Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 64

Thread: Fast lenses no more?

  1. #41

    Question

    is <capture one pro> available for sale in sg? eg places like funan/sim lim etc...coz i just now i installed <capture one pro> and successfully got by the restrictions so its no longer a trial version but when i tried any of the tools it has no response (eg i selected the rotate option but the pic never rotate, i selected the free-form select but no dotted line appear) and it always give me soem error message that will make the program close one...isit coz i was trying to edit a jpeg (and not RAW thus the tools not responsive)and i only have 256mb ram (the system requirements say u need 384 mb ram minimum) and my monitor can only set 16bit colour (everytime the capture one starts up, it gives a prompt to say that must set monitor to at least 24bit colour)??? if so then i was thinking since its so useful and good a software then might as well go n buy it from shops in sg...afterall i have saved a lot of money elsewhere already so ya, does any shop in sg sell it. i dotn buy things online and dont have credit card and all that online thingy one thnx IA =)

  2. #42

    Lightbulb

    i just now tried RAW and..haha it works. so now left to upgrade my hardware. so it means captureone pro cannot actually process jpegs..hmm. funny leh. so good a program and yet it cannot process jpeg.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    I was about to write this , but was waiting for a more experienced person to say it first. I don't have C1, but even with the new Canon EVU, I dare say RAW processing is faster than JPG in Photoshop. Exposure/colour correction/sharpening on multiple images, all at one go, just brilliant!
    You need to compare apples to apples. I can browse JPEGs about 40x, and that's not an exaggeration, faster than I can browse RAW files. I can batch process them first into JPEGs but that's still added time. Yes you can batch multiple images, but you cannot correct each image individually. Or you can but it would take ages. And unfortunately, each image tends to need individual correction. If you are just going to set up a blind automatic batch, well Photoshop can do that too with JPEGs with no issues. And faster.

    Going back OnT, like I said, fast lenses are most definitely not going out of fashion.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Same here. These days I shoot exclusively in RAW. If there is a need to deliver on the spot, I shoot RAW+jpeg. With 1D's smaller file size, shooting in RAW is like no-brianer.

    I have not been so happy with post processing ever after I use C1. Normally I process three different sizes and dilever as a package. Big for printing, middle for screening, and small for web. All in one go.

    I think I will never shoot in jpeg.
    Last edited by tomshen; 5th July 2004 at 11:37 PM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    ok, good for all of u guys. I would love to be shooting with against competitors like u all i guess. I see no point in bringing this arguement further, quite obviously, ppl like tim, jed and myself are pro jpg while larry, RD, TS and the rest seem to think that shooting raw is better.

    RD, without bruising your ego too much. Your conditions are hardly challenging. Imagine having to struggle with 20 photogs for the best spot, all of u armed with heavy eqpt. Imagine having to run around with that stuff from dressing room to field to grandstand etc. Imagine for once that the use of stobe is not allowed. And it isn't allowed for a lot of events. The next clown that brings up the fact that strobes can be used to compensate for lack of light, i will not be so nice. Pls note, the initial discussion is about sports not your frigging stage shoot!

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    oh and btw, IS1600 might be good, but most of the time u NEED to use ISO1600 with 2.8 to achieve a reasonable speed as it is. Now chew on that! I suppose u could underexpose in raw and boost it later. Like i said, i wish some of the ppl i have to fight against had the same logic. Agencies would adore and worship me!

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by szekiat
    ok, good for all of u guys. I would love to be shooting with against competitors like u all i guess. I see no point in bringing this arguement further, quite obviously, ppl like tim, jed and myself are pro jpg while larry, RD, TS and the rest seem to think that shooting raw is better.

    RD, without bruising your ego too much. Your conditions are hardly challenging. Imagine having to struggle with 20 photogs for the best spot, all of u armed with heavy eqpt. Imagine having to run around with that stuff from dressing room to field to grandstand etc. Imagine for once that the use of stobe is not allowed. And it isn't allowed for a lot of events. The next clown that brings up the fact that strobes can be used to compensate for lack of light, i will not be so nice. Pls note, the initial discussion is about sports not your frigging stage shoot!
    In fact, if one uses a pro body, there is no reason why not shooting RAW+jpeg or simply RAW if no need to deliver on the spot. I also found that when doing post processing, RAW is faster and much easier control over many aspects like WB and exposure. Processing jpeg would be very troublesome and time-consuming. I agreed that for press photogs they may need to deliver very fast, but since CF is so cheap these days, why not shoot RAW as well?, provided raw+jpeg is possible. Unless you never need to touch these photos after delivery, then that's another story.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    shooting for wire is like shooting for press. For the record, i never said that jpg was easier to tweak than raw. true, raw gives u the ability to tweak. I do question your professionalism if u constantly need to tweak your photos. U're telling me that your shots are so inconsistent that u need to worry abt needing to tweak them? For the record, jed, tim, myself and a afew others all use pro level dslr. Granted, we might not be using the latest, but it is still a good sample of what most of the world's pros are using. And trust me, not everyone is lucky enuff to have a 1dmk2, even when they shoot for the big agencies. I for one am definitely not satisfied with the workflow of my current setup if shooting in raw as i see no conceivable adv. if i can and DO get my shots right from the start. again its preference. But why chose to do something u don't have to? I'd rather chose to rest my brains and body then to go thru post processing after a shoot.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomshen
    In fact, if one uses a pro body, there is no reason why not shooting RAW+jpeg or simply RAW if no need to deliver on the spot.
    Let's see. In full flight I shoot about 900-1500 pictures a week, I've done as much as that in a day for several days. At JPEG normal, I have to empty my harddisk ever fortnight. Yes, I have a DVD burner. As far as I'm concerned, even juggling with 6mb files or whatever as opposed to 1mb files is going to take so much longer archiving, viewing, sorting. No one can use any of these RAW files except me, which means each one needs to be converted. How long does your software take to do each one, mutiply that by a thousand, and even then you're only getting basic editing (ie restoring each to the level of a JPEG in the first place).

    Beyond that, I have to browse all these pictures, edit about 1/3 of them, in terms of cropping, levelling, and captioning. If it takes me twice as long to open a RAW file as it does a JPEG, which is probably optimistic, then it takes me twice as long to do anything. I have still yet to see anyone browse RAW files at any speed, and I have had people converting to PCs after looking over my shoulder and watching ACDSee at work, which sadly doesn't yet work with RAW files.

    I also found that when doing post processing, RAW is faster and much easier control over many aspects like WB and exposure. Processing jpeg would be very troublesome and time-consuming.

    See my previous post above. I cannot see how anyone can argue that working with RAW is faster. Processing JPEGs are no more troublesome or time consuming than RAW files, if you are batching them. If you're not batching them, same point.

    I agreed that for press photogs they may need to deliver very fast, but since CF is so cheap these days, why not shoot RAW as well?

    Because we have absolutely no reason to shoot RAW either.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying RAW isn't better than JPEG. It is. But I cannot see how you can argue that the RAW workflow is faster than JPEG.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    To the RAW shooters, have you ever thought that if you get your exposure and all right in the beginning, then the ability to tweak them later becomes moot? Like szekiat said "true, raw gives u the ability to tweak. I do question your professionalism if u constantly need to tweak your photos"

    I always believe in getting it right in-camera. The less you have to touch the images post-shoot, the better. And till today there don't exist a ACDSee-type software for viewing RAW images at 100% and beyond or fullscreen as quickly as JPEGs. So you now have the problem of going into your RAW convertor of choice, converting each file (background process or otherwise) or trusting its lowres preview. The last thing I want to do when I come back from a shoot is to go through 1500 RAW files and individually tweak them when I can try to get things right from the start. And more than 90% of my shots I get do not need to be tweaked post-exposure. Those which do, can still be tweaked in JPEG. JPEG-Fine is too underrated with all the RAW shooters pushing and overrating its advantages.

    I hear you saying "Hey, you can do a batch conversion!". Sure, but if you batch convert without looking at each one, why bother shooting RAW then?

    Regards
    CK
    Last edited by ckiang; 6th July 2004 at 12:15 AM.

  11. #51
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    I hear you saying "Hey, you can do a batch conversion!". Sure, but if you batch convert without looking at each one, why bother shooting RAW then?

    Regards
    CK
    good point!

  12. #52

    Default

    I guess all this RAW issue is due to the influence by some pros. One needs to be wise with his or her style and workflow, rather than take shooting RAW all the time as the gospel truth.

    RAW can be seen as the digital negative but like some have pointed out, very often, it's pointless having to do the conversion with hardly any post-processing later. It's a false sense of security that I used to have that I must always shoot in RAW. Till one day, I felt enough! It's a diffificult change initally but gradually I felt it made sense.

    Shooting in RAW and Jpeg best quality/fine, I can't tell the difference between the two.

    RAW still has its uses in post processing, but there are many times one doesn't need it at all. And it does make life easier.

    Just my personal opinion and experience...

  13. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Well, I am not a pro, at most a freelancer yet not doing mission critical assignments. So I only speak according to my experience. RAW processing is indeed faster to me as I don't have 1k sports images to go through. In fact, if I need to shoot 1k pics and choose fewer than 100 or maybe even 10 for publication, that would be the same thing for me to shoot fewer to choose from. But I understand that for sports photogs they have to get that number of pix so that it's a big waste of time to shoot raw.

    On the other hand, tweaking a photo doesn't mean the photog is necessarily lousier. In many many conditions, you simple cannot "do it right in-camera" all the time, or can you? Tell me you can and I will be VERY VERY impressed. Even with the most sophisticated AF camera in the world, over/under-exposure or off-WB is very common. For RD, shooting concert is one of the worst situations in WB since stage lights change every second. I can also list many other applications where it is tough to take EVERY shot perfectly. At least I cannot. So long as I have time to go through each file, RAW processing provides both quality and speed. That's what I feel. Your mileage might be different.

    btw, 4mp is just nice for shooting raw all the time. 8MP looks to me like overkill. I will not abandon my 1D even someone wants to swap his MKII with me.

  14. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Gosh,
    lots of emotion surrounding this issue. Since I'm in way over my head here, I'll just make one observation and duck out of this discussion. There is perhaps a perception that RAW is for advanced shooters whilst newbies should stick with JPG, as with all generalisations, this is probably simplistic. Having had a taste of PS7 jpg workflow and EVU RAW workflow, I must say that I find it MUCH easier to work in RAW; it's faster with better results. Maybe I don't know enough about PS7 to work efficiently with it, but there it is.
    I'm shooting almost exclusively personal/travel/family shots, so archival is also of some importance, another reason to shoot RAW. And since I'm a newbie, I won't be good enough to always nail exposure and white balance.

    From the above, it looks like newbies could really benefit from shooting RAW, and for the pros, if you are confident of getting it right first, all the time, then JPG's the way to go!

    Cheers,

  15. #55

    Default

    tom: you can get almost perfect exposure if you understand your system but yes WB is one thing that might go off if not careful.

    As I said RAW is nice, as it's like a safety net if one ****ed up for some reason.

    Back to the topic... fast lenses are here to stay.

  16. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    btw Jed, I don't know if you use C1 or not. In my case, by the time I scan through the raw files and selectively adjust the raw preview files, the processing will be finished very soon. To me there is no issue regarding the speed of opening a raw preview file. My PC is P4-2.4G + SCSI HD + 1GB RAM. Not realy fast but fast enough to handle raw processing. On the other hand, if I shoot in jpeg and the colors/exposures are off, it would take me ages to correct them.

    For those who are curious about my workflow, here it is: Basically similar to RD's. I will first scan through and delete those not good shots (funny expressions, closed eyes etc). Then start adjusting each file and send it to the background conversion batch. It's indeed very fast to do so. Meanwhile, the converted files will be output in three different sizes (big file in high jpeg full size, mid file in 1024 or 1280 high jpeg, and small size 640 or 800 in mid jpeg), all with 100,3 soft feel sharpening and +2 saturation. I seldom crop photos. 1D's 100% viewfinder allows me to fully ascertain composition on the spot. I also selcom get blur shots these days due to the fast AF even in low light condition, which is a major improvement over D60. I will burn the three file formats to deliver. Myself will keep RAW+jpeg big files for archiving on DVD. Leaving jpeg mid on my HD for web (adding watermark) or screening. The processing time can be halved compared with that of processing jpeg last time. That's my story. Again, your mileage might be different.

  17. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    wah.... lots of differing views

    I have never shot raw before.... guess I should try it some day. have been doing levelling, adjustments and sharpening of jpegs all these while.

  18. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oeyvind
    tom: you can get almost perfect exposure if you understand your system but yes WB is one thing that might go off if not careful.

    As I said RAW is nice, as it's like a safety net if one ****ed up for some reason.

    Back to the topic... fast lenses are here to stay.
    hehe, there is something called Morphy law. Your worst pics are taken at the most crucial time. I can do 80% nice job but these 20% may ruin the entire series. So, one can never be so sure that he is good enough. I had no problem in shooting jpeg exclusively last time, now raw files just make me stand in an even better situation.

  19. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    2,572

    Default

    No doubt that I also have my own opinions which is quite similiar to what everyone has stated so far, I'll just keep them to myself.

    Been a eye opener for me to see what this discussion has evolved into.

  20. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Evolved would be a bit of a generous description.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •