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 Jan 9, 2007, 1:57 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

bilybianca wrote:
Quote:
Do you delete all the RAWs after converting?

I save the RAWs (after deleting all that I realise will never end up on any wall or in any album) and convert the ones I want to use for some purpose, when that pupose occurs.

Kjell
Yes. I go through the RAW files in Adobe bridge, delete the crap and then PP the rest, and save as TIFF files. Burn the whole lot to DVD and leave a copy on my HDD to use as a screensaver.


Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2007, 4:59 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
thkn777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,831
Default

very intersting discussion here... am still learning my new *ist DL2 and am only beginning to use RAW.

What I found so far from using JPEG's is that even the lowest quality setting is enough for the average "holiday/vacation" print. You know - just pick the 10-20 photos from a trip and print as "ordinary" photo to show around. JPEG Artifacts are not visible at that resolution and in most cases you won't even bother with cropping etc. here.


So for the average trip using the camera mostly as "point and shoot" JPEG is fine.

I'll however do some tests in the near future on some more difficult objects to see the differences in RAW vs. JPEG for the more special shots, this includes (for me) panoramas, people/animal/plant photograpy in the means of making some kind of "portraits" / "characteristic/behaviour" shot and architecture/sights.

I hope to get a feeling when RAW serves better than JPEG and thus is well worth the effort.

Keep the informations coming!
thkn777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2007, 10:31 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
dan-mx-ds2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 112
Default

Darren, I visited the Washington National Zoo recently, and shot JPG, and yes, I did have to be aware of my WB settings. Very often I can make minor WB changes to JPGs with no ill effects (I frequently warm up my images a little), but the closer the better.

I will admit that white balance has occasionally been a problem for me with JPG shooting. I need to keep the WB close to where I really want it to get good results when I post-process. I shot a lovely sunset once with WB accidentally set on Cloudy. I would have been happier with Daylight WB, and if it had been RAW it would have been a trivial correction. As it is, I've spent a lot of time with it in PS Elements (always working from the original JPG via PSD format) to tweak it to where I'm happy with it. On other JPG images, I'm limited in my corrections due to banding that appears in smooth areas like sky. That's more of an 8-bit limitation...with RAW, I always stay in 16-bit as long as possible to get smoother transitions.

I guess what I'm saying is I like the convenience of JPG, for my way of working, but I still need to be smart enough to know when to change to RAW...

God bless, and good shooting!

Dan
dan-mx-ds2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2007, 3:00 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Thanks Dan. That is roughly what I expected with the WB. So I think I will probably stick with RAW, BUT.. on my next zoo visit I will change the settings to JPG and shoot that way for the day to see the difference for myself.

Thanks to all for your input.



Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2007, 2:57 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Ian Mc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 393
Default

Shot a couple of shots yesterday in very gloomy conditions @ DNG RAW with K10D and edited with Faststone.

Found it a very straightforward process with satisfactory results.

Ian Mc.
Ian Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2007, 3:20 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Well, I had to try the jpg setting again. Not at the zoo, but a local park, shooting squirrels, ducks etc.

I set the cam to vivid, sharpness to +1, the saturation to +1 and the contrast to -1. I was also shooting at -1/3EV.

I noticed that the camera responded far faster than using RAW, with more motordrive shots, and control returning quicker due to faster write times (smaller files i assume).

However, on returning to the computer with 170 pics, I found that those correctly exposed ones needing only a final sharpening, or a tweak to levels, BUT those that were a bit off, really looked worse when trying to correct them.

Bottom line for me then is to stick with RAW for my shooting, but remembering to use jpg when I need faster shooting (falconry displays etc)

Here is a selection from the day.


Darren
























Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2007, 9:11 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
dan-mx-ds2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 112
Default

Great shots -- I especially like your squirrels!

Dan
dan-mx-ds2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2007, 11:10 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

Darren - that's been about my experience, too. When things are right jpg is easier to deal with, but there's only so much you can do with them. I've been using the raw+jpg recently when I'm not too concerned about storage, using whichever one is going to be easiest to manipulate, then keeping the raw files when I'm backing up on DVDs.
mtngal 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 2:42 PM.