Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.241)
    Actually, Spectre, Jpeg captures a lot LESS than what the human eye can see, but exactly what a computer screen can show us.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.242)
    I'm not going to crosspost the actual images, but I'll gladly point people here to some of the shots I took last month with my Minolta SLR. I still don't consider myself a "real" photographer, but I'm fairly proud of these ones.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDon.Leitch
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.243)
    @Magnulus - true. I was trying to hide my normally blatant bias towards JPG as a shooting option. I personally feel that it is less than equivalent, but there are some that feel that RAW is cheating.
    It is part of the odd anti-computer-digital photography mindset; the logic is that a JPG in manual mode is a sign of how good a photographer you are... of course this completely ignores the fact that you can adjust exposure, dodge/burn, and do all sorts of editing when making a good old film print.

    I really only use JPG for online things, or when I fill up all my memory cards. As I just moved up to a Pentax K100D last night (still behind the curve, but works for me), I can now use larger memory cards... my old one could only handle up to 2GB.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.244)
    Those who feel RAW is cheating must never have used regular negatives. You cannot do anything to a RAW image that you can't do with a negative through creative masking and burning, and you can even do MORE with a negative than RAW editing. Of course, it's HARDER on a negative, but that's a different discussion. The whole argument of "straight-from-camera" versus those who like to tinker (ie. ME) is almost as old as the technology of photography itself, and even older in some ways.

    Being a good photographic artist is less about perfect control over the technology and more about conceptualisation and the end result of that concept. Or... actually... No. It's not more or less about any of those two. It's up to the individual artist to decide what kind of a photographer s/he is.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCOOP
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.245)
    You should be shooting in RAW if you are at all serious about digital photography. As others have said, it's a digital negative, and allows you to do the same sorts of things you would do with a film neg in the darkroom. It does eat up memory, but memory is cheap - just carry extra cards.

    I will say that learning to shoot manually is a good idea. Learning to shoot film is an even better idea. I shot film when I was a kid/teen, walked away from it for twenty years, but when I started to get serious about digital, all that old knowledge bubbled back up to the surface and gave me an advantage.
  1.  (5100.246)
    I resisted RAW for a long time, as when I first got a DSLR I didn't have the disk space or adequate software to deal with the files - I also had a fairly pig headed aversion to post processing, as when I worked with film I shot mostly transparency where there's no option to dick around with it after it's been shot (or when I used colour negatives I sent it away for someone else to hand print!). I'm over that hangup now though... But I got a copy of Nikon Capture NX whenI bought my D200 and have shot RAW ever since - I do an awful lot of tweaking in Adobe Camera Raw before the file's even in Photoshop.

    I still shoot jpegs on my little Leica, partly because Adobe are the worst bastards in the universe and won't make Leica RAW files compatible with CS3 (and there's no way I'm paying the bloodsuckers another penny for CS4), I've got Capture One which will open them but I haven't got that figured out yet.

    So yeah - RAW is analagous to a negative while Jpeg is analogous to a machine print, a lot of cameras allow you to shoot both at once so you've got the best of both worlds.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.247)
    Weeell, best of both worlds is debatable as the main advantage of the JPEG (the filesize) is kind of lost when you save a RAW alongside it. ^_^
    Granted, the whole sharing-aspect is simplified with JPEG, though as long as I'm not giving the files over straight from my camera, Aperture makes the whole RAW process a whole lot easier.

    Personally, I think it's a shame they haven't managed to come up with a RAW-type standard image file so that people who are not that knowledgeable about cameras can still reap some of the benefits of RAW shooting. What would be the bonus of this, you say, if they don't know how to utilise it?

    1: Many general consumers who switch to digital (I've helped many make that transition as I worked in a photo store) are disappointed with how easily they'll lose detail due to over/underexposure. If their images had greater depth than a JPEG, they would still get better images.
    2: If they at some point LEARN how to utilise this, they would have a whole back-catalogue of images they can play with and improve upon.
    3: "standard" equals "shareable". If you don't have to build different support for every type of RAW image, you'll get browser support, etc, making it much easier for people to share them, so it's easier to use.
    •  
      CommentAuthorOsmosis
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.248)
    2: If they at some point LEARN how to utilise this, they would have a whole back-catalogue of images they can play with and improve upon.

    Yes, now that I understand the difference, I realise that my entire output ever since I got my SLR is in a lossy, difficult format. A big shame when, as Rachæl Nœl said upthread, it's really fun to go back and use new photo-fu to doll up old pics.

    I postponed my hike today due to a really terrible weather forecast (so, of course, it turned out to be the sunniest day all week), but I did take a few snaps around the garden and down by the river in RAW. They're downloading from the camera now, and my first thoughts are - these suckers really are big. The drop in available shots in-camera was savage, and I'm fairly sure that's why I didn't use the format from the get-go. Anyway, I'll shoop the whoop a little on these quick snaps and put 'em up here with any further thoughts.
  2.  (5100.249)
    Question. When shooting in RAW, I should shoot in PEF (pentax proprietary RAW format) as opposed to DNG, which is lossy?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
     (5100.250)
    I would say that if you're shooting in RAW, which you're presumably doing to get the best quality possible, why choose a lossy version of it?

    EDIT: Having said that, I don't know anything about the two specifically, so I could be talking out my poop-chute.
  3.  (5100.251)
    Weeell, best of both worlds is debatable as the main advantage of the JPEG (the filesize) is kind of lost when you save a RAW alongside it. ^_^


    Yeah - true - I meant in the sense that by shooting both together you've got the convenience of the jpgs (should you want happy snaps or quick shots for the web etc) plus the security of the RAW file without having to faff about converting RAWs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.252)
    You're absolutely right. I seem to be in an argumentative mood today. Sorry about that.
    (I'd insert a smiley there, but I think I've used quite enough of them for today...)
    •  
      CommentAuthorDon.Leitch
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.253)
    I would say to avoid lossy for the initial shoot. You can't get back lost detail.
    •  
      CommentAuthorwilliac
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.254)
    "Compression" doesn't necessarily mean "lossy". Think ".zip" as opposed to ".jpg".

    Everything I've read about it says that PEF uses lossless compression, so there's effectively no difference other than file size and the fact that PEF is Pentax's proprietary format and therefore perhaps a bit less futureproof than DNG.

    I haven't done any side-by-side tests myself, but I did see one showing a difference in white balance. I'd be willing to bet that was due to the software used to process the file rather than the file itself, though.

    Play with it. Personally, I prefer DNG, because my copy of PaintShopPro (keeping it legal and cheaper than Photoshop) won't open PEFs.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDon.Leitch
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.255)
    hmmm... I made the jump from film to digital with Pentax. I didn't want to have to buy all new lenses, etc...

    The only options my cameras have had was JPG, PEF, or Tiff - I have never had the option of DNG. Never any issue with PEF files... I also use a Mac, so that might be part of it. I dunno. I just zip the files anyway.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlastair
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
     (5100.256)
    i'm not a photographer but this is the only place i could think to post this

    beans rocking the 'chapel
    •  
      CommentAuthorPurple Wyrm
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009 edited
     (5100.257)
    I'm an occasionally enthusiastic amateur. I mostly photograph abandoned buildings and historic sites but I take my camera everywhere and snap anything that catches my eye. I use a Cannon point and shoot, and I rarely do any kind of processing (it probably shows).







    Fremantle ErectionBut I left Anduril at Home!Perry Lakes Stadium
    Hay Street SkyAlbany Bell HatcheryBayswater By Night
    I have a stupid number of photos on Flickr, but they're reasonably organised on my Collections and Sets pages.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKittenFTW
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009 edited
     (5100.258)
    Ahoy

    I like to take a picture or two. I am most inspired by Film Noir.





    •  
      CommentAuthorOsmosis
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
     (5100.259)
    Kat - hello and welcome. Liking your photographs, and it's always good to see a Loiner in Whitechapel ...
    •  
      CommentAuthorKittenFTW
    • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2009
     (5100.260)
    @Osmosis: Thanks, I just took a look at your Flickr page - love your D?nglóng picture :)