Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 26, 2013, 3:16 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
DMJJR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 743
Default Trying RAW

First real attempt at RAW. So far doesn't seem worth the effort. Ist DS DA 55-300 , ISO 400, Aperture Priority. Converted to jpeg using PS Elements 5. If I used my K20 probably could have jpeg and RAW at the same time
Attached Images
  
DMJJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 26, 2013, 10:07 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 228
Default

How much more effort is there to shoot in RAW? If you post process anyway, then the only difference is saving into JPEG afterwards? I just shoot everything in RAW and then PP and save JPEG of only the keepers and hold on the the RAWs just in case.
sumx4182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2013, 11:09 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
DMJJR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 743
Default

Tried to use the "process multiple files" in PS Elements 5. Wouldn't work-had to convert to jpegs individually-took quite a while-and I only shot (40) shots. The ist DS jpeg files average about 2.5 megapixels-in RAW they are about (10). Am I gaining that much more info or am I kidding myself.
DMJJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2013, 9:20 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
BobIr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 385
Default

You are getting that much more information. RAW will capture all the shade of a color, while the camera will "throw away" several shades when converting to Jpeg. As an example, if the blue sky has 20 shades of blue, your camera may keep just 4 or 5 and toss the other shade to cut down on file size. To keep what the camera saves in RAW, you should save pp files as a PSD. Only convert to jpeg if you're uploading a picture to post on line. Numbers I used are made up and only cited as an example
__________________
http://bobmillie.smugmug.com/
BobIr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2013, 11:56 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 887
Default

I never shoot in anything else and my only complaint is that the burst mode is limited by it in my Kx. Get yourself Lightroom and you will see no difference in workload between RAW and jpeg. But you will see a difference in the quality of the end result RAW gives you more headroom for working with shadows and highlights as well allowing things like the WB to be easily adjusted.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2013, 6:06 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
philneast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hobart Tasmania
Posts: 489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
I never shoot in anything else and my only complaint is that the burst mode is limited by it in my Kx. Get yourself Lightroom and you will see no difference in workload between RAW and jpeg. But you will see a difference in the quality of the end result RAW gives you more headroom for working with shadows and highlights as well allowing things like the WB to be easily adjusted.

John
I do the same
philneast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2013, 8:20 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,752
Default

Hi DMJJR,

I shoot probably 99% Jpegs. The only times where I have found a significant advantage for the stuff I shoot is when lighting sources change the WB significantly and quickly (shooting under fluorescents), if the scene has way too much DR for me to capture with one shot, or when the shot is important enough that I want to be able to cover any possible exposure errors. For me, these all are few and far between, and with the RAW button to switch for a single shot and AE button on review to save a RAW version of the last shot, I can cover these either before or after taking the shot on a shot-to-shot basis.

For what I do the majority of the time, Jpegs do what I want them to do, and RAW is overkill. There is no doubt that RAW has advantages. The extra exposure headroom at both ends, extra DR, and added bit depth for color and tonal gradations, and WB failsafe can be useful, but certainly not for every shot I take.

I set up my cameras to take relatively flat shots, with Custom Image set to "Natural", in-camera sharpness set to -4, and usually in-camera contrast set to a negative number. This gives me a jpeg that is actually pretty close to a RAW conversion with no other processing. I then PP it to taste using much more sophisticated NR, deconvolution sharpening with some micro contrast enhancement, and tweak the exposure, contrast and saturation to whatever looks right. I probably spend more time in PP than most RAW shooters, but the time is concentrated on the real keepers, which are relatively few and far between.

I've tried RAW many times and each time have found that jpegs offer me a better solution overall. I'm comfortable with that, even though I seem to draw flack every time I mention it among digital photographers. In the end, final images tell the tale better than exactly how you got there.

Somehow, this always seems to become a bragging rights contest with each side claiming superiority. Bottom line, it's just a choice between alternatives offered, both of which are good and can yield excellent results--the reason both formats are designed into the higher end cameras.

Scott

Last edited by snostorm; Jul 28, 2013 at 12:50 PM.
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2013, 11:37 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snostorm View Post
Hi DMJJR,

In the end, final images tell the tale better than exactly how you got there.


Scott
So true. RAW for me works although I think i will try your in camera settings sometime and see how I like it. There are times when shooting birds where the extra speed in burst mode is needed. Seems like the settings could offer the best of both worlds, and any extra time spent in PP would be minimal.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 5:12 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,446
Default

Shots look good.

The only way not to go with raw is that you think you can fix everything later on and don't think before you shoot.
Why would you want to take lousy pictures to begin with.

Also you don't need that much post processing if they are good to start with.

Ronny
__________________
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2013, 5:39 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
snooked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,411
Default

Throwing away your raw image is like tossing out the original negative. Many more things may be processed with raw images, even a single shot HDR image. I shoot all my images in DNG Raw. I use a free program you can search on line, (instant jpeg from raw), that extracts the embedded jpeg from the raw image and will save it next to the raw image. It will do this in about 15 seconds for 300 raw images. This will give you the jpeg you would have saved and you still have the raw for processing your best images.

Ed
snooked is offline   Reply With Quote
0
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:42 PM.




SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2