide film or digital. You're spouting nonsense now. Basically you're saying that you should accept the limits of a tool, despite knowing that there are ways to circumvent them. Also dynamic range is a technical term which you dont seem to understand. The photographer cannot "create" dynamic range, he can try to capture a scene with as much dynamic range as possible, but his limit will be the tool he uses to do so, be it a sensor or a film emulsion. Range isn't the contrast ratio (how light to how dark) but the number of graduations in between.


The compression from the camera is low enough. It's not mathematically lossless, but it's very good. Compression as such isn't the issue, as I've said before. The loss comes from sampling at a lower bitrate.


As I said before, it's got more to do with the sensitivity of your chip, which makes this a moot point. The problem is that the chip is more capable than you think.


Get over it. It's all in your mind. :D I'm not telling you to convert, I'm just suggesting that what is good for you, may not be ideal for everyone. I shoot mostly in JPEG, not because I think it's better, but because I shoot stuff that moves a lot, and I prefer having a faster camera response. It's a compromise that I've accepted, but I'll never tell someone that it's better than RAW.

[ldmelsa]

Nope it's true. Sampling at 12 or 14 bits will always produce a higher range compared to 8 bits.
Yes, that's true, but I was talking about photography. (digital cameras)



When the camera applies jpeg conversion with the corresponding colour space and gamma curve it will make decision on how to treat the image. Typically most modern digital cameras will "underexpose" slightly in this process in order to preserve highlights, at the expense of shadow detail, because the cameras treat midtones as the most important for detail. If you are careful with your subject and your manual exposure settings, you can obviously mitigate this to a certain extent, but not the level where you just have more information at hand.
I'm not following. What do you mean by, most digital cams underexpose? Most Canons overexpose, as do lots of Nikons. The D80 has a bad exposures meter (it's all over the place - I could not believe it), the D300 has a very good exposure meter and the D40 overexposes, but that's what exposure compensation is for. My Canon 300D overexposed all the time, so I just used exposure compensation. Problem solved.



Of course chips clip highlights, but that's not the point.
That's exactly the point. Chips clip highlights, and therefore you must compensate for it. You do this with timing, lighting, composition, knowing how to use your camera and understanding it's limits. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but it's very true. If you stuffed up your photo, raw won't save you.



As far as I can see Fuji cameras only operate in JPEG... I didn't know they still made a DSLR. And IIRC the Super CCD tries to increase sensitivity range (i.e. luminance), by incorporating additional luminance sensors. Not really relevant in this discussion.
It is, because you said jpegs clip your highlights. The S5 Pro proves otherwise, as does scanned film. Both have a gradual overload curve that's still there in jpeg.



I can't see why this is such a big issue for you. If you're happy with JPEG, carry on.
It's not a big issue for me. I was just trying to explain something. It's an issue to you, as you responded to my post.



I'm glad the meter in your camera is god-like perfect.
LOL dude. I've always said that most meters are off by a lot. I don't understand what you are saying. I was talking about jpeg/raw, not the meter. You must get your exposures right in the first place.



Actually smaller/finer adjustments are harder to do since there are not as many levels in an 8-bit file.
So what?



The Nikon RAW conversion software uses the same engine as the camera, so there is no reason that you "can't recreate that in raw", it does however give you control over some of the decisions that the camera is making for you.
Yes it does.



You're spouting nonsense now. Basically you're saying that you should accept the limits of a tool, despite knowing that there are ways to circumvent them. Also dynamic range is a technical term which you dont seem to understand. The photographer cannot "create" dynamic range, he can try to capture a scene with as much dynamic range as possible, but his limit will be the tool he uses to do so, be it a sensor or a film emulsion. Range isn't the contrast ratio (how light to how dark) but the number of graduations in between.
What I mean is you need to find a nice scene to photograph.



The problem is that the chip is more capable than you think.
Does not fix the crappy light in a crappy photo.


Stop worrying about the technical things. I use to be just like you about raw. It took me 3 years to realize that I was wasting time and CF card space. I could get the exact same image on jpeg as on raw. That was an old Canon 300D. What the Nikon D300 can do is way beyond that.

[arf9999]

Yes, that's true, but I was talking about photography. (digital cameras) So was I. Having 12 bits of information allows for 4096 levels per pixel. 8 bit allows for 256. Not a trivial difference.


I'm not following. What do you mean by, most digital cams underexpose? Most Canons overexpose, as do lots of Nikons. The D80 has a bad exposures meter (it's all over the place - I could not believe it), the D300 has a very good exposure meter and the D40 overexposes, but that's what exposure compensation is for. My Canon 300D overexposed all the time, so I just used exposure compensation. Problem solved. Try reading my point again, I was not talking about metering but about processing. The jpeg engine in a digital camera will usually try to salvage highlights and midtones at the expense of shadow detail.


That's exactly the point. Chips clip highlights, and therefore you must compensate for it. You do this with timing, lighting, composition, knowing how to use your camera and understanding it's limits. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but it's very true. If you stuffed up your photo, raw won't save you. but if your camera stuffs up your photo, RAW might just be the solution. Mixed lighting situations are very difficult to expose correctly (no matter how good a photographer you are), and that is where the additional dynamic range of RAW can help. I'm not a RAW evangelist, I just understand that it can be a very useful tool. You seem to be on a crusade against it.


It is, because you said jpegs clip your highlights. The S5 Pro proves otherwise, as does scanned film. Both have a gradual overload curve that's still there in jpeg. You're misquoting me again, I said that the jpeg engine will have to decide to clip highlights or lose shadow detail in many shots, purely because that the limitation of dynamic range means that failure to do so will cause posterisation in the midtones. If you only have 256 levels and spread them over a large range of lighting, you'll end up with luminance and colour banding. I've never used a Fuji so don't know the results, but I can't see how it will overcome this problem.


It's not a big issue for me. I was just trying to explain something. It's an issue to you, as you responded to my post. It's an issue for me because your argument is false. You claim that jpeg is as good as raw and it isn't. For your uses it may perform as well as you need, but that doesn't make it as good for all situations.


LOL dude. I've always said that most meters are off by a lot. I don't understand what you are saying. I was talking about jpeg/raw, not the meter. You must get your exposures right in the first place.
the poor metering is what causes problems in mixed lighting and where RAW can save you... must I use shorter words? ;)

[Calico182]

*grabs some popcorn*

[koffiejunkie]

kids kids, if I have to stop this car.... :D

[mercurial]

RAW.IS.WAR.S01E01.HDTV.XviD-GEEKS :D

* steals some of Calico182's popcorn :D *

[Wynsam]

^^

Been away for a while. This has been fascinating.

Does it make me a sell-out if I use both?

Dro on Sony's makes great jpgs. i still choose to shoot lots of raw though.

[bwana]

^^

Been away for a while. This has been fascinating.

Does it make me a sell-out if I use both?

Dro on Sony's makes great jpgs. i still choose to shoot lots of raw though.Oh make up your mind . . . :p Memory cards arent exactly expensive anymore so why not :)

[Wynsam]

Dont normally use both at the same time. Sometimes jpg and sometimes raw. But you are right, cards are cheap enough these days;)

[bwana]

I was thinking I might do a RAW/JPG comparison with some landscape shots but I need to figure out what JPG settings I should use.

ldmelsa - would you recommend the "Landscape" picture style (for obvious reasons :)) or that custom one you provided me with a while back?

[ldmelsa]

I was thinking I might do a RAW/JPG comparison with some landscape shots but I need to figure out what JPG settings I should use.

ldmelsa - would you recommend the "Landscape" picture style (for obvious reasons :)) or that custom one you provided me with a while back?

I don't like/understand the Canon "picture styles".
Just set it up till it looks right to you.

[bwana]

I don't like/understand the Canon "picture styles".
Just set it up till it looks right to you.How can you set up anything using that little LCD?

[ldmelsa]

How can you set up anything using that little LCD?

Yeah, that's a problem on the 400D. The 5D is even worse.
The 40D has an accurate screen, I think.

[bwana]

Yeah, that's a problem on the 400D. The 5D is even worse.
The 40D has an accurate screen, I think.Its a decent size screen but still way to small to be doing colour correction on.

How about those picture settings you gave me a while back?

[ldmelsa]

Its a decent size screen but still way to small to be doing colour correction on.

How about those picture settings you gave me a while back?

Those were the settings of my 300D. I guess you could try them.

[ldmelsa]

Which one was shot on raw?

#1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldmelsa/2753207064/
#2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldmelsa/2736767902/

[bwana]

Which one was shot on raw?

#1 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldmelsa/2753207064/
#2 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ldmelsa/2736767902/How about two versions of the same image?

EDIT - even still it is a bit pointless as you can craft a RAW file to output the way you want it to look . . . . but wait - thats one of the benefits of RAW isnt it. ;)

[mercurial]

It's probably a trick question. I'll guess and say it was both shot on JPEG.

[Calico182]

EDIT - even still it is a bit pointless as you can craft a RAW file to output the way you want it to look . . . . but wait - thats one of the benefits of RAW isnt it. ;)

zing :)

[ldmelsa]

I can't tell either.

#1 looks better than #2
why?
#2 has boring flat light
#1 has nice soft light on the cat with dark background
it's better because of the light
not because the one is (was) raw and the other is jpeg

#1 = raw
#2 = jpeg

[arf9999]

I can't tell either.

#1 looks better than #2
why?
#2 has boring flat light
#1 has nice soft light on the cat with dark background
it's better because of the light
not because the one is (was) raw and the other is jpeg

#1 = raw
#2 = jpeg

So what's your point? Don't take boring photographs? This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

If you want to discuss the merits of one over the other, shouldn't the images be... um... similar?

[Genius.]

Picked up my D40 this afternoon. Busy charging the battery. Got lots of reading to do.

Thx for all the advice!

[greg_SA]

Picked up my D40 this afternoon. Busy charging the battery. Got lots of reading to do.

Thx for all the advice!

Sweet! Hope to get mine soon as well :)

[ldmelsa]

So what's your point? Don't take boring photographs? This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
Yes Andrew, that's my point. It's up to the photographer to make the photo. :)


Picked up my D40 this afternoon. Busy charging the battery. Got lots of reading to do.

Thx for all the advice!
Excellent! I love the D40. It's superb.


Sweet! Hope to get mine soon as well :)
I wish I could get one, but I've got Canon lenses.
That said, I could sell my Canon stuff and get the D40. The main reason would be that amazing 18-200 VR! Wow, what a lens! If we Canon guys want something like that, we have to get the Sigma 18-200 OS. (which is great, I guess - It's just that 18-200 VR has had rave reviews)

[koffiejunkie]

Picked up my D40 this afternoon. Busy charging the battery. Got lots of reading to do.

So, is that battery done charging yet? We want a first shot! :D

Oh, and get a flickr account...

[koffiejunkie]

The main reason would be that amazing 18-200 VR! Wow, what a lens! If we Canon guys want something like that, we have to get the Sigma 18-200 OS. (which is great, I guess - It's just that 18-200 VR has had rave reviews)

I have no idea how reliable this is, so take it with a pinch of salt, but rumor has it the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS is on the way.

[ldmelsa]

I have no idea how reliable this is, so take it with a pinch of salt, but rumor has it the EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS is on the way.

I would not be surprised.

BTW Have you been away? :)

[koffiejunkie]

I would not be surprised.

I'm surprised they haven't done it already. If it's any good I'll buy it - seems like a great travel lens.


BTW Have you been away? :)

Yes, went to the Green Man (http://www.thegreenmanfestival.co.uk/) Festival. I was going to stay all weekend but I came down with a nasty cold so I came home last night.

[ldmelsa]

I'm surprised they haven't done it already. If it's any good I'll buy it - seems like a great travel lens.

It will be good. Canon can't stuff up this lens. It's way to important.