RAW or JPG shootout (handbags at dawn)
Processing: Adobe Bridge for organisation, DxO Optics Pro Elite for RAW development, ON1 Photo RAW for some 'stylising' and Affintiy Photo for more involved edits.
I've only owned my K-5 for a couple of weeks, but the jpg output seems pretty good to me, and I have not yet had any issues with blown highlights or lack of shadow detail, and the 'in camera PP' seems to be highly responsive and very tuneable. When I've shot with RAW+ and processed both the DNG & JPG images in Gimp, the final images turn out as identical, but the jpg's take about quarter of the time to process. I feel pretty confident that the out of camera jpg's perform well enough, and require just some minor PP tweaks for my everyday photographic uses anyway.
Also - Is it just my dated Mac, but is PDCU just awful to use? It seems to absolutely crawl on my machine, to the point where it is unusable.
The tutor for our Photoshop course maintained that JPEG was someone else's interpretation of how your RAW file should look. So now I use RAW+
That's an interesting comment, but only technically correct up to a point, as you still have to work on the RAW file in software, which has been designed by other people for their interpretation of the workflow, so your final result might vary, it will never truly be your own. To really test your tutor, ask him/her to process the same RAW file in Aperture, then in Lightroom, then in Capture One Pro. Without direct comparing, see if they can produce an identical resulting output each time. I suspect not, but not because they are not any good at it, but because the workflow is different for each brand, and differences, although probably minor will creep in.
... I've only owned my K-5 for a couple of weeks, but the jpg output seems pretty good to me, and I have not yet had any issues with blown highlights or lack of shadow detail, and the 'in camera PP' seems to be highly responsive and very tuneable.
Sprocketdog, below are 2 versions of the same shot. The first one is the JPEG from the camera while the second was the RAW file processed in PSE9. You can see that the highlight in the bridge are way blown which I have avoided by processing the RAW image.
Regards
David
In this shooting situation, I would shoot with RAW, (mainly because the edit workflow is simpler in this situation, but you could do bracketed jpg's and get the same result) but then I would create several RAW edits with a range of exposures (from a single RAW file in your RAW software afterwards). Its straightforward to combine them to reveal the accurate exposure for each area of your image.
Lovely shot by the way.
I invariably show just the JPGs and currently just store the RAWs away waiting on the day that I figure out how to make a decent fist of PP.
I'm arrogant/naive enough to think I can get the exposure correct, but sufficiently insecure to know that I don't
Bernard
My lightroom is setup to auto noise reduction depending upon ISO speed & which body I shoot with. Adds just a few seconds to the import process.
Concert photography
Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released
The tutor for our Photoshop course maintained that JPEG was someone else's interpretation of how your RAW file should look. So now I use RAW+
That's an interesting comment, but only technically correct up to a point, as you still have to work on the RAW file in software, which has been designed by other people for their interpretation of the workflow, so your final result might vary, it will never truly be your own. To really test your tutor, ask him/her to process the same RAW file in Aperture, then in Lightroom, then in Capture One Pro. Without direct comparing, see if they can produce an identical resulting output each time. I suspect not, but not because they are not any good at it, but because the workflow is different for each brand, and differences, although probably minor will creep in.
I believe he meant that a RAW file retains all the information your camera took in, and it's up to you what you do with it. In contrast with JPEG an engineer has developed software in your camera to produce an image that he thinks you want. He then discards the unused information, which limits your ability to alter his choice
https://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes
https://www.flickr.com/photos/189482630@N03/
@Sprocketdog23 Get yourself a copy of lighroom, learn workflow within lightroom & you will end up shooting raw permanently.
My lightroom is setup to auto noise reduction depending upon ISO speed & which body I shoot with. Adds just a few seconds to the import process.
I just started this discussion as a bit of light hearted fun. I actually teach post production, so am very familiar with all Adobe products from Lightroom/Photoshop through to Illustrator & After Effects. I have used these products daily in my job since the early 90's (practically since the launch of Photoshop - anyone remember Tiger Mountain or Photostyler?)
To be honest, I will shoot RAW if I can't determine the exposure accurately, or I'm unsure that any camera I'm using will not be able to cope with the lighting situation ( I love the one button RAW switch on the K-5). Mostly though, the kinds of shots I find I'm taking these days don't need to be shot in RAW, thats all. They end up re-sized to 800x600 and uploaded as LQ jpg's on my photo-blog, so going through the RAW journey is a little overkill.
A couple of years ago I ran a printing business, mostly doing canvas prints and very large paper prints for business clients. I always shot in RAW for commercial jobs, it was failsafe, easy to manage through Adobe Bridge, and images were instantly repeatable, as you well are aware.
I much prefer Aperture myself, although at home I am a great advocate of Open Source tools such as Gimp for Photo Editing, Blender for 3D modeling & animation, and Inkscape for Illustration. About five minutes ago I was editing in the free to use Pixlr Editor link online, it works a treat. The future of Adobe products is going the same way, on line and by subscription. The whole nature of photo editing will change fundamentally in the next few years.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
6869 posts
15 years
Co. Durham UK
https://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes
https://www.flickr.com/photos/189482630@N03/