I've been doing a lot of reading on photography forums and anybody that is somewhat serious about taking good pictures shoots in RAW and does a lot of work in post production. Does anybody on here do this? To me it feels almost like cheating? I've never done any PP work and plan to still shoot in JPEG unless I can be swayed. So let's hear what you guys do. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No matter what technology you use, there has to be information in the original shot. Even in the dark room days, if the negative wasn't up to snuff, you couldn't make a good print. Same in digital. Raw files have the most information possible. JPEGs are compressed and carry less info. If any changes or enhancements are needed or wanted, raw offers up the most accurate representation to work with. When I get my camera, I plan to shoot Raw for the most part. Especially with the cheap cost of external memory these days.
Also IMO, good PP work is done only to enhance photos back to their real world look. Most intermediate photographers overwork their photos. I hate the look of overworked photos. And don't get me started on amateur HDR photos
RAW is not cheating at all. If anything it requires the most work to get back to the original look of the scene. RAW stores the most data possible from an image. However if you look at that image as is on a computer screen it generally is very "flat" in terms of color, hues, blacks, lights, and saturation. Generally a RAW image as taken leaves a lot to be desired to the eye. That is where post processing comes in. The RAW format gives you the most power to tweak the image back to exactly what the photographer's eye saw ... or ... to push that image in one direction vs another depending on his creativity. Photography is an art and there are no rules in that art that say that an image has to be exactly what the eye sees. If you shoot photos in a .jpg format then the camera does internal processing as it feels the actual image looks to our eye. In doing so, original data is forever lost. Generally the camera does a nice job of this and there is data there that we can adjust in post to create the final image that we want. However in reality the camera is doing the bulk of the work ... so ... who is cheating now? :p Post processing has always been a part of photography even in the days of film and a dark room. Photography is two part. There is the camera man knowing what he is doing at the time of the shot and then there is the editing process (dark room or computer). That being said, I shoot .jpg, simply because of file sizes and I don't want to put that much time into post processing that RAW requires.
I have not shot in RAW, but have been thinking about it. My A57 will shoot in RAW, and JPEG at the same time. Essentially giving me both, a finished product and one that I can manipulate to get what I want. I don't want to have to edit every picture I take, but when I get a special shot, I'd like to have that option.
Just to add to what has been said, RAW is as it sounds. The RAW data captured by the camera. When the light strikes the sensor and is converted digitally, that information is raw and unprocessed by the camera. At that stage, it's essentially the same as traditional film (light hitting the film strip). Back in the days of film, when the film was developed and sent to the enlarger, a lot of post-processing took place before final development. In fact, many of the photo processing terms you hear today (and tools in photo editing software) have their roots in film photography. Dodging, burning, masking, split toning, etc., are all techniques that photographers used to get the print to adjust better for what they originally saw. Remember, our eyes have a MUCH great dynamic range than a camera can capture. Post-processing, when done in moderation, really helps restore the image to the true form. Don't mistake RAW editing for Instagram-like filtering. While some people have to HDR every shot they take, RAW editing has a lot of advantages, and I won't shoot any other way (unless I have a reason to just publish straight to the web).
Hmm this has been a interesting read, maybe I will give the J-peg/RAW shooting a try. This brings up post production then, what programs do you guys use and are there any that are decent for free? (If you haven't noticed I'm a cheap ***.) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Light Room is powerful and pretty user friendly ... but far from free. Photoshop is extremely powerful and can be pretty complicated ... expensive. Photoshop Elements is what a lot of people use. Affordable, pretty powerfully, and user friendly.
Most DSLR's come with photo processing software. I have Adobe PS CS6 and like it. To process HDR's, (which I just started playing with) I use Photomatix Pro (free trial version). HDR makes photographs look more like paintings. I am looking forward to doing some with turkey hunters and deer hunters in the future.
Also, if you can afford it, go full frame. If you want a smaller camera with full frame sensor, Sony makes a nice one that is about a grand less than the Canon.
The Sony full frame camera is mirror less which makes it smaller. The photographs turn out really nice with it too as the local camera shop let me try one out. I just didn't have the $2K for a camera.
I'm using a Sony NEX 5r that we just got, I know it's only a step up from a point and shoot but it works for my purposes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually, the Sony NEX 5r is pretty comparable to the Canon T3i, but since it is mirror less, it is much smaller. Of course there are less lenses to choose from with the Sony, but it is a good camera. You can review the camera comparison at: Canon T3i vs Sony NEX-5N - Our Analysis Enjoy it and even though it goes against everything men are about, read the instruction book to learn all the bells and whistles. What software did it come with?
Actually the Sony E-mount is the most versatile mount on the market due to the short distance from the mount to the sensor. You can use the entire Sony E-mount line, with an adapter you can use all A-mount lenses and with third party adapters such as Metabones you can use just about any lens out there. Sony is doing some amazing stuff. Check out the videos of the new(prototype) Sony A7s. The low light capabilities of that camera are astonishing. [video=youtube_share;XgbUgNiHfXM]http://youtu.be/XgbUgNiHfXM[/video]
Unless you're super serious about getting into professional photography I see zero reason to go full frame. For the general hobbyist first starting out the cash they save on a full frame body can be put towards lenses or editing software. Someone picking up a camera for the first time and going straight to full frame is like buying your 16 year old kid a Mercedes. If I was buying equipment from scratch today I'd look at going mirrorless. Some of the new mirrorless cameras that take the micro 4/3 lenses are pretty darn impressive - especially on the video end of things. As for the RAW question, the big disadvantage IMO is simply storing of the files. Each RAW image that comes off my camera is ~20 MB. That chews up a ton of drive space if you're not careful. For day-to-day shooting around my house (kid, dog, etc.) I'll shoot in JPG only. You can still do plenty of post processing on these JPGs to get them usable for what most people are looking for which is typically sharing them with your family and friends via the web. If I'm shooting stuff I know I'm going to edit heavily or want to print at a large size I'll shoot in RAW+JPG so I have both options. After that I'll sort out the few RAW files I want to keep and ditch the rest.
I'll second the full frame comment. Although prices for bodies are dropping, lens prices generally do not. You will have fewer third party options at full frame, and most glass is L-Series, and you pay for it.
Not a bad choice. Like, Justin, I've really toyed with the idea of trying the MILC format. I just have a hard time deciding what would work best. There are some definite disadvantages, but I could certainly see myself taking a smaller bodied camera with me more in the field than my DSLR. Looking forward to seeing what you guys do with it.
That depends on a person's POV. If I buy something new, I don't buy something that is limited in quality if I can afford quality. As an adult, a person can make an informed decision based upon his/her finances and what they project the use for the item to be. I have always enjoyed taking the best photographs I can and the best equipment I can afford is what I will have. Working in RAW allows you to adjust the photograph in large format so you don't lose image quality. It takes a lot of disk space compared to JPEGs, but if I want to blow up a photograph to 48x48", no problem with RAW, where a JPEG becomes noticeably pixilated the larger it gets. Bottom line is quality of equipment is up to the end user to decide even if not going professional.
I guess im just a dumb farmer cuz this whole thread looks like its written in Chinese. Is there a Rosetta stone software for this language? Just joking guys lots of good info here. Tyler Rector BHOD prostaff
I'd love to have a full frame camera, but APS C sensor's still have benefits. The crop factor on the sensor is actually beneficial to me. I love telephoto photography, and the APS C gives me 1.5 times a crop factor. When I went to Yellowstone, I rented a 50-500mm Sigma lens. That gave me a 75-750 mm lens. Something you just can't get with a full frame sensor, without spending huge bucks.
