Moving from jpeg to raw!

[tjdphotos]

I'm going to make the jump. I jumped when I went from a point and shoot to DSLR, I jumped when I took the Camera mode out of auto, and only shot in manual. I jump when I justified the cost of an additional lens, I jumped when I took the website I have and started doing something with it. Now I am jumping from shooting in JPEG to RAW. I shoot allot of bands in low light at bars and I'm not sure what the out come will be. I like some of the editing features and image quality of raw also the fact that the raw files become the digital negative. If any one has any advice, let me know! I have a show to photograph Saturday night. here goes nothing!

 

[Overread]

Make sure you have more memory cards - RAW files are much butter than JPEGs and they will eat up your cards fast. Also when you start out it might be an idea to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode - granted its going to use up even more space, but it means that whilst you get your feet with RAW you will still have JPEGs that you can work on

 

[davebmck]

I agree. Your best bet is to start out shooting raw+jpeg for a while. Another suggestion if you are shooting in dark areas is to shoot to the right. This means slightly overexposing without blowing out the highlights. If you underexpose an image with a lot of shadows in it and try to increase the exposure in PP you will likely introduce a lot of noise.

 

[tjdphotos]

Make sure you have more memory cards - RAW files are much butter than JPEGs and they will eat up your cards fast. Also when you start out it might be an idea to shoot in RAW+JPEG mode - granted its going to use up even more space, but it means that whilst you get your feet with RAW you will still have JPEGs that you can work on

I have a 2 gig card and run a Canon rebel xti, I might not run both jpeg and raw at the same time just because of the extended buffer time in between shots, I don't think I will go over 200 images. this is a jump with out a the safety net of jpeg. Anything goes!

 

[tjdphotos]

I agree. Your best bet is to start out shooting raw+jpeg for a while. Another suggestion if you are shooting in dark areas is to shoot to the right. This means slightly overexposing without blowing out the highlights. If you underexpose an image with a lot of shadows in it and try to increase the exposure in PP you will likely introduce a lot of noise.

"Noise is just an expected element of shooting bands in bars!" Just kidding, I do not use a flash in any of the band photography and I am shooting mostly at 1600 ISO with an F of 3.5 - 5.0 depending on the lens. for the most part I shoot to the left with it metering about three lines below center. The trick I found is to under expose because if the meter is centered the shutter is not fast enough and the action and photo blurs. My photos have noise and grain but at least they look real and do not have a flash! My next lens Im hoping for a fast 50mm F1.4

To see the bands I have photographed click here or goto
FotoPlayer
~peace tjd

 

[Big_Flash]

I also tend to do a fair amount of band photography, I find that a longer exposure at a higher iso with a burst of flash can give some good results, it captures movement while keeping the photograph from descending into a massive blur.

I've added a few band photographs to my flickr (I'll add more as time goes on and as I sort them) I hope this gives you an idea of what i'm talking about.

 

[Garbz]

I don't understand the concerns and suggestions here.

Why shoot RAW+Jpeg when all you need to do is open the file an hit export (or heck do it in batch) to get a normal jpeg out of it. The defaults of Canon's RAW converter will mimic the camera, and even Lightroom comes with profiles where the defaults mimic the camera. It seems like wasted space when it is just a matter of 10 seconds work to extract the jpeg anyway.

Also expose RIGHT, not to the right. If you are underexposing and bumping the exposure you will end up with more noise than simply raising the ISO in the first place. If you are shooting in a way that allows you to over exposure in a dark setting, then frankly your ISO is set too high anyway, and if it's not then noise is not an issue. Changing to RAW should not be a ticket to start completely throwing exposure theory out of the window. You lose quality any way you do it.

With regards to the file size limit. FEAR IT! If you fear filling your card then you start thinking about your photos, thinking about how you are shooting and you may go home with 100 / 200 good photos rather than 100 / 700. I would always prefer putting on my wall a hand full of killer shots rather than 100 mediocre ones.

 

[tjdphotos]

I don't understand the concerns and suggestions here.

Why shoot RAW+Jpeg when all you need to do is open the file an hit export (or heck do it in batch) to get a normal jpeg out of it. The defaults of Canon's RAW converter will mimic the camera, and even Lightroom comes with profiles where the defaults mimic the camera. It seems like wasted space when it is just a matter of 10 seconds work to extract the jpeg anyway.

Also expose RIGHT, not to the right. If you are underexposing and bumping the exposure you will end up with more noise than simply raising the ISO in the first place. If you are shooting in a way that allows you to over exposure in a dark setting, then frankly your ISO is set too high anyway, and if it's not then noise is not an issue. Changing to RAW should not be a ticket to start completely throwing exposure theory out of the window. You lose quality any way you do it.

With regards to the file size limit. FEAR IT! If you fear filling your card then you start thinking about your photos, thinking about how you are shooting and you may go home with 100 / 200 good photos rather than 100 / 700. I would always prefer putting on my wall a hand full of killer shots rather than 100 mediocre ones.

My Objective for shooting RAW is not to convert to all my shots jpeg. The objective is to move on to a better quality capture for all my work. RAW is way better than jpeg also a raw file can never be changed, it can be altered, converted and saved as another file but it is the digital negative. A jpeg conversion will only be done for the purpose of putting the photos online. My changing to raw is not going to throw my exposure theory out of the window. The way I expose is based off of experience and not theory. Im not afraid of filling my card, I only need two good shots for my editorial column and the rest is gravy. I guess I will find out if the size difference means, another mem card is in order. I will for the purpose of the exposure discussion, shoot one to the right and post it. Thanks for the tip on the mem card, I would hate to have that in my mind when shooting, but dont think Im going to hit that wall, but if I do, then I will be pissed and need to get another Card.

 

[tjdphotos]

I also tend to do a fair amount of band photography, I find that a longer exposure at a higher iso with a burst of flash can give some good results, it captures movement while keeping the photograph from descending into a massive blur.

I've added a few band photographs to my flickr (I'll add more as time goes on and as I sort them) I hope this gives you an idea of what i'm talking about.

I'm not ready to jump to flash photography yet, but your flicker photos look cool.

~ peace tjd

 

[Overread]

before you get confused you can't use a RAW image for anything. It is a negative and has to be saved as something (like a JPEG or TIFF) in order to be printed or further edited. Otherwise it remains a negative and unusable.
This is party due to its nature and also due to the fact that RAW is not a single file format - its a type of file, but there are many different RAW formats, even with the same photocompany brand there are different RAWs for different cameras.

 

[beni_hung]

To see the bands I have photographed click here or goto
FotoPlayer
~peace tjd

I really like your site! Do you know the bands you're shooting or are they just passing through? And who is playing in the background? Shoot me a PM!

 

[LarissaPhotography]

We don't shoot raw because it takes up too much hard drive space afterwards. It seems like we're always burning through more disk space, and shooting jpg helps reduce the amount of space required. If you've got the space though, I'd say go for it.

 

[Garbz]

Yeah tjdphotos my comment wasn't really targeted at you but at the suggestions others are making.

We don't shoot raw because it takes up too much hard drive space afterwards.

Is that really a valid concern these days where a WD 1TB Harddrives are $108? You could fit 62500 10megapixels RAW files onto that drive.
Or just do what I do, process the RAWs and then archive the finished JPEGs.

 

[tjdphotos]

I really like your site! Do you know the bands you're shooting or are they just passing through? And who is playing in the background? Shoot me a PM!

Thanks for the complement beni, Mostly local bands that I don't know. PM sent!
~peace tjd

 

[tjdphotos]

Yeah tjdphotos my comment wasn't really targeted at you but at the suggestions others are making.



Is that really a valid concern these days where a WD 1TB Harddrives are $108? You could fit 62500 10megapixels RAW files onto that drive.
Or just do what I do, process the RAWs and then archive the finished JPEGs.

Yeah I know, Garbz, The raws will not stay on the hard drive they will be burned to dvd, I've had a hard crash before, it wasnt pretty. lost allot of photos.

~ peace tjd