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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:55 PM   #31
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

All Good I guess I kinda Jumped the gun abit too... like i said tho I am just sick of people trying to makeit seem as if the highest level of everything is always needed.
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 2:05 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

the highest quality should always be strived for.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 3:54 PM   #33
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

[quote="sjms"]>>> .. include with the camera an at least baseline RAW converter utility program. ... <<<

Of that I am aware. The keyword is "baseline". I have the Pentax *ist D that comes with "Photo Lab". At least in the Pentax case the program is not worth the cost of the blank CD it is written on. I am given to understand that the results are much better with PSCS but it will be a while before I find out as I had not planned on that addition investment ... I will be shooting fuzzy JPGs till that happens.

I just do not want someone to make the same mistake I did. If one is planning on using Raw formats they should consider the cost of the software to get the apropriate benifits.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 4:11 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

when one moves to digital and intends to produce the images themselves one must take in account the the entire digital workflow (the image from the instant you snap the picture the finished product output). that is the cost of the "digital darkroom" in addition to the cost of the cameras, lenses and other support products.

in working, which is unfortunately part time, i averaged 500 rolls of film a year. at an average cost of $7 that is approx $3500 to $5500 w/processing if your putting it out and selling per image. that alone pays for a good computer, monitor, and reasonable printer. payback can be sometimes a b****.

the change over from film to digital w/equivelent equipment was quite painful but in someways satisfying. let us say the results were instantanious. the square footage that i gained back in my basement was much needed (chemical darkroom).
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:13 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

To be fair, any camera that can record in RAW comes with software to convert it. Some of it is better than others though, and Canon's is kinda crappy.
I agree with everyone that has posted so far, to an extent.
I have a few things to say about taking a picture in RAW as opposed to JPEG or TIFF. A very important thing to remember is the beauty of a RAW image is the fact that any processing parameters such as WB, color correcting ect are saved as a seperate set of instructions that are only applied to the image once you convert it from RAW to another file format.
If you edit a picture in TIFF or JPEG format, every time you do an across the board change to one of the major factors, you lose a little bit of detail. Thus with quite extensive editing, you can actually degrade the picture quality!
I have taken about 3800 pictures with my 10D since I got it in January, and I would say that about 2000 of those were shot in JPEG. That format and quality was perfectly fine with me until I made the 'mistake' of shooting a couple macro shots in RAW to see what it was all about. Upon seeing the amount of latitude with exposure, WB, sharpness ect... I got hooked on RAW. I am at this point shooting 99% exclusively in RAW!
However, I would say that if you are a person that isnt going to be quite retentive about getting the maximum amount of detail from all your pictures, or you just dont want to deal with the extra work associated with the conversion step, by all means shoot JPEG! It is quite useable under most circumstances.
Like Eric, I at this point have not sold any of my pictures. I consider myself an avid enthusiast, and in the fall (hopefully) a film student.
I really do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question, because there are plenty of ametures that shoot RAW, and I have spoken to some pros that shoot JPEG for most stuff.
In the end I say use the file format that best fits your shooting/editing style.
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:28 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

LewTwo,

A path to consider is that PhotoShop Elements is much cheaper than the full version of PS. It doesn't have everything (it lacks a RAW converter, the topic of this thread) but it does get you into the mode of thinking like photoshop demands. All complex software (well, good complex software) has a design philosophy behind it. You have to learn to work in a way that it is well suited for. It isn't always a direct linear path, but there are certainly ways to work in PS that will be harder than others.

Using Elements will make the eventual jump to PS easier. Also, I found that when PS CS came out, I could get it at 1/2 price just because I had Elements (which came with my camera, so it was "free" to me... I would have purchased the camera without it.) Note, this isn't the upgrade, it was the full licensed PS CS. Did I want to pay about $350 for it? No. Am I happy I did... yes, after 6 months I am now. I still don't use it as well as I could, but I'm getting better.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:46 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

ok...here is my two cents....

i hope that i'm wrong here....but.....it seems that RAW is used to be lazy....that because of it's "pros" it gives the mindset of "oh i can just fix the WB and exposure later"
and that i think is wrong, i mean. Why not just think ahead.....and change the WB before or while your shooting? What is photography if you just take the shot to fix it later? My mindset is to shoot with the best possible exposure and do everything i can to make the shot great "in camera".........then if i have to change/fix some things in photoshop. or.....if i want to use photoshop to make "different" art.....i don't know if it should be called "photography" because it is changed in the computer. but it is still "art".


well back to topic....if he is still reading it..lol
RAW isn't "necessary".....but can be very useful when it comes to detail and color-reproduction....

i personally don't use RAW....because of my lack of funds (15 year old.....without a "real" job lol)...and i don't think i'd want to convert 400 pictures from RAW to jpg.....especially if i'm not gonna change anything....i could....if i know ahead of time that WB or exposure is gonna be a problem...shoot in RAW....but i don't think i will ALL the time because of the size of my card (128mb lol).....

if anyone wants to send my a couple thousand i'll gladly buy a bigger card and Photoshop CS....(lol jk)
but
for now...i'm good with "Large-Superfine"
lol

hopefully no one will take this as a personal attack....
of course....i'm a "youngin" and my experience doesn't range very far.....so you don't even have to think about the points in there....

enjoy your day.....
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 11:49 PM   #38
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

>>> It doesn't have everything (it lacks a RAW converter, the topic of this thread) ... <<<

I have been using PaintShop Pro and am very happy with it but it can not read my raw files. Pentax has a filter available for their raw files. I have been told on another forum that it works with Ellements. I hope so. I just ordered it.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 12:07 AM   #39
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

photosbyvito

>>> ... Why not just think ahead.....and change the WB before or while your shooting? What is photography if you just take the shot to fix it later? ... <<<

In some cases the camera's firmware may produce results that you do not want and can not control.

Example: The Pentax is known to produce JPG files that are "soft". Personally I believe this is to make them print better. However I am looking for detail (and I rarely if ever print anything). Thus given a choice I would prefer to use raw files.

There is a member of my extended family (who shall remain nameless) who is not confortable with using a computer. She does like to take pictures and will suffer through sitting at the computer to print them (and avoid going to town to have film processed). RAW files would be a nightmare for her. JPGs work just fine for her.

RAW vs JPG ?
It depends on you needs and uses.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 12:12 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

good points

as long as your not using RAW so that you can be lazy...that is all i'm saying

lol
good night
photosbyvito 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 6:31 AM.