RAW processing


PeterKR

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 09:09
Smeggypants wrote:
Peeps are always going to evangelise about the app they most enjoy using

"I believe it's true, I believe, I do
I believe exactly what they tell me to,
I believe it's true, I believe, I do,
I'm a simple guy, I believe !"
Tom Paxton

Mannesty

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 09:25
PeterKR wrote:
Smeggypants wrote:
Peeps are always going to evangelise about the app they most enjoy using

"I believe it's true, I believe, I do
I believe exactly what they tell me to,
I believe it's true, I believe, I do,
I'm a simple guy, I believe !"
Tom Paxton

Mr Paxton must be a member here, and uses Lightroom.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

DanielH

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 11:51
[quote:3496ace15f="Mannesty"]Lightroom 4 is so cheap nowadays, if you are serious about your photography you'll be shooting RAW, and a decent RAW processing package is as important as your choice of camera and lenses.


AAAhhhh so thats where I've been going wrong all this time
Us JPEG shooters are just not serious, now I know what I must do thanks so much (tongue firmly in cheek)

D

johnriley

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 12:01
Quote:
if you are serious about your photography you'll be shooting RAW

Well clearly not true as a stand-alone statement.
Best regards, John
Last Edited by johnriley on 29/11/2012 - 12:01

DanielH

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 12:17
and when taken out of context means exactly the same thing
Explain please

I'm only "prodding" him to see if that IS actually his view?
Last Edited by DanielH on 29/11/2012 - 12:20

McGregNi

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 15:50
I probably wouldn't use a choice of RAW or JPEG as the only determinant of anyones seriousness of intent, but I can understand Manesty's point.

I know that many people regard very highly the quality of JPEGs our cameras produce, both in terms of colour and fineness of texture. This obviously results primarily from the sensor, but the in-camera processing plays a big part as well, and this processing is applied relentless and consistently to evary shot - the only variations being when you adjust the various parameters. So firstly, JPEG output will result in great consistency, which may well be a serious need. Couple this to a tight timetable, and a final product that will only be printed to standard sizes or for web-use, and then yes, JPEGs could be the option of choice for any serious shooter.

But I suspect a lot of other serious people choose RAW, not only for the very real potential for finer control (after careful post processing) and the option of making larger prints at full quality, but also because when out taking pictures there's just too much to consider in terms of the basics (exposure, metering, DOF, flash balance, WB, focus, composition etc) to be worrying about controlling the processing parameters as well.

Thats the main reason I shoot RAW, (apart from being very serious )as I can just shoot with a standard set of parameters and concentrate on those basics to capture the shot. Then the fun starts on the computer!

Hey, I'm never one to pass up the chance to evangalise , so how 'bout this? If you really like the JPEG output of your camera, and this is the type of file you need, but you sometimes find shots that don't work out as you wanted, then why not switch to RAW and use Pentax Digital Camera Utility. The big advantage? You'll have all the image data you need in the RAW file, plus in PDCU you will be able to produce an optimised 'Just like in Camera' JPEG with additional and finer controls than you have on the camera, with an output to the high standards you've come to expect from Pentax. Win Win.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

Mannesty

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 16:24
dannyh wrote:
I'm only "prodding" him to see if that IS actually his view?

Yes, that is my view, but I'm also happy that others have a different view. If we were to have a poll of how many users (not just Pentax) have switched from JPG to RAW and vice versa, I'd bet a pound to a penny that there are more converts from JPG to RAW than t'other way round.

It's possible you misunderstood, or I chose the wrong words to use, but I was not trying to imply that JPG shooters aren't serious photographers. There are plenty of them on here, JR for one. Apologies to anybody offended by my previous post, it was certainly unintentional.

Perhaps I should have written "If you are serious about your photography you'll probably be shooting RAW, and a decent RAW processing package is as important as your choice of camera and lenses."

As a serious photographer you'll know how to use a camera and if you have the time to compose an image and get all the variables just how you want them, then JPG is fine. Landscape 'togs, for instance, will probably spend that time to get exactly the shot they want. Nowadays, as a race track photographer, I don't have the luxury of time, hence I shoot RAW.

I won't be drawn into the 'what's best' debate of JPG v RAW except to say that what's best is what suits and pleases the individual.

I shoot RAW because I don't have much time to play the 'old school' photographer to achieve perfectly framed and exposed shots in-camera.

I value the adjustment latitude afforded to me by shooting RAW that JPG choose not to benefit from, because I don't always (rarely in fact) get it right first time.

I crop almost all of my images as well as making other adjustments and it's a well documented fact that when you shoot JPG, make adjustments of any kind, then save the file, the initial JPG that was already missing a huge amount of image information, is degraded even further.

Bottom line is, why spend 1500 - 2000 on a camera body and decent lens, but balk at the thought of spending another 100 on decent RAW editing software. It doesn't make sense to me.
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream
Last Edited by Mannesty on 29/11/2012 - 16:35

DanielH

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 17:23
Bottom line is, why spend 1500 - 2000 on a camera body and decent lens, but balk at the thought of spending another 100 on decent RAW editing software. It doesn't make sense to me.[/quote]

completely agree and im sure you are right about photographers moving from JPEG to RAW. I have just never found enough difference in output between the two to spend time and use a massive amount of storage space both in camera and on PC to shoot RAW. I have been experimenting with RAW lately and the free Pentax software that came with my K-30 but honestly cant see (real view not pixel peeping) any big difference even in my landscape shots. You may have hit on the key though when you suggested that Photographers who take more time in getting things just so in camera will maybe not really benefit from RAW.

I wasn't really offended more interested to know what your POV was

Kind regards

Daniel.
Last Edited by DanielH on 29/11/2012 - 17:24

PeterKR

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 18:09
Bottom line is, why spend 1500 - 2000 on a camera body and decent lens, but balk at the thought of spending another 100 on decent RAW editing software. It doesn't make sense to me.[/quote]

But when you've only spent 450 on a twin lens kit and a further 15 on your favourite general purpose lens it DOES make sense to try to get the best out of the software provided for the purpose (of RAW conversion), and I AM convinced that shooting RAW IS the way to go.

If, with a bit of help and experience I can manage to achieve results which I am happy with then that is really a satisfactory solution. Possibly not the BEST, but we can't all afford to spend 1000's on our hobbies. We all have different outlooks on what we do and that is the value of the interchange that comes from this Forum.

For those that can afford a bit more, I'm happy for you and wish you well. Meanwhile, each to his own and I shall continue pursuing the best I can get with what I have.

Best regards

Peter

Mannesty

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 19:36
Well I thought that the OP was conspicuous by his/her absence, then I saw that this thread was started almost a year ago.

On this topic, nothing is more true than, "To each, his own".
Peter E Smith

My flickr Photostream

McGregNi

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 19:56
I ressurected this thread, and it has burst back to life most convincingly. Its all my fault then. When the Mini Guide was posted onto the General Photography forum I made a quick search through the forum and found 4 threads where the OP had specifically asked for information or tutorials about PDCU4. Obviously my Mini Guide post was relevant to this, so I posted a quick note with a link for the benefit of anyone who had been following these particular threads and was still looking for any advice.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver

davidstorm

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 20:25
dannyh wrote:
You may have hit on the key though when you suggested that Photographers who take more time in getting things just so in camera will maybe not really benefit from RAW.

I really do not understand this philosophy. Whether you shoot RAW or JPEG (I only shoot RAW at present) it is critical to get things right 'in camera' (or as right as you can possibly make them).

There is more time to consider compositions, exposure, use of filters etc. with landscape photography than with other forms and there really is no substitute for making the right decisions when the shot is taken. Yes, it can be manipulated, adjusted, cropped or whatever later, but if the initial shot is not right it is difficult to make it into something that is special. A silk purse is quite difficult to make when you are presented with a Sow's Ear.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

DanielH

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 20:29
It's not a philosopy....and certainly not mine!

davidstorm

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 20:39
dannyh wrote:
It's not a philosopy....and certainly not mine!

You did say that 'you may have hit on the key', I took this to mean that you agreed with the statement, rather than disagreed with it?

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

Smeggypants

Link Posted 29/11/2012 - 21:36
Mannesty wrote:


Bottom line is, why spend 1500 - 2000 on a camera body and decent lens, but balk at the thought of spending another 100 on decent RAW editing software. It doesn't make sense to me.

Yup, I'd go along with that. Lightroom is great value now.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.