Ditch RAW+Jpeg bracteted for RAW alone?
Posted 30/07/2010 - 21:28
Link
Hard question although there is already a good light meter inside the camera though so why not use that one?
One thing to keep in mind is that the histogram you see with RAW files on your camera and the actually image you see is a JPG preview so don't go on the information you see there as 100% accurate but more as an approximation.
One thing to keep in mind is that the histogram you see with RAW files on your camera and the actually image you see is a JPG preview so don't go on the information you see there as 100% accurate but more as an approximation.
Posted 30/07/2010 - 21:47
Link
No, you're right, stick with the camera. (I just want something shiny and new.) I'll try and take some photo's tomorrow instead.
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 31/07/2010 - 00:03
Link
Anvh wrote:
What's your point Anvh? That articles says exactly what I said (except in more detail) - it gives you more detail, but it doesn't give you more exposure. From that detail, you can extract different looking pictures, but you can never stop a clipped image from being clipped.
flossie wrote:
You can adjust exposure in raw, but it will only move the "central" exposure of your picture, it won't be able to stop clipped highlights or lowlights. You will still need to bracket if you are unsure of exposure!
You sure this is what Cambridge in colour has to say about it. linkYou can adjust exposure in raw, but it will only move the "central" exposure of your picture, it won't be able to stop clipped highlights or lowlights. You will still need to bracket if you are unsure of exposure!
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Posted 31/07/2010 - 11:29
Link
flossie wrote:
What's your point Anvh? That articles says exactly what I said (except in more detail) - it gives you more detail, but it doesn't give you more exposure. From that detail, you can extract different looking pictures, but you can never stop a clipped image from being clipped.
But they say it can.What's your point Anvh? That articles says exactly what I said (except in more detail) - it gives you more detail, but it doesn't give you more exposure. From that detail, you can extract different looking pictures, but you can never stop a clipped image from being clipped.
Quote:
The RAW file format usually provides considerably more "dynamic range" than a JPEG file, depending on how the camera creates its JPEG. Dynamic range refers to the range of light to dark which can be captured by a camera before becoming completely white or black, respectively. Since the raw color data has not been converted into logarithmic values using curves, the exposure of a RAW file can be adjusted slightly-- after the photo has been taken. Exposure compensation can correct for metering errors, or can help bring out lost shadow or highlight detail.
The RAW file format usually provides considerably more "dynamic range" than a JPEG file, depending on how the camera creates its JPEG. Dynamic range refers to the range of light to dark which can be captured by a camera before becoming completely white or black, respectively. Since the raw color data has not been converted into logarithmic values using curves, the exposure of a RAW file can be adjusted slightly-- after the photo has been taken. Exposure compensation can correct for metering errors, or can help bring out lost shadow or highlight detail.
Posted 31/07/2010 - 11:46
Link
flossie wrote:
you can never stop a clipped image from being clipped.
An image is less prone to being clipped in the first place when shooting RAW rather than JPEG as the dynamic range is greater.you can never stop a clipped image from being clipped.
Of course it can still be clipped, so exposure level has to be kept within a certain range. It's just that that range is a bit larger with RAW. (It's safest to assume just "a bit" rather than "considerably" with the K-7).
~Pete
Posted 31/07/2010 - 11:50
Link
Yes good one Pete, that's what it said
Posted 31/07/2010 - 11:53
Link
Sometimes it helps to say the same thing in a few different ways
~Pete
Posted 01/08/2010 - 10:30
Link
Just to complicate things....
When looking at the histogram on the camera after capturing the shot this actually represents the processed jpg image, not the RAW data - this is regardless of whether you are shooting RAW or JPG. If you only check the brightness histogram its also possible that one of the colour channels could be clipped - so alway check the RGB histogram too!!
What this often means in reality is that if you shoot RAW and use the histogram to check & then adjust exposure in camera you'll nearly always end up with more dynamic range than you thought when processing the RAW in Photoshop etc.
Just in case I've not explained this well...this guy definitely does..
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/camera-histogram/camera-histogram.htm
Simon
When looking at the histogram on the camera after capturing the shot this actually represents the processed jpg image, not the RAW data - this is regardless of whether you are shooting RAW or JPG. If you only check the brightness histogram its also possible that one of the colour channels could be clipped - so alway check the RGB histogram too!!
What this often means in reality is that if you shoot RAW and use the histogram to check & then adjust exposure in camera you'll nearly always end up with more dynamic range than you thought when processing the RAW in Photoshop etc.
Just in case I've not explained this well...this guy definitely does..
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/camera-histogram/camera-histogram.htm
Simon
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 01/08/2010 - 12:01
Link
On Bracketing.
What suits each person will differ. I am quite happy shooting single shots and sometimes "manually bracketing" by taking a second safety shot with EV-1 or even -2. The number of times I feel I need to do this is way less than my total number of shots.
On RAW vs. JPG
I shoot only RAW since image management takes me enough time without worrying about duplicate JPGs. But don't forget the amazing Pentax feature of being able to develop your own shots in-camera. I did this just last week to get some results ready for sharing. I made a quick selection of my few best shots and cooked them as I wished. Then I handed over the memory card and said "just grab the JPGs" (since most people couldn't do anything with the RAWs anyway).
In this way I was able to present only my best shots and do some important processing (eg. B&W conversion) before anyone else saw them.
What suits each person will differ. I am quite happy shooting single shots and sometimes "manually bracketing" by taking a second safety shot with EV-1 or even -2. The number of times I feel I need to do this is way less than my total number of shots.
On RAW vs. JPG
I shoot only RAW since image management takes me enough time without worrying about duplicate JPGs. But don't forget the amazing Pentax feature of being able to develop your own shots in-camera. I did this just last week to get some results ready for sharing. I made a quick selection of my few best shots and cooked them as I wished. Then I handed over the memory card and said "just grab the JPGs" (since most people couldn't do anything with the RAWs anyway).
In this way I was able to present only my best shots and do some important processing (eg. B&W conversion) before anyone else saw them.
Posted 16/08/2010 - 09:16
Link
dougf8 wrote:
When I'm shooting Jpeg I tend to bracket the exposure by 1/2 or 2/3 stops. I started this on the GX10 and I was very happy with the Jpeg quality out of the camera. Pick the best exposure.
Maybe I'm a bit more demanding or I'm pixel peeping but I'm less happy with the Jpeg and using RAW more on the K-7.
However I'm using the RAW+Jpeg format and this takes up a lot of space.
So should I ditch the JPeg altogether ?
And can I ditch the bracketing?
Looking at the RAW the bracketing just results in different developing of the same RAW to various Jpeg exposures. Rarely do the RAW frames produce different results.
Can I safely risk just shooting raw? Once? Or should I keep eating up the memory cards? Views and insight welcome please.
-----------------------
EDIT: don't you hate proofing the message and posting to find the thread title is garbage!!!
Depends on what you want.When I'm shooting Jpeg I tend to bracket the exposure by 1/2 or 2/3 stops. I started this on the GX10 and I was very happy with the Jpeg quality out of the camera. Pick the best exposure.
Maybe I'm a bit more demanding or I'm pixel peeping but I'm less happy with the Jpeg and using RAW more on the K-7.
However I'm using the RAW+Jpeg format and this takes up a lot of space.
So should I ditch the JPeg altogether ?
And can I ditch the bracketing?
Looking at the RAW the bracketing just results in different developing of the same RAW to various Jpeg exposures. Rarely do the RAW frames produce different results.
Can I safely risk just shooting raw? Once? Or should I keep eating up the memory cards? Views and insight welcome please.
-----------------------
EDIT: don't you hate proofing the message and posting to find the thread title is garbage!!!
I personally use Raw+Jpeg, on a 16 Gig card storage space for me is not an issue.
But my Sony Bravia Television will not display Raw, only Jpeg.
Kindest regards,
Peter
Posted 16/08/2010 - 12:17
Link
Peter, only rich enough for 8GB cards at the moment. I fill one up easily in a walkabout session. Each stop a few different POV's and compositions, each one bracketed and RAW+, doesn't take long. I was really glad I was on raw that time as I got a cracker and a few half decent images.
I'm not convinced with the K-7 jpeg processing, it needs tweaking in a way I never used to with the GX10. But my standards may have increased with time.
I might wait to see what the new SDHC have to offer. I might be mistaken but there is a super fast SDHC as well as the new SD format.
I'm not convinced with the K-7 jpeg processing, it needs tweaking in a way I never used to with the GX10. But my standards may have increased with time.
I might wait to see what the new SDHC have to offer. I might be mistaken but there is a super fast SDHC as well as the new SD format.
Lurking is shirking.!
Posted 16/08/2010 - 14:26
Link
dougf8 wrote:
Peter, only rich enough for 8GB cards at the moment. I fill one up easily in a walkabout session.
Wow. I know when I started with digital I shot like crazy, but now a given outing does not come close to filling 8GB. In fact I only need cards that big when on holidays in special places (eg Andalusia). Generally when I pause for a pint or coffee I trim my previous shots of obvious rubbish, so when I get back home I have fewer to process.Peter, only rich enough for 8GB cards at the moment. I fill one up easily in a walkabout session.
dougf8 wrote:
I might wait to see what the new SDHC have to offer. I might be mistaken but there is a super fast SDHC as well as the new SD format.
The limitation currently is the processing speed in the Pentax bodies. Other brands do better in this regard... if you pay big bucks.
I might wait to see what the new SDHC have to offer. I might be mistaken but there is a super fast SDHC as well as the new SD format.
Posted 16/08/2010 - 18:14
Link
If I go specially out to take photos I normally come back with 250 photos but it can easily be more.
The most I made in one day was 711 photos during an endurance auto race in Zandvoort.
The most I made in one day was 711 photos during an endurance auto race in Zandvoort.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



2917 posts
16 years
another place