shooting raw?

[manaheim]

And the thing is, what would happen if people stopped? It could get a lot worse.

Ooooooo... A slippery slope argument! Awesome!!! Haven't seen many of those lately!!! Of course, there's no ACTUAL evidence that the whining has EVER cut down the number of threads started up around here asking the same questions over and over and over, but let's not let that get in the way of a good logical fallacy!

And neither can you demonstrate that mine (AND OTHER PEOPLE'S) "whining" hasn't stopped it. So, what? You're trying to represent my argument as a logical falicy with a logical falicy? Not to mention I did not represent that as a fact, but rather posed it as a question.

TPF is unique in that the culture here has a little bit of an expectation to it. I don't personally want to see it slide completely into attaboys and people constantly asking the same questions like some other forums I've seen.

Luckily, we have you to stop it with your whining. Whew! Thanks!! What's it like to have a super-power like that?

By the way, I'd also like to point out that while Buckster is laying into me like a dirty rug

Yes, you're a dirty, naughty little rug made of bunny hare. Now lie there like a good little rug or I'll take you out back, hang you over a clothesline and have Michelle beat the dust out of you with a riding crop!

Humorous remark aside, you're just being childish.

I understand you want to defend the weak here, but you're just throwing rocks and having a temper tantrum and it's really ridiculous.

I'm going to stop here and let you have your way. Have at it.

 

[Buckster]

And the thing is, what would happen if people stopped? It could get a lot worse.

Ooooooo... A slippery slope argument! Awesome!!! Haven't seen many of those lately!!! Of course, there's no ACTUAL evidence that the whining has EVER cut down the number of threads started up around here asking the same questions over and over and over, but let's not let that get in the way of a good logical fallacy!

And neither can you demonstrate that mine (AND OTHER PEOPLE'S) "whining" hasn't stopped it. So, what? You're trying to represent my argument as a logical falicy with a logical falicy? Not to mention I did not represent that as a fact, but rather posed it as a question.

OH! SORRY!! WRONG ANSWER!! Hope you didn't wager too much on that one in Double Jeopardy with yet ANOTHER logical fallacy - the Burden of Proof Fallacy!!

The burden of proof is on the one making the CLAIM, and that would be YOU. If YOU want to claim, even by inference with your slippery slope argument, that your whining prevents the forum from erupting in an overflowing stream of repeat-question-itis, then YOU get the burden of proving it's so, while NOBODY has the burden of proving it's NOT so.

Example: If I say there are invisible pink poodles with gills that live at the bottom of the ocean and care deeply about your sex life, it's up to ME to prove it since it's MY CLAIM. You have NO BURDEN at all to prove they don't exist.

See how that works?

 

[vintagesnaps]

I haven't been on this site all that long either and I'm astounded at how new people on the board are often treated. What's the point of so far three (now four) pages mostly giving the OP a hard time about his post? If you don't want to discuss it because it's been discussed many many times, then don't post a reply and move on to another thread. There may be someone willing to answer the question, or maybe suggest the OP do a search on here to find prior threads on this topic, etc. This is the beginners' section...

I'm a longtime film photographer and I don't know that I'd necessarily equate RAW and JPEG to film except that RAW is probably more like shooting film using all manual settings to control how the image is recorded and JPEG might be more like using auto settings or a point 'n shoot that determines the camera settings (so basically edits how the photo is recorded). My digital camera shoots DNG so it automatically generates a RAW image and a JPEG image from it for every photo - in general I find the RAW image usually is a better quality image.

I find that much of the time I can use the RAW image directly from the camera. Maybe it's because of the way I learned and shoot film that I mostly frame and compose photos the way I want them and set the camera to get a proper exposure. I don't do much editing in the darkroom either if f I have a well exposed set of negatives. But for some photos I have done more extensive editing/processing, it just depends on the photo.

If the OP is newer to photography it might be worth trying shooting a few RAW images and see how they turn out. If you feel like you get better results shooting JPEG then that might be the best option. Later on as your skills develop you might try shooting RAW again and then be able to get better results. Sometimes I think you just have to try something, figure out what worked and what didn't, and that's part of the learning process.

Sharon

 

[BrianV]

1. I appreciate those who actually answered my Q, i did learn from each response...
2. You do not have to eat me up alive for breaking "forum rule #1" and asking a noob Q that has prob been asked before and looking like i havent heard of google before....
I am trying to learn a lot all at one time and did try looking up some information on raw but wanted to opinion of some other people who might be able to answer the Q in simple terms...

So, i guess that even though shooting raw is the more professional way to go, i am still learning how to use photoshop so i wouldnt really know how to properly edit a raw image anyways. I hope one day I will have a good enough handle of my camera in manual to be able to do all the rest too...

Thanks again......

Adobe Lightroom makes it much easier to process RAW files, and includes the function to "batch" convert all the selected images to JPEG in a couple of clicks. You can make corrections on groups of images. The RAW image includes all of the information that the camera uses to make "in camera JPEGS", and Lightroom will use that information for converting to JPEGS. Lightroom gives the option of changing the "White Balance", reduce noise, increase contrast, exposure, etc and then convert to JPEG. It is much easier to use than Photoshop for these corrections.

If you are using a point and shoot- not much advantage. Shooting a DSLR: most new ones use 14-bits to represent intensity in the pixel, entry-level DSLR's use 12 bits. Think of it as picking up 64x or 16x tonal resolution on a pixel compared to 8-bit JPEG. No one would be happy with a new monitor that has a 256:1 contrast range, 16384:1 is better. I could nitpick this comparison, the camera is going to "scale, and optimize, and be smart about conversions", blah, blah, blah: but it is not hard to do yourself and Lightroom and other raw processing software makes it easy.

There are JPEG standards for 12-bits and beyond. No one seems to support it. JPEG-2000 has a lot of flexibility, but back to no one uses it.

 

[imagemaker46]

I like that!

I've always seen them as raw being like a negative that can be used with darkroom equipment to make many different versions of a print, while a JPG is more like a Polaroid - what pops out of the camera is what you've got (for the most part), and accurate manipulation of it is very limited.

Guess the photographer better be skilled enough to get it right in camera then.

So you shoot with Polaroids then, huh?

Just never had a need to shoot raw. Personal choice, and I usually get it right. It took a lot of years, trial and error, but that's how photography goes.

 

[480sparky]

Just never had a need to shoot raw. Personal choice, and I usually get it right. It took a lot of years, trial and error, but that's how photography goes.

I didn't ask if you shoot in raw. I asked if you shoot with a Polaroid.

 

[imagemaker46]

Wow!

Just registered on this forum and thought I would have a quick look at the sections available. As a newcomer to this whole place - I thought that I would expect to see the usual "welcome" messages. When all is said and done - it is a section for newcomers.

...But no - the aggression with which a perfectly reasonable question is received on this forum makes it look like this is going to be a VERY interesting place.

My initial observation seems to be that to survive this place one needs to be pretty sure of oneself.

What a disgrace that people should respond to a person's correctly situated and very reasonable response. Quite clearly there are some people on this board who are entirely at home with projecting what amounts to a pretty obnoxious persona.

Perhaps those "welcoming" people might get a grip on their egos and step back a little!!!

Welcome to the forum indeed!!

Welcome to the forum. This doesn't happen all the time, just a lot of the time. Threads get taken over when one person has nothing to say, but chooses to say it anyway. The backlash from a comment starts the ball rolling and soon after it's a discussion between two or three people completely unrelated to the thread.

There is a lot of good information that comes from this forum, sometimes you have to just cut through the crap to find it.

 

[imagemaker46]

Just never had a need to shoot raw. Personal choice, and I usually get it right. It took a lot of years, trial and error, but that's how photography goes.

I didn't ask if you shoot in raw. I asked if you shoot with a Polaroid.

Nope, never had a need to use Polaroid.

 

[BrianV]

I use a Polaroid 180 at home and a Polaroid C-4 Scope Camera with a Tektronix 2230 Oscilloscope in the lab.

"The Beginner's forum is for asking basic technical photographic questions about things like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, white balance, metering modes, focusing modes."

The forum also has an off-topic forum where some members post absolutely fascinating stuff like:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/318534-your-attention-please.html#post2877844

There is also a Feedback forum for threads to improve the site:

Feedback and Suggestions

One way to prevent bullying of new members and censorship through intimidation would be for the forum administration to create a user-group for some members that would prevent them from having access to the beginners forum. That way they will not have to even see it, and will not feel compelled to insult new members that use this forum for it's stated purpose.

 

[manaheim]

omg... people seriously.

Yes, there was a bit of a dust up, but it clearly ended... so how is your perpetuating it by continuing to poke those who were in the middle of it any better than starting it to begin with? Move on.

 

[ratssass]

....just for chits and grins,type in "shooting raw" in the forum search.All it does is show you every thread that its mentioned in.Not very useful.Now try "Why shoot raw"...Its just a cluster**** of threads that have those words in the thread ​somewhere.....

 

[480sparky]

"Shooting raw" is merely a tool. It is NOT a crutch, as some "I always get it right in the camera" purists will pretend it to be. It is a TOOL.

A tool........ just like a lens, a filter, a tripod, a grip, a flash, a reflector, a focus rail, a remote release, a handheld meter, a gray card, a wireless flash trigger, a rain cover, a sandbag, a light tent, a DOF app, a lens hood, a photographers vest, an L-bracket, a light stand, a dark bag, a LensBaby, A Nodal Ninja, a monitor calibrater........ ad nasuem ad infinitum.

Those who claim they don't 'need' to shoot raw solely because they claim to always 'get it right in the camera', usually fall into three categories. 1. They can shoot JPEG because they don't need (or have the time for) raw, 2. They've never taken the time to truly understand the advantages of raw files, or 3. They just don't care.

To those purists, I ask you....... would you be OK with this SOOC image?

If not, what would you do in the field to improve it?

 

[table1349]

Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat. While I do believe in getting it right in the camera and have for over 40 years now. I still made corrections and edits in the darkroom then and still do now with digital. Get it right in the camera usually means a couple of things, at least to me.
1. Easier to edit with less work in editing.
2. Better final product.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.......





P.S. The third rock up from the bottom has some dust on it. The photo would look neater if you removed that dust.:lmao:

 

[rambler]

On the first page of this thread Greybeard stated,
"The real advantage of shooting Raw is that you have control over the process and not the camera. It is much easier to correct a bad white balance with a Raw file than it is with a JPEG because no real white balancing has been added to the Raw file, it is simply the (raw) data straight from the camera. "
As a new user of Photoshop (I am not sure why I cannot get out of the bold font) I find RAW does give better or at least easier options for changing and adjusting the white balance which can dramatically change the look of an image. A simple drop down menu gives you several choices of white balance with just one click.

One of the best ways of starting with Photoshop is to learn to use the many functions of camera raw, ACR. One of them is simply using the white balance "eyedropper" tool in camera raw and or the temperature slider.

For those using Lightroom 4, ACR there is the same ACR version used in PC CS6.

 

[Buckster]

Sparky, please do not lump all of us "Get it right in the camera" purist in the same boat. While I do believe in getting it right in the camera and have for over 40 years now. I still made corrections and edits in the darkroom then and still do now with digital. Get it right in the camera usually means a couple of things, at least to me.
1. Easier to edit with less work in editing.
2. Better final product.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.......

The question is: Do you shoot RAW?