Shoot JPEG or RAW for events?
- Thread starter Snowcrash
- Start date
- Status
I refuse to do that. What I did was, clicked on the link and started to read his views, quickly realizing that I may be new to digital photography but my knowledge on RAW may be higher than his. I completly disagree, and at least with my Olympus, it is easy to handle RAW format and quite often not needs any post processing at all. But, when the picture needs post processing at computer time, RAW is a blessing. I don't understand how he can say that there is no difference between RAW and JPEG. JPEG is a compressed format of RAW. Being compressed means it is not as good as the original (i.e. RAW), since RAW is an actual pixel-by-pixel image copy of the CCD information. I guess that is true not only for Olympus but also for Nikon, which is what he is using.freelancer said:
Be warned, if you follow my steps, you'll have a lot of reading to do. This guy is really wordy, he seems to have a lot of time for writing and photography. Takes nice pictures, in spite his startnge views on RAW. I guess he spends a lot of time in front of Photoshop or something elese, if he takes all those in JPEG. Or maybe he just takes thousands of pictures every day and selects a few of the best ones. Anyway, at least some of his views are just a lot of words without any substance. He has also a huge amount of self and family admirations, just too much for my taste.
Programs in 32 bit windows (windows 2000 and windows xp) are supposed to be able to use up to 2GB of RAM...of course the system itself needs RAM...there will be a difference in performance upgrading to >2GB, but not that big a diff, unless you multitask, in which case your comp will be more responsive as there is more RAM available...
If you have Photoshop CS 1 or 2, try not to use the Nikon plugin...very slow...:angry:...use Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) instead...even on a comp with 4GB or RAM the Nikon plugin is slow...I have used Capture One and that is great as well, with a better interface than ACR
as for KRW...well...for better advice on RAW and other matters, I suggest this guy Michael Richmann
If you have Photoshop CS 1 or 2, try not to use the Nikon plugin...very slow...:angry:...use Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) instead...even on a comp with 4GB or RAM the Nikon plugin is slow...I have used Capture One and that is great as well, with a better interface than ACR
as for KRW...well...for better advice on RAW and other matters, I suggest this guy Michael Richmann
OlyFlyer said:
Thanks for reading through before making a judgement.
In every debatable topic, like Canon vs Nikon, each side will have its supporter. I have tried Raw many times before, on overseas trips and all, but I don't like to spend so much time post processing, cause I don't have any good software to use. Anyway, I am not making a living out of it, and I much rather spend my time on other things, like playing with my 20 mth old daughter.
KRW did not say that there is no difference between RAw & Jpeg. He just feels that raw takes too much time.
If you had quoted another article perhaps, its something to consider as another point of view. KRW had written a lot of stuff that makes his articles questionable. Read his article saying how important the Nikon D70 1/500s flash sync is over Canon 20D 1/250s flash sync. If you had followed that logic, Nikon flagship D2X with its 1/250s flash sync is not as good as the D70 in the flash side of things :dunno: :dunno:blive said:
I feel that this is important to mention so that people reading his articles take some of his comments a bit more carefully.
I don't want to read through everything once again to be able to quote him. My interpretation is anyway that he does not seem to eigther understand, or admit that there is a huge difference between RAW and JPEG. He may be a perfect photographer, I am not. If he sets everything right from the start for each picture, than I, to a certain level agree with him. Unfortunatly, I am not perfect, nor is my camera. Specially the WB is off every now and than. So I correct that easily at computer time, instead of trying to check in LCD after each take. I actually have switched off the LCD and use my camera as if it had film in it most of the time. Why? Mainly because however Super bright Hyper Crystal LCD I have on my E-500, it is not the quality of the screen the pics going to be displayed on or the paper they are printed on. It only gives an indication of a good/bad picture. While people taking JPEGs only, have to throw away pics with WB way off, or have to spend an awful lot of time in front of PS, I keep mine and after downloading to computer very easily fix that in Olympus Master. I see RAW as a time saver, not as a time waster. Also, there is a difference if one can be absolutly shoure that onece pictures are only going to be displayed on computers, never printed except small sizes, than maybe JPEG is a good alternative. But then, why waste money on that Nikon and big mama lens KRW gladly posing with, on his first page and braging about how interested in photography he was ever since he was 12 years old.blive said:
But, I guess if I would have the 'wrong' camera brand or slow CF or some other type of slow memory in my camera, I may be doing it differently. I have heard horror stories about people being able to take 4-5 pics in one second in RAW format, but than they have to wait 1,5 minute to download those to the cameras memory. BTW, I read here people saying that a real heavy duty computer is needed with a lot of RAM to process RAW. That is also r**ish. I have a 5 year old P4 2GHz with only 512MB RAM and that seems to do the work well. That may not be good enough if I was a pro, but I am not.
And before every non E-500 owner explodes in protest, my definition of 'wrong camera brand' is every camera other people have. That is, if you have a non E-500 and you are happy with that, than my E-500 is the wrong camera brand.
Not sure what you mean by having to adjust WB every now and then, it does raise the issue that your camera may need some adjustments. Granted that WB usually needs some correction for indoor shots but outdoors its always quite reliable from my experiences. Switching off the LCD and taking the shot like a film camera is not recommended (making my point for newbies reading this) as you can and should use the camera histogram to help you set the exposure more accurately. The technique is called 'expose to the right'. Most camera exposure metering systems cannot get it right everytime. By not getting the exposure right in-camera you are going to introduce noise into your images no matter how you correct the exposure in raw. Its a matter of degree i.e. how much noise. Raw gives you flexibility but not replacement for good techniques - no magic bullet here.OlyFlyer said:
It depends on how long you are prepared to wait (especially for photoshop) when you make an adjustment before the preview gets updated.OlyFlyer said:
Don't know about the 'horror stories' you had read but the Canon 20D for example can take 5 frames per second and the camera buffer write to memory card is fast with a Sandisk Ultra II or Extreme III card. Never had to wait for download from camera buffer to complete (ever) and I shoot 100% raw. Well, except for the time I took pictures at an airshow where the jets were doing a lot of nice aerobatics. And in that situation each time the jets did their stuff, I had to switch to jpegs as I was taking something like 25 to 30 frames non-stop to be able to capture the 'right moment' like this.OlyFlyer said:
Makes me wonder, what makes a good image, the 'right moment' or the "extra details/proper wb/better this/better that"?freelancer said:
Hahaha... It's really making me laugh to see you post such funny stuff. It appears to me that you're more obsessed with details/raws/etc etc etc than capturing the 'right moment'.
IMHO Extra details/sharpness/etc etc don't make award-winning photographs, the 'right moment' does.
For those who find CF card cheap, why don't you buy a few 1gb sandisk 2 cards and give it away as charity? I'll match your offer with a drink for every card you give away. While you find the cards "cheap and easily affordable", I find drinks likewise. If you can't do that, then I suggest you not give cards the "cheap" label. $100 or even $50 is not a small "throw away" sum for most people.
Answering the OTS: For events and events only I shoot jpg. Everything else, I'll do RAW, simply because I've the time and I've the space.
Reason: I shoot M mode, and I don't **** up my exposures that often. more importantly, I usually have to submit my images within 1 hours after each event. Sometimes I even shoot in M size if I've clarified with the client that the images are going to be used purely for web/newsletter purposes. For photographers it makes a world of difference, but not for everyone else. For those slogging on a slow laptop, opening a 8mp image can be hell.
Funny .. I was seeing some mention by someone the other day of CS posts that gets into "uncalled" for attacks. By the way post some pictures to make your point. There is no right or wrong answer to what makes an exceptional picture. Like some wise chap used to say "put your money where your mouth is"unseen said:
Relax.. not attacking.. It's just that I've seen lots of posts from you supporting RAW, and yet for critical photos you switch to jpeg.freelancer said:Funny .. I was seeing some mention by someone the other day of CS posts that gets into "uncalled" for attacks. By the way post some pictures to make your point. There is no right or wrong answer to what makes an exceptional picture. Like some wise chap used to say "put your money where your mouth is"
Post photos to make my point of what, that events should shoot jpeg? hmmm well i can't jolly well give you the newspapers/magazines. Fastest, go to www.nightlife.sg and have a look. I've got enough photos there.
I am sure nothing wrong with my camera. Have you tried taking pictures of flowers filling up the image lately? Or when there is just too much green in the frame, but also some flowers? I find it easy to take pictures in bright sunshine, WB always right. But just as I said, now and then not right.freelancer said:
I found LCD distracting also. I like to concentrate on my subject, not being distracted. That way it is much easier to catch the right moment. I wonder what they teach in photo schools today? Concentrate on the subject or check LCD after each frame? For a newbie it is even more important to learn that concentration is everything, compose in the your head not on LCD. Checking the LCD too often just maes you miss the moment.freelancer said:
Actually, you are wrong about that statement. The way light enters the camera is through the lens (maybe filter first), then after the mirror is flipped up (or sidways in some cameras) shutter opens and light hits the CCD. At that moment, no WB or any other settings has been applyed yet. After that, the electronic image continues inside the camera to the processor and eigther is saved to CF, or buffer, almost as is, or goes through even more processing for JPEG compression and some other things, than after that saved to CF. Applying WB is done at processing level inside camera only if you save in JPEG. In RAW, all camera settings are included in the file and sent to computer when you transfer the images. That is one reason why you need a plugin or a special software to show RAW images. The way this information is saved is unik for each camera manufacturer, some times even differing between cameras of same manufacturer. When the image arrives to the computer the image is 'developed' with the settings you had on the camera. By changing these setings you develop again with the new settings. By changing WB, you can never add noise.freelancer said:
I have to wait a few seconds in PS, I found Olympus Studio much better and faster in RAW development, however I am not a master of Photoshop. Time well worth.freelancer said:
I deliberatly did not mention any brand, since that would raise hell. If you are happy with your camera, that's what's important. What I heard (read) is written by camera owners, and having to wait that long definitly would scare me. I certainly don't have any problems using Sandisk Extreme III, however Ultra II is just half of the speed of Extreme III, and that shows. So I always use Extreme, having Ultra II just as a spare.freelancer said:
As for doing Airshows, I have to tell you, belive it or not, I have also visited many (actually, I am even flying myself, aerobatics too), but I don't belive in working the way you describe. However many CFs you have, Airshows last usually a whole day, CFs not. So at some point you have to start selecting and deleting. At the same time you probably miss a lot of things. If you have enough CFs, than with 30 frames/flyover you will have several thousands of pictures to go thrugh at home. That only would take a huge amont of time. But, of course, if pictures are only for web, JPEG is fine. If for large size printing, well, you have to be perfect. And I don't belive in perfection.
BTW, those Alphajets are very nice, also the way Patrouille de France handles them.
Easy guys
well, CFs are cheap compared to once in a lifetime moments to shoot...and RAW is safe in that it gives you more latitude to recover imperfect images...if you need more economical storage, can always buy, borrow, rent a harddisk card backup thingy...
as for WB, I agree with OlyFlyer...there is no perfect WB...even with an external WB sensor on the top bodies, I'ld rather have the option to adjust non destructively the WB of an image...also, there is the option to change the WB creatively after the fact of capture...and like I posted earlier, I prefer to have one less thing (the WB) to worry about when shooting...
but agree with Freelance...it's always good to get the exposure right first time...not so much for WB but cause adjusting exposure after the fact will be destructive to the output image, even in adjustments made to RAW files...its just that its less damaging compared to JPGs or TIFs...and underexposure can give you more noise as you try to boost the brightness of the dark areas...and if an image is badly overexposed then you will have a tough time getting detail back...
as for image review...I have to say that once you are confident with your cam, you use that much less...unless an image is critical and you have the luxury of time...back when I was using my E10, I got used to the camerea such that I know how much latittude (not much;p ) I can adjust without blowing an image even shooting manual mode and spot metering (plus it saves a tremendous amount of battery power :bsmilie: that camera's lcd screen's a powerhog)...but with my new cam, still learning its exposure stuff so use the review quite alot...
oh, and as for the "right moment" thingy, well that is always important...if you can capture that with RAW all the better...if not, shooting with JPGs and possibly getting off exposures is better than nothing...so practising and getting used to your camera is important...
well, CFs are cheap compared to once in a lifetime moments to shoot...and RAW is safe in that it gives you more latitude to recover imperfect images...if you need more economical storage, can always buy, borrow, rent a harddisk card backup thingy...
as for WB, I agree with OlyFlyer...there is no perfect WB...even with an external WB sensor on the top bodies, I'ld rather have the option to adjust non destructively the WB of an image...also, there is the option to change the WB creatively after the fact of capture...and like I posted earlier, I prefer to have one less thing (the WB) to worry about when shooting...
but agree with Freelance...it's always good to get the exposure right first time...not so much for WB but cause adjusting exposure after the fact will be destructive to the output image, even in adjustments made to RAW files...its just that its less damaging compared to JPGs or TIFs...and underexposure can give you more noise as you try to boost the brightness of the dark areas...and if an image is badly overexposed then you will have a tough time getting detail back...
as for image review...I have to say that once you are confident with your cam, you use that much less...unless an image is critical and you have the luxury of time...back when I was using my E10, I got used to the camerea such that I know how much latittude (not much;p ) I can adjust without blowing an image even shooting manual mode and spot metering (plus it saves a tremendous amount of battery power :bsmilie: that camera's lcd screen's a powerhog)...but with my new cam, still learning its exposure stuff so use the review quite alot...
oh, and as for the "right moment" thingy, well that is always important...if you can capture that with RAW all the better...if not, shooting with JPGs and possibly getting off exposures is better than nothing...so practising and getting used to your camera is important...
Olyflyer, It seemed to me that you have mentioned your Olympus this and that every post. It is beginning to sound like a commercial.
I cannot stop you from flaming me, but that is just what I observed.
I cannot stop you from flaming me, but that is just what I observed.
OlyFlyer said:
Agreed on the WB bit .. my point was on the exposure and not WB which is only a tag in the raw file. An under-exposed image will always show more noise than a properly exposed image. In other words, it is better to properly expose at ISO1600 than under-expose at ISO800 and then correct in raw processing. If you need a discussion on why this is so, just message me offline and I will be happy to do so
By the way some cameras (Canon for example) does some capture sharpening and noise reduction even before the raw file gets written to the card.
OlyFlyer said:
Shooting jets is quite challenging because of the low keeper rate. When I shot those Alphajets it was on a 1GB Sandisk Ultra II card and it filled around 800+ shots with the highest jpeg quality set. I would probably had needed too many cards if I had shot raw and even then the camera's buffer would have a hard time to keep up.
My point may not came out the way I had intended. It was to underscore the point that even from someone who shoots raw full time for 2 years now, I decided on jpeg because it was the better option for me. Even my travel images are on raw !
Lesson learned if anyone care to read on is when shooting against something like a mid-morning sky, not to mention the slight haze we have in our skies, there is so much detail you can pull out the image. jpeg is an option because as a sizeable part of the image does not have much details, the file sizes are surprisingly smaller, up to 30% of a typical landscape shot based on my rough observations. And if you want to increase the image dynamic range, set negative contrast on the camera.
Good .. I always welcome an objective discussion. My post is really in the spirit of we learn, we share and we learn again.unseen said:
On those Alphajets shots, could I had done better with raw? Maybe but marginally give the reasons outlined above. The post processing took more time because correcting images in jpeg takes more effort. Maybe its because of my own workflow and limited use of photoshop most of the time with most adjustments done in Pixmantec's RSP. Lesson learned was it opened up some new photoshop processing techniques I had learned from some people who are highly experienced with jpeg processing. This image was actually posted at a good US based forum and it did opened up a number of things that (at least) I did not know about including using the high pass filter to reduce the haze in the original image, etc.
I had actually re-processed the jpeg again recently, with a combination of new plugins such as Bibble's 'perfectly clear' plugin and Akvis Enhancer (which does a great job on local contrast enhancement). I am just amazed at the ease some of the plugins can save maybe 30 minutes off what I would do with just the standard photoshop tools.
Where did I flame you? What has you replay got to do with RAW or JPEG?Andy Ang said:
Sorry if you don't like that. Actually, you are wrong. I have also mentioned: Zenith, Pentax, Canon, Nikon and probably others also. Please read ALL my posts, before you say 'every post'. Also, I have mentioned my Oly stuff in both positive and negative way. Again, please read every post before saying 'sound like a commercial'. I even mentioned some points I call design flaw/miss/error.
There are very few here who not names his camera, most in an even more positive way than I mention mine. There is an other thing, you like it or not, I have only one digital camera and that is called Olympus E-500. I wish I had the money to buy a Nikon D200, but I don't. That way I could compare my Nikon D200 and my Oly E-500. Since I can not do that, I feel I have to mention the camera, since my statments are only valid for MY camera, and MY way of doing things, everything else is based on hearsaying, so it might not be true.
When it comes to RAW or JPEG, there is a huge technical difference between camera brands, CF cards used, camera CPU speeds to handle RAW, file size camera produces and so on. So I think it is an important point to mention the brand.
I don't think I say anywhere that underexposing is good, or that it can be fixed without noise. Of course it is better to expose correctly from the start, regardless if you use ISO1600 or ISO50. The higher the ISO the more important it is. Even with film cameras you could, if nothing else worked under expose and try to fix it in lab later, but that always gave you more grainy (noisey in DC terms) end result. Whats not there is not there. For WB there is no difference, and changing WB at computer time does not add noise.freelancer said:Agreed on the WB bit .. my point was on the exposure and not WB which is only a tag in the raw file. An under-exposed image will always show more noise than a properly exposed image. In other words, it is better to properly expose at ISO1600 than under-expose at ISO800 and then correct in raw processing. If you need a discussion on why this is so, just message me offline and I will be happy to do so
Noise reduction is done even in my X-YYY camera (I am not allowed to mention the brand, since it upsets somebody) before image save. I don't know how sharpening and other stuff that can be done in camera is handled though, still not tested everything.freelancer said:
Since I have both Extreme III (2GB) and Ultra II (512MB) I can see the difference in time it takes to flash the buffer to the CF due to the difference in CF cards write speed. Two Extreme III CFs and a portable HD (called Hyperdrive in Sweden) would enable you to shoot on airshows in RAW, concidering your camera does not take forever to flash buffer to CF.freelancer said:
Well, I don't know where I will be or where I will stand in two years time. Digital photography is all new to me, so all I know, I may even get back to film and dust off my (unnamed brand), by then almost 30-years old film camera.freelancer said:
OlyFlyer said:
Nope, you have not flamed me, I am only saying that I cannot stop you from flaming me.
Please read carefully too.
But after your post, you just did.
Which thus I re-emphasize again, I cannot stop you from flaming me.
OlyFlyer said:
CF performance database link
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8200
Unfortunately the tests were for Nikon, Canon and Fujifilm dSLRs. Taking for example the Canon EOS-1D MkII N the write speeds with both Ultra II and Extreme III are for all intents similar.
It seems that according to the same site, your 20D is also at the top of its write performance already with Ultra II. In that case I may give up and agree that to gain speed, you have to reduce file size to shoot jets. The only way to do that is JPEG. My X-YYY (unnamed brand) has better performance with Extreme III. See: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse500/page10.aspfreelancer said:
That is one reason why I say that RAW or JPEG, depends on camera and CF brand and of course, the situation also.
- Status
