General Photography

[mercurial]

You don't lose anything (except a little bit of space) by shooting RAW+JPEG. If the shots come out as well as you describe, and you don't want to do any PP on them, you don't need the RAW, and you can work right off the JPEGs. The 40D/50D outputs some great quality JPEGs

Sure, but at the time of shooting, one can never know how well the pics are until one transfers them to PC and examines (the LCD is too small to judge). If I had known before the time that the pics were gonna be this great, then perhaps I would have shot in JPEG as well. I'm gonna do a straight conversion, because I don't need to do any PP on them.

 

[bwana]

I'd be curious to know what you consider to be the drawbacks of not having to go to Photoshop?

You misunderstand - going to PS has drawback which is why I avoid it whenever possible.

RAW+JPEG is a bit of a waste of space if you're importing everything anyway.

Forgot about DPP though - I haven't been able to start mine up for a while now. I'm downloading the most recent update to see if that helps. It might be useful to install it on the MB I'm talking to Europe next month.

 

[koffiejunkie]

You misunderstand - going to PS has drawback which is why I avoid it whenever possible.

OK, I got it. It could be understood both ways though.

I'm of the opinion shooting RAW+JPEG is a bit of a waste of space if you're importing everything anyway.

But you don't have to import both?

 

[bwana]

But you don't have to import both?

Then how are you going to know if the jpg is good enough?

 

[BigAl-sa]

I did mention this in another thread, the new (??) DPP 3.6.1 has highlight and shadow recovery sliders which work very well. Here is a demo of how well they work (you will never get this kind of recovery from a jpeg).



I'd rather have the extra hassle of large files and having to do the conversions, just knowing that I have the insurance of being able to influence the lighting in the final product.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I did mention this in another thread, the new (??) DPP 3.6.1 has highlight and shadow recovery sliders which work very well. Here is a demo of how well they work (you will never get this kind of recovery from a jpeg).

I really wish Canon would license the routines and algorithms that DDP use to the likes of Apple and Adobe. I would very much like the N/R that DDP has in Aperture. Lens correction and all that would also be useful (especially now that I have a superzoom).

 

[ldmelsa]

you will never get this kind of recovery from a jpeg

Depends on the camera/scan. The jpgs from the Fuji S5 have a massive latitude. Jpg scans from print film also have a far greater latitude than any digital camera's file (the dslrs that we use, that is ).

I don't know what you are trying to show us here. You have not been able to fix the lighting in this photo. See, you can't change light once the photo has been taken.

I'd rather have the extra hassle of large files and having to do the conversions

I'd rather have the small files that are ready for printing, editing, archiving and are compatible with all labs and computers.

, just knowing that I have the insurance of being able to influence the lighting in the final product.

If the light was crap when you took the photo, it will be crap until you go back and re-shoot it in nice light.

Dull light - this photo can't be fixed:

Moments later:

The deference is the timing.

 

[BigAl-sa]

I don't know what you are trying to show us here. You have not been able to fix the lighting in this photo. See, you can't change light once the photo has been taken.

Let me help you.

Depends on the camera/scan. The jpgs from the Fuji S5 have a massive latitude. Jpg scans from print film also have a far greater latitude than any digital camera's file (the dslrs that we use, that is ).

It doesn't matter what camera you use. A jpeg has 8 bit colour depth whereas a RAW file has 16 bit colour depth (once it's uploaded to your computer). That means (2^16)^3 = 2^48 bits per pixel in RAW as opposed to (2^8)^3 = 2^24 bpp in a jpeg. The 24 bits used by jpeg is used by more than 90% of monitors and screen cards (+ driver) as they cannot handle anything higher (can be seen in the Windows display applet). This is why you often hear "I cannot see any difference between RAW and jpeg" as the extra bits have to be discarded by the monitor. However, the difference is there, and can be used by your RAW converter software, as shown in my example.

 

[bwana]

Depends on the camera/scan. The jpgs from the Fuji S5 have a massive latitude. Jpg scans from print film also have a far greater latitude than any digital camera's file (the dslrs that we use, that is ).

Ignoring the rest of your post - I just want to make sure before I go shopping - that you really did mean any print film?

BTW - you're sacrificing dynamic range by using in camera JPG rather than RAW.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Then how are you going to know if the jpg is good enough?

Look before you import - I've explained my method before.

 

[bwana]

Look before you import - I've explained my method before.

Maybe I'm missing something but it just seems like more effort for little reward. Still,

 

[koffiejunkie]

More effort to look through the images than to PP them all? That said, if the shots came out really well, as merc said, then it's pretty easy to give hem all the same the same treatment and export the batch.

Then again, the camera doesn't apply exactly the same processing to each photo. So you might still end up having to do each one individually to get consistent results.

 

[bwana]

More effort to look through the images than to PP them all? That said, if the shots came out really well, as merc said, then it's pretty easy to give hem all the same the same treatment and export the batch.

Then again, the camera doesn't apply exactly the same processing to each photo. So you might still end up having to do each one individually to get consistent results.

Its your workflow. It only needs to serve you well.

 

[Devill]

I do not use SLR (ever), in fact, I am a strong advocate of using skill and cheap hardware. My line up consists of a Kodak Z1015 (bridge), Canon S3 (bridge) and a Nokia N82 (phone). I also had a brief fling with the cheap Nokia 5130 XpressMusic a while back - I miss it. Just_Ice has one now AFAIK.

thats even more impressive

Ps You get great colour on most shots, any advice how to also get that vivid colour without editing it in?

 

[Rouxenator]

Thanks again. To get vivid and bright colours I always do an auto-level on my photos. Either on the camera (Kodak does it on RAW or JPEG) or in ACDsee. Give it a try and see the difference it can make.

 

[Devill]

Thanks again. To get vivid and bright colours I always do an auto-level on my photos. Either on the camera (Kodak does it on RAW or JPEG) or in ACDsee. Give it a try and see the difference it can make.

Lol, I said small words damnit! Auto-level? ACDsee? What do these do?

 

[bwana]

Lol, nha the "filter" is an old sunglasses lense And when I tried to shoot without it it was a tad to bright :/ My ISO can only go as low as 100

I will try the lense hood approach.

Thanks for the advise

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lense

 

[Devill]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lense

LENSE

O sorry did I post that

Ok ok Lens

 

[Kalvaer]

Think I've done that many times myself to be honest

 

[chau]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA lense just ticks bwana off lol