Skip to content

SANParks.org Forums

View unanswered posts | View active topics






Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 7
 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:06 pm 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:53 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: Cambridge, MA (and home from home in Darling, WC)
Meg wrote:
I almost always shoot jpeg, I don't like to digitally manipulate my images though - I prefer my digital experience to feel like I'm still shooting slides and must get it right first time :). However, when shooting long exposures at night I always shoot RAW so that I can correct reciprocity failure. Also, if I were to come across something really rare in the bush I'll switch to RAW - just in case!


Interesting insight, Meg. As a digital newbie, I'd already decided that I choose to shoot JPEG fine, for much the same reasons. I'd not considered that there might be excellent reasons for occassionally shooting RAW and I'm very glad of the tip 8) Thanks!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:23 pm 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:48 am
Posts: 864
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Meg wrote:
I almost always shoot jpeg, I don't like to digitally manipulate my images though - I prefer my digital experience to feel like I'm still shooting slides and must get it right first time


Hi Meg, I have the same feeling that you have, although my skill and experience level is not the same as yours. I wonder what the general concensus of this is in the industry. It is so easy to correct an overexposed pic or manipulate that irritation blade of grass to disappear so it doesn't steal the attention from your subject. Is it frowned upon? Or is it just accepted as something that moved on and it's the new way of doing things?

Feels very much like cheating to me

_________________
Operation "Duke" Member

Being African is not determined by race, but by what's in your heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:00 pm 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:10 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Golden Mile,West Coast, CFG
Digital manipulation is a very contentious issue "in the industry", I don't think the fun has even started yet! I see even GETAWAY mentioned having disqualified some of the entries into the Fujifilm competition due to manipulation.

As for the JPEG versus RAW, the fundis in the industry say the technology in the latest better model cameras has made JPEG format good enough to shoot in unless you are going to greatly enlarge your pics.
This makes me, for one, really happy as I feel the same way Meg does about "fiddling" with a pic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 14
Digital manipulation gets a bad rap, as people tend to combine/confuse digital manipulation with digital processing.

Let's start by clearly defining the terms, atleast as I am using them.

Digital manipulation, to me, is the act of introducing things that were not there, or removing things that were. Cloning out objects, pasting in objects, etc. This stuff is fine for commercial photography, or even for fine art, but as far as nature photography goes, most people consider it off-limits.

Digital processing, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. This refers to the act of adjusting exposure, contrast & saturation. This is nothing new. There was this fella called Ansel Adams who was a master of this. He used a darkroom, and by using special techniques to process the negatives and make prints, was able to get manipulate contrast and dynamic range to an amazing degree.

People still do it today - the use of high saturation films (Velvia) or low-contrast films (Portra), choice of papers, pushing exposure, cross-processing, etc. Digital processing is performing exactly the same type of arrangements, but with far greater control and scope.

Slide film covers only 5 stops. 5 stops isnt enough to represent the real world. Each slide film has its own color rendition - with digital postprocessing, one can choose whatever rendition one wants.

We have to make a choice - what is our standard of reference here: our vision of the real world, or a piece of celluloid's rendition of the real world? If the former, then lets stop thinking of "slide films" as the ultimate arbiter of what is and what isnt correct in photography.

In short - digital post-processing is just another way to get the final images to look like what we had visualized.

Vandit

_________________
www.photosafariindia.com
Wildlife/nature appreciation and photography tours in India


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:44 pm 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Posts: 537
Location: Nottinghamshire UK
I regard RAW as taking a negative which needs processing. This is the same as the camera does when producing the jpg picture - so there is no difference in the final photo as far as representing the actual scene.

The big advantage of good RAW software is that it will produce better results than the limited software built into the camera.

The other advantage is that RAW is lossless, and can produce a lossless tiff file. This means some manipulation can be done without losing quality. jpg is a lossy system and gets worse every time use save it.

There is one type of editing I do have to do occasionally, which is a problem of digital SLRs. Dust on the sensor sometimes shows up on clear blue skies as 'blobs' and these can be quickly removed with photoshop. I think this is an allowable manipulation!

The other area where external programs really excel over the camera software is sharpening - especially PS CS2 which has a new type of sharpening system.

The huge drawback of RAW is the time taken up!! - but its worth it.

Richard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:55 pm 
Offline
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:48 am
Posts: 864
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Interesting input you guys thanks. I suppose this is a hotly debated topic in camera circles???

_________________
Operation "Duke" Member

Being African is not determined by race, but by what's in your heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:11 pm
Posts: 14
Actually, it isnt that hotly debated (or maybe it is, and I've just avoided those debates). The way I see it, I'm happy to discuss the merits of what is better, but I don't care one way or the other if someone else follows it or no. Never understood why people get so possessive about cameras. Girls and cars - I can understand. Cameras? Good grief, get a life, I sez.

The general consensus pretty much is as reached on this group - if you generally need the best possible results and know how to post-process, shoot RAW. If you don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking your image, or are only printing up to A4 size prints, shoot JPEG, adjusting the color/contrast sliders to taste.

JPEG/Fine comes pretty close to RAW in most cases.

Vandit

PS: As Richard said, cloning out dust specks is the one instance of digital manipulation (technically) that is universally accepted as being allowed.

PPS: Hi Hedrus! Am finally taking out that swivel head you had made for me in a week and a half (been busy with admin work since I got back, no time to shoot).

_________________
www.photosafariindia.com
Wildlife/nature appreciation and photography tours in India


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:02 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am
Posts: 121
Location: RSA
We shoot RAW and found that 1GB per day per camera
( Sigma SD10 and Minolta D7 ) can do the trick.
Maybe a 512 MB back-up.

We offload to a laptop WITHOUT a editing program, thus in the evenings no EDITING.

Additional storing space is essential if u shoot RAW.

MeinÆ’am


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Method or Ideology?
Unread postPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:43 am
Posts: 50
Location: Thailand
I use it as an Ideology.

Shooting Jpg probably makes you a better photographer quicker, as you have to get it "more right" than you do with a RAW file. But RAW will ultimately get you more out of your photos and your photography (this is a whole other discussion)

But you have to make the ideological decisions regarding storage, computing power CF cards and the like.

If you're worried about putting more images on a 128MB card, you're ideologically in the wrong camp, and should stick with jpg.

Always remember RAW records what you presented to the senor. Jpg is a representation that you camera manufacturer makes of it through it's own algorithms. Your choice!!

Cheers

Rob

_________________
------------------------
Cogito Ergo Sum
Caveat Lector
http://www.1ds.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Method or Ideology?
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:24 am 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:38 am
Posts: 243
Location: California
So what are you saying? :hmz: You have some opinions on this :?: He he he :lol: Agree jpg. is already processed in the camera vs. RAW's capture allowing you to do more after the fact... again a personal choice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Method or Ideology?
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:21 pm 
Offline
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Posts: 17064
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands
Ollie wrote:
So what are you saying? :hmz: You have some opinions on this :?: He he he :lol: Agree jpg. is already processed in the camera vs. RAW's capture allowing you to do more after the fact... again a personal choice


But if you are into making large pictures, say 30 x 40, RAW is the best. jpg. always results in quality loss. And RAW can be edited as many times as you want, as long you keep the original

_________________
Submit your Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:29 pm 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:55 pm
Posts: 303
Location: Schoenmakerskop (near Port Elizabeth)
Sometimes equipment is the dictator. I shoot with a 300D so despite prefering shooting with RAW to facilitate better post-processing, there are situations where JPEG is more suitable because the buffer cannot handle lots of action in RAW. Just this morning I was tearing my hair out because the buffer was full and I was trying to get shots of a Rufous-eared Warbler as it displayed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: JPEG or RAW
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:25 pm 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:15 am
Posts: 177
Location: Paris
I just bought a new camera
With my old one, I could only save pictures in jpeg
now I have read in the -very small- notice that I can save them in jpeg or in raw.

being no expert at all, could someone please explain to me the difference between the 2 and which one I should use ?
thanks

_________________
LIT, CIT, AWCIT, ROTR membership


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:32 pm 
Offline
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Posts: 537
Location: Nottinghamshire UK
I am sure you will find several references to this on this site.

A brief summary; a RAW file is literally what comes off the camera sensor. Without considerable processing it means very little. Your camera will do all sorts of processing to the RAW file (colour balance and sharpening for instance) whilst converting it to a picture file which you can see on any computer - usually a .jpg file. Many point and shoot cameras do this and only save the jpg.

Better cameras and all SLRs will save either or even both. Why? So you can do the processing yourself on the RAW file on your computer and nearly always get a better result than the camera does. Thats the main advantage. The disadvantage is that you have to process every file!

Other disadvantages are the RAW file will be bigger (so few per memory chip), and you will need special software to do the processing.

But the results are worth the effort.

Richard


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:00 pm 
Offline
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Posts: 17064
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands
Can only
If you want to adjust the image with photoshop or any other sofware programme RAW is the only method.
But if you want to display the images straight on the computer JPEG is fine

_________________
Submit your Images


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

Webcams Highlights

Addo Nossob Orpen Satara
Addo Nossob Orpen Satara
Submitted by Mellory at 17:45:51 Submitted by Aristocat at 21:34:19 Submitted by Michelle_K at 22:50:55 Submitted by ritad at 23:12:45