Originally Posted by Alan
LOL. Ok, but before there was RAW vs. JPG, there was FILM vs. ...well, ok, there was just film. Although some pros spent more time in the darkroom than behind the camera, most pros just sent the negatives off to the photo lab and let them do their thing. So 'getting it right in-camera' was pretty important, once upon a time.
LOL. Ok, but before there was RAW vs. JPG, there was FILM vs. ...well, ok, there was just film. Although some pros spent more time in the darkroom than behind the camera, most pros just sent the negatives off to the photo lab and let them do their thing. So 'getting it right in-camera' was pretty important, once upon a time.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Thought you'd like that bit of humor. Even Tamara would do some post processing, which then brings us back to the data in a JPG vs RAW. Most cameras do fine, but in the field, pros use additional lighting or shoot multiple images to make up for the camera's dynamic range (or, lack of it).
The best pros spent the time in the darkroom. Ansel Adams is a perfect example. He considered himself to be more technical in that regard.
As to "before there was film..." I'm sure you're not saying to go backwards in technology. I make plenty of mistakes with images, but it's a relief to me to have as much data to work with as I can, and JPG simply doesn't cut it, no matter how good someone claims to be at getting it "right" (whatever that means) in the camera.
"Vote for Tammy, and it will be perfect shooting all year long!"
Yes, but he shot in black and white. I can relate - I developed and printed the B/W images for my dissertation. But color processing and especially color printing is another matter entirely.
I definitely enjoyed the humor, though! []
LOL. Ok, but before there was RAW vs. JPG, there was FILM vs. ...well, ok, there was just film. Although some pros spent more time in the darkroom than behind the camera, most pros just sent the negatives off to the photo lab and let them do their thing. So 'getting it right in-camera' was pretty important, once upon a time.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
It's still important even using RAW. You just have much more flexibility and can have more fun with your photos now than you could with film prints. With prints you pretty much stuck with what you got, even scanning and trying to edit doesn't do much for them.
I looked through Miss Tamara's photos. Well, the quality is not really there. Some may call it style, some may call it lacking... That is not to say that she takes bad photos - only I think they could be better technically. They certainly are not straight from the camera, though. They were manipulated. And it shows. On RAWs, chances are, manipulations wouldn't show to that extent.
Agreed. No argument there. It's best to try to get close to what you're shooting for. The histogram is my guide for getting close to what I want.
My satire with Ms Tammy was simply to show that no one, and I mean, NO ONE, takes a digital picture without some processing going on (if she shoots jpgs, her camera is 'cooking' them on the inside). Besides, even if no post processing was done, the moment the files were taken to a place like Wal-Mart, they'll cook those images further (as Sean pointed out to me a while back).
Like you said, the flexibility and fun is there with RAW.
There was Colour vs. Black-and-White?
Ok....once again, thoughts and insight from this forum has pushed me to make a change,my camera settings just went from "JPEG" to "RAW + JPEG."
One thought I had was that be taking my photos in JPEG and learning post-processing last I would better learn the strengths and weaknesses of my camera and lenses and overall, better learn to do everything "in camera." Now maybe this is a legitimate reason or maybe this was simply rationale to prevent making a change. I am curious if any of you see the benefit of "learning" shooting JPEG and switching to RAW once your skills have reached a basic level.
That said, I
Once I really got started with RAW files, I went back to old RAW files taken while shooting RAW+JPEG, and both rescued and improved several old photos..
Just don
Saving both RAW and Jpeg is fine if you have a large memory card, or multiple memory cards, or don't shoot that many pictures at any given time. If you don't have large and or multiple memory cards you might want to save a little space. I know we're only talking Kbs for each jpegs vs Mbs for each Raw, but those Kbs accumulate into Mbs also.
I've been to events such as an Air Show where I have filled multiple 16 gb cards. Even if I don't make any changes to the pictures I know I can always export/save them as Jpegs on my Computer.
Besides, I also use my camera for astrophotography where I always save exclusively to Lg-RAW.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote