All Forum Comments
Comment by Prieni posted on Time to reflect at 12/08/2011 - 19:49
bretti_kivi wrote:
warning, bad joke:
Newsflash: Tottenham sign new italian striker, Grabatelli. He'll run riot down there. Apparently they've also just signed a Chinese player: Lou Ting.
'nuff said.
Bret
Man, that's bad, but good!warning, bad joke:
Newsflash: Tottenham sign new italian striker, Grabatelli. He'll run riot down there. Apparently they've also just signed a Chinese player: Lou Ting.
'nuff said.
Bret
Comment by Prieni posted on Another pointless thread at 12/08/2011 - 19:32
John, again, this may be true in many situations. I was talking about Mark's picture:
It was taken at 1/125 s @ 100 ISO and I don't think that it suffers from swaying blades of grass.
Certainly the light can move with the shadows cast by clouds, that is not something, though, that I would think has to be frozen with "action-like" 1/1000 s or faster.
If it really was like action photography I wonder why so many landscape photographers lug around their tripods. At fast shutter speeds that hardly makes sense, does it?
Don't take my comment too seriously, just couldn't resist. The action photography was just too much of a provocation.
As a side note: Personally I quite like it when wind action is causing blurred foliage or clouds moving across the sky. I'm considering buying ND filters exactly for that reason, getting long exposure times.
Prieni
It was taken at 1/125 s @ 100 ISO and I don't think that it suffers from swaying blades of grass.
Certainly the light can move with the shadows cast by clouds, that is not something, though, that I would think has to be frozen with "action-like" 1/1000 s or faster.
If it really was like action photography I wonder why so many landscape photographers lug around their tripods. At fast shutter speeds that hardly makes sense, does it?
Don't take my comment too seriously, just couldn't resist. The action photography was just too much of a provocation.
As a side note: Personally I quite like it when wind action is causing blurred foliage or clouds moving across the sky. I'm considering buying ND filters exactly for that reason, getting long exposure times.
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 03/08/2011 - 13:22
Smeggy, good and valid points. (And I also tried the 5 stop pull up with a K5 image; btw: try that with a JPG ).
In this case, though, nanhi did suggest the 400 ISO for a landscape shot. And this could have been done with tripod at 80 ISO easily.
Prieni
In this case, though, nanhi did suggest the 400 ISO for a landscape shot. And this could have been done with tripod at 80 ISO easily.
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 03/08/2011 - 08:20
nanhi, your post is showing why I don't use JPG shooting. I'm just too lazy.
(It also underlines how biased against JPG my original post is but I warned that it would be.)
Firstly I don't want necessarily the shot matching the real life scene. I leave that to forensics. I prefer to try to get the image as I perceive the scene.
Secondly you did mention all the settings that you have to optimise to get the picture right. I'm too lazy to go through all of them with every shot and I would hate to learn back home that I got them wrong. I can try different settings in the RAW converter at the comfort of my home. But that comes at the price that I have to spend more time in PP. Luckily I'm enjoying that part nearly as much as taking shots.
BTW: Wouldn't ISO 400 plus DR increase noise to ISO 800 level? I much prefer my tripod and going down to ISO 100 or ISO 80.
One thing we should be clear about: Neither you nor I do it wrong. We both use the way that works best for us.
Prieni
(It also underlines how biased against JPG my original post is but I warned that it would be.)
Firstly I don't want necessarily the shot matching the real life scene. I leave that to forensics. I prefer to try to get the image as I perceive the scene.
Secondly you did mention all the settings that you have to optimise to get the picture right. I'm too lazy to go through all of them with every shot and I would hate to learn back home that I got them wrong. I can try different settings in the RAW converter at the comfort of my home. But that comes at the price that I have to spend more time in PP. Luckily I'm enjoying that part nearly as much as taking shots.
BTW: Wouldn't ISO 400 plus DR increase noise to ISO 800 level? I much prefer my tripod and going down to ISO 100 or ISO 80.
One thing we should be clear about: Neither you nor I do it wrong. We both use the way that works best for us.
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 01/08/2011 - 08:31
As I posted this on another forum as well, here is a nice argument from Ron Kruger (who uses the JPEGs mostly but shoots in RAW+):
Prieni
Quote:
The best I've heard is: shooting JPEG only is like taking slides in [order] to have prints made, then throwing the slides away.
I think that sums it up neatly.The best I've heard is: shooting JPEG only is like taking slides in [order] to have prints made, then throwing the slides away.
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 28/07/2011 - 11:52
dannyh wrote:
Well it may be mathematically true that raw contains more information but when it comes to the final image which you would have to convert to tiff or jpeg(if im correct) I dont think you will see much difference 90% of the time. Plus card space and the need to process everything are my reasons to stick with jpegs.
And good reasons they are. Well it may be mathematically true that raw contains more information but when it comes to the final image which you would have to convert to tiff or jpeg(if im correct) I dont think you will see much difference 90% of the time. Plus card space and the need to process everything are my reasons to stick with jpegs.
I think you might be right with the 90% estimate, it's that 10% that I wouldn't want to loose. Extensive post processing of a shot from RAW to TIFF to JPG won't make a crap image good (while it may well salvage a crap shot or make it good enough for WEB viewing:wink. Where I would miss RAW shooting is when making a very good shot stunning (or a good one very good).
Having said that I think 90% is a bit low...
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 27/07/2011 - 19:38
Frogfish, in the first example that is true (and I said that it is biased against JPG). In the second case I loaded the JPG into Photoshop unintendedly. Only when I was done with the processing I thought that something looked odd and when I did the conversion to 8-bit (for saving the final result as JPG) I saw that it already was 8-bit and I did load the JPG inadvertently. So this was a blind test, I didn't know that I was working from the JPG.
I thought, ok, that is a good chance to see how different the result would be when starting from the developed TIF.
You are right, though, in that a bit more TLC could make this small version look almost identical. The A4 print would be a different story...
Prieni
I thought, ok, that is a good chance to see how different the result would be when starting from the developed TIF.
You are right, though, in that a bit more TLC could make this small version look almost identical. The A4 print would be a different story...
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 27/07/2011 - 05:51
Well, the OP is quite familiar with processing JPEGs, let me assure you . There is no question that RAW gives you more room for PP. So while you get very similar results your results would be even better would you work with RAW.
As long as it works for you it's fine. And there are arguments and several situations where JPG is the method of choice.
Prieni
As long as it works for you it's fine. And there are arguments and several situations where JPG is the method of choice.
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 26/07/2011 - 21:46
I do understand the reasoning behind the 'getting it right in camera' argument. And I understand that there are reasons for shooting JPG when you need to show the result quickly. I'm very hesitant to shoot JPG and only do so as RAW+JPG. Here is why:
As we have had a pretty rainy July in our neck of the woods I had many a chance to shoot some clouds. Straight from camera they look ok (just) but the shots don’t really convey what I saw (and here I use the term seeing more in the sense of complete sensual experience, not in the forensic sense).
A picture tells more than a thousand words, so here is an example (shot in DNG+JPG)
Here is the JPG version:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2408sm.jpg[/IMG]
I should add that this is not the best JPG I could have gotten of the scene. I shot this with the post processing in mind (and in that respect this post is a bit biased against JPG shooting).
It certainly is lacking. Now I took the DNG into SILKYPIX Developer Studio (the RAW converter I use), adjusted colour temperature, CA, distortion (the JPG has the distortion correction applied by the camera already) gamma and contrast. The result was saved as a 16-bit TIF and looks like this:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2408tsm.jpg[/IMG]
Already a bit better, more definition in the clouds, better overall contrast.
A little bit of fiddling around in the photo processing software (duplicating the image and use of blending modes together with a couple of gradients from black to transparent (top) and white to transparent (bottom), some curve adjustments in individual layers and overall) and finally the image looks like I saw it when taking the shot:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2408asm.jpg[/IMG]
If I had tried that kind of PP on the JPG I would have got some serious posterization. Also I find it much harder to get the colours right (as I don't care much about white balance; again, if shooting RAW I would adjust WB). Here is an example:
JPG out of camera
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2461sm.jpg[/IMG]
JPG post processed
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2461b.jpg[/IMG]
RAW post processed
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2461a.jpg[/IMG]
Prieni
As we have had a pretty rainy July in our neck of the woods I had many a chance to shoot some clouds. Straight from camera they look ok (just) but the shots don’t really convey what I saw (and here I use the term seeing more in the sense of complete sensual experience, not in the forensic sense).
A picture tells more than a thousand words, so here is an example (shot in DNG+JPG)
Here is the JPG version:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2408sm.jpg[/IMG]
I should add that this is not the best JPG I could have gotten of the scene. I shot this with the post processing in mind (and in that respect this post is a bit biased against JPG shooting).
It certainly is lacking. Now I took the DNG into SILKYPIX Developer Studio (the RAW converter I use), adjusted colour temperature, CA, distortion (the JPG has the distortion correction applied by the camera already) gamma and contrast. The result was saved as a 16-bit TIF and looks like this:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2408tsm.jpg[/IMG]
Already a bit better, more definition in the clouds, better overall contrast.
A little bit of fiddling around in the photo processing software (duplicating the image and use of blending modes together with a couple of gradients from black to transparent (top) and white to transparent (bottom), some curve adjustments in individual layers and overall) and finally the image looks like I saw it when taking the shot:
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2408asm.jpg[/IMG]
If I had tried that kind of PP on the JPG I would have got some serious posterization. Also I find it much harder to get the colours right (as I don't care much about white balance; again, if shooting RAW I would adjust WB). Here is an example:
JPG out of camera
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2461sm.jpg[/IMG]
JPG post processed
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2461b.jpg[/IMG]
RAW post processed
[IMG]http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/Prieni/Pentax%20World/_PRI2461a.jpg[/IMG]
Prieni
Comment by Prieni posted on One reason why I love shooting RAW at 26/07/2011 - 18:51
The forum is intended to Pentax images only, so please bear it in mind for next time?
Yes, he should have noticed (and noted) that. Yes, this is a Pentax forum. But I rather would see one very good Canikon photo presented in a topical series of what mostly are Pentax shots than a 20-odd photo post with crap shots incidentally made using a Pentax camera.
He will write a hundred times "I shouldn't touch a non-Pentax camera or go near one" and all will be well.
Prieni