Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 26, 2008, 12:59 PM   #21
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unless, like peripatetic, you run out of space and have to delete images.
I have never seen anyone cling so tightly to the wrong end of the stick.
Which eloquently sums up what I so miserably failed to convey.

And there in sums up everything - you're convinced I hold the wrong end of the stickl. I disagree. Strangely enough I've been very successful judging whether I need raw or not. Sorry you haven't been so lucky :blah:
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2008, 1:21 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

I recall stopping to change film and missing shots for that reason. If I hadn't taken some others previously, I would have had frames leftfor Sasquatch getting a lift on the UFO.(thanks, Bill)

Let's all just admit we do different things, and none of us is perfect (myself excepted on good days) .

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2008, 3:53 PM   #23
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

VTphotog wrote:
Quote:
Let's all just admit we do different things, and none of us is perfect (myself excepted on good days) .

brian
Brian - I agree 100%. My point all along is that I disagree with folks who say "you need to do this it's the only right way". If a given tool works for you it's the right tool - for you.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2008, 6:12 PM   #24
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
And there in sums up everything - you're convinced I hold the wrong end of the stick.
Still got the wrong end of it, still clinging on grimly and refusing to let go. I will make one final attempt.

I was not saying that it is always better to use RAW. The point of the story was not (except incidentally) that I ran out of space. The point of the story was that I was shooting JPG (pretend I never said why) and I would have been better off shooting RAW because I got a worse image.

Holding the wrong end of the stick refers not to the fact that one should never shoot JPG, but rather that you completely misunderstood the point of the story and reached a whole bunch of weird conclusions about what I was trying to say.

I have used JPG occasionally - shooting an airshow, some wildlife, etc. Essentially because I was more worried about running out of buffer (and missing a shot) than the extra bit of quality that I would look for in a landscape or portrait.

Anyway I think you probably did understand all that and are now having fun winding me up. :|


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 26, 2008, 11:50 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

. . . and to boot, it's not so simple an issue as merely "raw versus jpeg." Without trying a number of different raw converters on your specific camera's raw files, you won't be able to reach a good conclusion as to which is better. Each raw converter acts with slightly (or greatly) different emphases in terms of color rendition, noise reduction, sharpening, contrast--the whole gamut of features. ACR/CR3 has fill light and highlight recovery sliders that make it easy to recover highlights and shadows chopped off by overly conservative jpeg engines, but doesn't produce the best color output for me. Silkypix has excellent highlight color and fine color controllers that help to produce optimum color output, but it doesn't do well with high-ISO noise on Olympus files, and so on. On the other hand, Raw Shooter Essentials and (to a somewhat lesser degree) Raw Shooter Pro have never been able to render Olympus colors the way I like, so I rarely use them.

The point is, raw developing does offer the potential to produce greater DR, and can help make up for overly-aggressive in-camera jpeg curves, but not all camera-developer combinations will give you the same results, or the results you want. Also, you have to ask what your ultimate reason is for doing photography, and act accordingly. If you just want (or have) to shoot a large number of pictures in a short time (quantity over ultimate quality), then jpeg is probably easiest and best for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy working in the computer darkroom and tweaking individual frames to their best possible result, then raw is likely better. But in any event do consider the relationship of your own camera's raw output to the raw developer you choose.

Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 28, 2008, 10:05 AM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 96
Default

Hi
I have to add something. Everyone say RAW produce higher DR. I thing this is higher resolution (8 vs 14 bit). Every sensor produce higher resolution and processor reduces it to 8bit jpg. So processor will decide what to sacrifice, highlights detail or shade detail. When we convert RAW to jpg, we decide what to sacrifice, but finally we have 8bit jpg and resolution is same. DR is ratio between W and B
and resolution are steps inside that ratio. Latest LCD can produce 8bit resolution (16 mil colours), but can not be totaly black and can not be bright as sun. Maybe we need more info about DR?
emes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2008, 8:53 PM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
Default

I own a Canon Mark III. It's my second. The first was stolen out of my car, along with my 40-D and the thousands of dollars worth of lenses and flashes attached to them.



But that isn't the point for this subject. I am trying to work with Raw Images in Photoshop CS3 Extended. I don't normally work in Raw but decided to really study further into the art. The thing is, I can't get any kind of Raw Image to open in Photoshop CS3 Extended. I went to the help selction, and did exactly as the directions suggested. In fact, there are no options in the File function pointed to in the Help. For instance, I guess under the File function in the Photoshop CS3 Bridge there is supposed to be the option OPEN WITH CAMERA RAW. There isn't. There is nothing wrong with my software. I download my software directly from the Adobe website. Can anyone tell me how I can edit raw images (tiff files on the Mark III) in Photoshop CS3 Extended. Thanks a lot.



Dennis
detff3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2008, 1:43 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

emes wrote:
Quote:
... Latest LCD can produce 8bit resolution (16 mil colours), ...
Again, not entirely correct. For instance, see http://www.eizo.com/
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2008, 2:15 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

emes wrote:
Quote:
Hi
I have to add something. Everyone say RAW produce higher DR. I thing this is higher resolution (8 vs 14 bit). Every sensor produce higher resolution and processor reduces it to 8bit jpg. So processor will decide what to sacrifice, highlights detail or shade detail. When we convert RAW to jpg, we decide what to sacrifice, but finally we have 8bit jpg and resolution is same. DR is ratio between W and B
All of our cameras can capture more DR than can be viewed or printed. In order to get it all on to the screen or print, some of the DR must be compressed, not necessarily sacrificed.If you shoot in JPEG mode, the camera makes the decision on what and how much to compress. Most RAW converters allow you to make these choices for yourself, with some calling it shadows/highlights and others fill light. In any case, the idea is to try to make what the camera sees, fit into the limited range of what you will view it on, and still look natural.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2008, 11:10 PM   #30
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 96
Default

Hi
TCav is right. EIZO makes LCD which can display full RGB colours. Unfortunately I do not have such type of display. I would like to know can you see different between 8bit jpg and 14bit RAW on that display, if you or anybody has got one.
emes is offline   Reply With Quote
 
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 5:06 PM.