Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

View Poll Results: Which format do you shoot in?
NEF 12 28.57%
JPEG Fine - Large 22 52.38%
JPEG Fine - Medium 4 9.52%
JPEG Fine - Small 0 0%
JPEG Normal - Large 4 9.52%
JPEG Normal - Medium 0 0%
JPEG Normal - Small 0 0%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 31, 2006, 6:57 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
ruchai's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 287
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
The purpose of a DSLR is to be able to change lenses (and have a decent viewfinder), not to shoot RAW. The two things are not connected. You can shoot RAW with non-DSLRs as well. Shoot RAW if you like - it is not compulsory.

Keith.

ruchai wrote:
Quote:
If you do not plan to shoot RAW you should not buy the D50. A p&s will be more suitable. DSLR such as the D50 allow you to manipulate with the RAW files. Using jpeg the files will be compressed and many data will be destroyed during the process.

In jpeg mode D50 will automatically soften to reduce scars on human faces. With RAW files you get what you see and you decide the final pictures.
Don't get me wrong. What I was trying to say was modern p&s cameras are very capable. If you are willing to let camera do the processing you do not need a DSLR. Changing lenses is not the main reason people buy a DSLR. With modern zoom lens like the Nikkor 18-200 many people never think of changing lenses.

Shooting in RAW does not automatically make better photos but by do the processing yourself instead of having the camera do the final processing do. If high quality photos are not required why buy an expensive DSLR when more reasonable priced p&s can do just as good.
Attached Images
 
ruchai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 7:10 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

Well I bought a DSLR so I could change lenses and have a decent optical viewfinder. Maybe I am alone. The fact that it can do RAW is a coincidence.

Keith.
Attached Images
 
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 7:17 AM   #13
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

I bought a DSLR so I could have a large, high quality sensor, with minimum shutter lagand optical viewfinder for instant response.

For me the ability to change lenses and shoot RAW are added benefits.

I don't doubt that you can carry out exposure and white balance adjustments on JPGs, I've done it many times. It's just so much easier with PS and RAW and IMHO generally the end result is better than when adjusting JPGs.

Ken
Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 10:14 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

I find the "... go and buy a P&S if you don't shoot RAW - you aren't fit to have a DSLR" attitude I see a lot on the forums rather patronising. Maybe it's just me being over sensitive. Different things suit different people. I enjoy taking pictures more than I enjoy post processing them.

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 11:16 AM   #15
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

keith1200rs wrote:
Quote:
I find the "... go and buy a P&S if you don't shoot RAW - you aren't fit to have a DSLR" attitude I see a lot on the forums rather patronising. Maybe it's just me being over sensitive. Different things suit different people. I enjoy taking pictures more than I enjoy post processing them.

Keith.
All well and good. I agree. Nontheless, RAW provides a much greater flexibility.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 11:27 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

Has anyone some examples that demonstrate the "much greater flexibility"? I did my own experiments to try to verify this sort of claim but couldn't come to that conclusion. I used RAW+JPG for my tests which isn't ideal because I would normally shoot fine jpg. One test I did was to see if the claim that you can recover blown highlights better from RAW was correct. Attached is a crop of the original basic jpg with the head of the gull blown out.


DBB wrote:
Quote:
All well and good. I agree. Nontheless, RAW provides a much greater flexibility.

Dave
Attached Images
 
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 11:28 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

Here is the best I could do with NC.
Attached Images
 
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 11:29 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

and what I got from processing the basic jpg:
Attached Images
 
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 11:34 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

I don't see any difference in the highlight recovery.

The differences I did notice were, reduced chromatic aberrations and greatly improved interpolation if you want to resample a heavy crop.

I did many more tests, looking at photograph detail and recovering lost detail in dark areas and tried several RAW converters. My conclusion was to shoot RAW when I am likely to need to do significant post processing, such as when shooting birds, and heavy cropping. The rest of the time I shoot jpg (except for a friends wedding recently).

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31, 2006, 3:38 PM   #20
Moderator
 
Nagasaki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897
Default

Looking at your example it seems to me that there is slightly better highlight recovery in the RAW shot and also the whole picture has a better smoother look.

Of course that may more to do with basic JPG than the difference between RAW and JPG.

In the example I postedthe first sample which is a straight Nikon View conversion with no settings changed, I believe thisto be very close to what I would get from an in camera JPG conversion. This is based on tests using RAW+JPG. If I take this JPG file I can after a lot of work get something that's getting close to the RAW conversion. The RAW conversion on the other hand was the work of seconds.

There are a lot of times when the file needs no adjustment and I'm sure JPG would be fine. For me I don't see any downside to shooting RAW so I always use it to maintain flexibility.

Ken
Nagasaki 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 3:29 PM.