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 Dec 19, 2007, 11:07 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

i always shot in jpeg but recently trying to shoot in raw

very rear i will print , i doprefer how my pics look on my lcd monitor

not sure if it is me, or i just dont know what to look for. but i still cant seem to see any difference between the jpeg as comparded to the raw on my monitor.
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 19, 2007, 11:16 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

RAW isn't to really get sharper images it is to allow you to adjust settings to what you want after the fact just in case you didn't have them set properly when you took the shot.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 19, 2007, 11:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 688
Default

but the only advantage i can see raw has is with changing white balance and at least 99.9% of the times the k10d hits the white balance right on the nose
dafiryde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2007, 12:18 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Illuminati's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 583
Default

Another advantage of RAW is the ability to recover exposure. RAW saves enough data to potentially recover up to two stops of exposure if the camera gets it wrong on taking the photo. You don't get that flexibility with JPEGs. This can be a real lifesaver, especially if you use manual lenses or aren't careful where you meter.

- Jason
Illuminati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2007, 9:55 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
ishino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 661
Default

dafiryde wrote:
Quote:
but the only advantage i can see raw has is with changing white balance and at least 99.9% of the times the k10d hits the white balance right on the nose
Not mine, outdoors it does fine with AWB. But indoors no way. I have to set mine manually and it is even worse now that I switched all the light bulbs in the house to CFL's.
ishino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2007, 7:18 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

ishino wrote:
Quote:
Not mine, outdoors it does fine with AWB.* But indoors no way.* I have to set mine manually and it is even worse now that I switched all the light bulbs in the house to CFL's.
Hi Ishino,

The "normal" CFLs are extremely warm (orange), but they have started making "daylight" ones that are considerably cooler, colorwise. They're a bit more expensive, not available in all wattages, and they make a room look more stark in some ways, but it's easier to take available light shots . . . and that's what's really important, isn't it . . . :-) They are great for home-made "studio" lighting because they don't put out much heat.

dafiryde --

RAW is better -- who can argue with the fact that they contain more information, and that jpegs compress, and therefore loose some of that information. I've also found, however, that I can't see the difference in the great majority of shots, so I shoot jpegs, try to get the exposure and WB right, and luckily I do get it right enough of the time that I don't sweat it. I also have tweaked PSP with a few plugins that give me more DR and enough processing latitude for exposure that the RAW advantage in this regard is really minimized.

If I shot landscapes or did mostly studio work, I'd probably go ahead and shoot RAW. I like to shoot birds, animals, and candids of people, and the jpegs serve me well, giving me speed in camera, speed in PP with lower computer hardware requirements, and lots more shot storage per card/hard drive. For me, these far outweigh the marginal (to my eyes) benefits of RAW in the way of IQ, but that's just me. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 20, 2007, 7:54 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
ishino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 661
Default

it only figures that they would come out with those after i convert everything in the house to the CFL's. too bad these things are supposed to last 7 years, it is going to be a while before i switch.
ishino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2007, 12:35 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

You do have more of an ability to compensate for mistakes. Here's a picture that still has some problems, but I think the subject is cute and I've kept the picture:



Now here's what it looks like straight out of the camera (converted with ACR, made no changes other than to resize it). I had earlier been using a manual lens and forgot to change the mode selector when I put an automatic lens on. I don't think I could have gotten it anywhere close to the above if I had taken it in jpg.
Attached Images
 
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2007, 1:20 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Harriet,

I did a quick and dirty PP on your cactus and came up with this. I didn't try to duplicate your first pic so I'm sure it's way off, and would have been considrably better from a high res, low compression file like a jpeg original, of course.

It's surprising how much information is still retained in even a low res, highly compressed jpeg -- I'm still constantly amazed at what you can get out of original HQ jpegs straight out of the camera.



Scott
Attached Images
 
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2007, 8:52 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

In some ways I'm sorry I didn't shoot this in raw+jpg - I would have been interested to see how far I could have pushed the from-the-camera jpg compared to the jpg version of the raw file I posted here. I tried to play with the jpg convered original picture in CS2 also. I managed to get something fairly close to the one I posted first (just like you did), but thought the raw conversion software did a better job of it (and I was working with the high res version).

Actually, for the most part I haven't seen all that much difference between raw and jpg. I use Lightroom to transfer pictures from the card to the computer and to do most adjustments (it works the same on both raw and jpg files). So I don't gain anything in post processing by shooting jpg. I'll happily shoot jpg when it makes sense from a camera point of view (sports, continuous shooting situations). Otherwise, I use raw.
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 7:34 PM.