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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 26, 2004, 10:02 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

photosbyvito
Your philosophy of RAW for fixing it later applies to everything, so I'm not sure I'd single out RAW for that view. But, you are right... if you approach photography from the "I can fix in in PS" you will (with exceptions noted below), in my opinion, produce inferior results.

Here are the two exceptions.
1) White balance fixing. Without a separate plugin (of which I don't know of any, but there must be) dealing with white balance a dynamic light environment is difficult. I do not have the time to look a the sky and say "oh, it's cloudy, I should change my white balance." And then after my third shot say "oh, the sun has come out, change it to daylight." If I did that I would miss shots. So not having to worry about white balance is a HUGE thing for me in my dynamic outdoor shooting.

2) Trading lower exposure for shutter speed
I often need to stop motion. To do that, I have to have a good shutter speed. A flash sync of 1/200 is not enough to stop a heron in mid lung for food. If there isn't enough light, I have to use a higher ISO and under expose to get the shutter speed necessary to stop the action. And then "fix it in photoshop". In the dynamic outdoor environment, I can't carry 5 flashes and stands to get extra light. Of course, one would say this is not being sloppy, it's intentionally taking advantage of photoshop to fix something and using that advantage.

But you are completely correct... if you are sloppy on the fundamentals because "you can fix it in photoshop" you will not produce as good results. You can only save something so far (and the higher the ISO, the less you can save.) I have often pushed the exposure too far and discovered that I stopped the action but lost the shot due to noise brought out by lightening.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 11:42 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Actually Canons new "Digital Photo Professional" software is rather nice, seems fast, gives you a light table for selects and does batch processing. But I think it only works on raw from the 1D series, and I've only played with it at a vendors store, don't know if you can buy it seperatly form the 1D-MKII yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf065
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.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 11:51 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

I can look at it from the other side
If you use JPG you are lazy because you don't want to spend all the time manually doing all the work of the raw to jpg conversions.

Actually I only convert to jpg at the end of the workflow for final send or web. I save all my RAW data and save/burn the processed images in photoshops native format.

Quote:
Originally Posted by photosbyvito
good points

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

lol
good night
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 12:37 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

well.....that is true....but it is lazy in the "web" aspect of it....lol

good points eric.....that is definetely an advantage that will produce better results.....

and about WB.....most cameras have auto WB...mine does..so i use that most of the time.....unless i'm shooting inside with full control of my lighting...then i'll use manual....

does the "auto WB" not always pick the right one?
if not then RAW is definately the choice there...
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 9:53 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

vito,
auto WB is excellent most of the time if you dont have extreme or mixed lighting. Say you are indoors and have natural light coming through a window, an incandescent lamp beside what you are shooting, and a flourescent above.... auto WB in that case doesn't tend to perform very well.
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 10:23 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

that makes sense....then you have to use about 60 seconds and use auto....unless you don't have anything white around
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 10:35 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Auto WB does a good job, but I've had it really mess up many times. I always leave it on AUTO (even when shooting RAW) so that its "auto WB" choice is recorded into the RAW. Then I compare it with the preprogrammed WB setting to see which I like best. Just gives me another choice.

But some times how it gets it wrong is obvious and some times not so obvious. Skys can be a bit muddy instead of bright blue. Things like that. Once I took a beautiful sunset that looked like mud. Literally it was all browns. If I'd only taken it with RAW (this was last fall) it would have been easy to correct. Instead I had to play with levels on each channel independently. Not fun, but it finally turned into this picture:


That is really close the the actual color, and no, I didn't add that heron.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2004, 10:43 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

that heron looks like it would be PERFECT for a logo...nice and simple silhouette......
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2004, 12:07 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
BruceMcL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 106
Default

Interesting thread here, I'd like to add a few comments. I'm a hobby landscape photographer that used analog in the 1980's and digital since 1998. I have never owned a professional level camera. I do Mac tech support for a living, and have made my living in the computer business for close to 20 years; I'm relatively comfortable in the digital world.

Jumping on new technology - My best quality analog camera was an Olympus XA-2 camera, a 35mm pocket camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. Cost well under $200.00 new 20 years ago as I recall. I have 20 x 30 inch prints hanging on my walls that were made from that camera. My current digital camera will not make decent prints at that size. It costs more than the twice the XA-2. So if RAW, or anything else, makes images that can be enlarged more then to me it's important to consider. I think that digital camera technology is not mature, it still needs improving in many ways.

Post Processing - If you enjoy that part of the image making process then you may make a different choice about RAW than if you don't. Personally I enjoy it. Besides, it's not easy to capture landscape images at night, I can do my post processing then. :-)

Cost of post processing - From reading this thread, it appears that using RAW format and getting the most out of it requires having good post processing tools available. For some people here that may go without saying, for others perhaps it should be mentioned or emphasized.

That's my 2 cents worth.

Current camera - Kyocera SL300R (no RAW format)
Previous, in order - Toshiba PDR-M4 along with Aiptek Mini Pencam 1.3, Casio QV-700, early Minolta Freedom Zoom of some sort, Olympus XA-2, some Kodak 110 camera.
BruceMcL 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 7:55 PM.