RAW for Nat

[digiman]

Re: RAW for Nat

Its a like HiFi - why spend 1000's on decent speakers and use bell cable to power them !!! but some do, odd

Nice analogy! Now, excuse me while I go to "heavy speaker cables are us....!"

[Robert Scott]

Re: RAW for Nat

I am one of those "lazy" members!!!!!

There is nothing 'lazy' about using JPEG image quality. In my opinion, setting the camera to produce a good image teaches you a lot more about photography than relying on post-processing to achieve your results.

I have nothing against RAW shooting. Somethings I shoot RAW, sometimes I shoot JPEG, sometimes I shoot RAW+JPG, depending on the subject and the situation.

What does annoy me is the small group of members on this forum who, because shooting RAW suits their photography, assume that it is the only way to shoot.

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

Nice analogy! Now, excuse me while I go to "heavy speaker cables are us....!"

LOL...

[the black fox]

Re: RAW for Nat

robert i think what the lads are alluding to is the fact that nat is starting to shoot and post a lot of wildlife shots lately and getting better at it all the time ,however he is reach limited due to weight constraints and therefore tends to crop more to get the same frame fill as some others of us . there is as you will probably realise far more to shooting wildlife than just processing ,this is something i have tried to teach him on past meets and he has absorbed .
Also take into account a lot of the banter is just that friendly banter we have a super forum here and a lot of us have met up and know one another personally .i will endeavour to show nat some hints and tips as i have shown other forum members when they have visited my home ,i'm lucky to live in a fairly good area with easy access to city/mountains/sea/and estuary as well as some awesome wild areas . in fact one local nature reserve is actually guarded due to the sensitive nature of its former existence . i.e a former mustard gas factory and nuclear research facility where the british nuclear bomb was developed in advance of the americans ,you therefore need access via a guard house to the site one of the tunnels next to the bird hide has 30 foot high 6 inch steel doors and nuclear warning signs on it .
might take nat there in fact to get some good shots

[paul linton]

Re: RAW for Nat

I am one of those "lazy" members!!!!!

So am I Nat I Just use that useless good for nothing DPP for every shot i take!,and just between you and me i shot my macro image with the Camera set to P mode whatever next, now i wonder what that green square symbol means might give it a try this weekend.
Keep up the good work Nat and go at your own pace it's all about the enjoyment.

Paul

[antoeknee]

Re: RAW for Nat

Well this thread has started quite a discussion. Hopefully no one feels 'compelled' to change what they are doing just for the sake of doing it.

I think Jeff has it right in that Nat is pushing the boundaries of kit and the way he's capturing images, thinking specifically birds here. On the other hand some of his images from various church functions have been very good and none the worse for shooting in JPEG. Personally I'd like the latitude RAW would give especially if it was once only opportunity.

[Nathaniel]

Re: RAW for Nat

I have always had an open mind in all things photographic and hence I will certainly try some bird shots in both RAW+Jpeg & get help from Jeff who lives quite close to me; he is also very helpful,apart from being knowledgeable. With all the advice I have recently been getting it is only right and proper that I give this a good try and who knows I might become a convert??? The one thing I will not do is to rely on RAW to get me out of trouble i.e to shoot in any way possible knowing that I can rectify the image later on in PP. I like to get the picture right in camera as in the good old film and slides days.

[lunarbo]

Re: RAW for Nat

The one thing I will not do is to rely on RAW to get me out of trouble i.e to shoot in any way possible knowing that I can rectify the image later on in PP. I like to get the picture right in camera as in the good old film and slides days.

This topic seems to be gathering legs and going off by itself!

I understand what you are saying Nat and like you I will try to get it right at the time by checking histogram and looking for blinkies etc. However I have just been in Paris for the weekend, & seen some stunning but gloomy churches. Currently don't have the software or skills to shoot HDR apart from in camera which so far hasn't impressed me. Nor did I have a tripod with me ( see another thread on this) so have relied on doing the best I can do in the circumstances & shot RAW, knowing I can play around with highlights and shadows later. I've basically Got The Shot and don't think I'd have done so otherwise.

[antoeknee]

Re: RAW for Nat

I don't think anyone will be shooting RAW with the thought I can just do what I want and then sort it out later and if they are they are missing the point. I'd like to bet that every single one of us would much prefer to get images out of the camera that need little of no post processing.

Actually there was plenty you could do in the darkroom to rescue shots. Getting it the best you can in camera hasn't changed just because we now use digital capture methods.

[Tigger]

Re: RAW for Nat

I don't think anyone will be shooting RAW with the thought I can just do what I want and then sort it out later and if they are they are missing the point. I'd like to bet that every single one of us would much prefer to get images out of the camera that need little of no post processing.

Actually there was plenty you could do in the darkroom to rescue shots. Getting it the best you can in camera hasn't changed just because we now use digital capture methods.

agree Ant, but its clear the Raw subject is mute

[Robert Scott]

Re: RAW for Nat

agree Ant, but its clear the Raw subject is mute

Not at all. I'm just expressing an opinion. Someone needs to offer an opposing view or it would not be a debate.

[tesarver]

Re: RAW for Nat

I realise that some on this forum will find it difficult to comprehend, but not every EOS camera user has the time/skills/software/inclination to undertake post-processing. And yet they still take good photographs and enjoy their hobby. Isn't that amazing!

Amazing indeed Robert

Tom

[Dave61]

Re: RAW for Nat

Got to say some very good point are getting put across. I remember seeing a photo once and thought WOW that is fantastic, got to be shot in Raw, it was Jpeg and what a shot too. You can have a camera that only does Jpeg and take great shots, or one that does Raw+Jpeg, it is down to the photographer at the end of the day what they use, as you can get fantastic shots in both :)

[Nathaniel]

Re: RAW for Nat

Got to say some very good point are getting put across. I remember seeing a photo once and thought WOW that is fantastic, got to be shot in Raw, it was Jpeg and what a shot too. You can have a camera that only does Jpeg and take great shots, or one that does Raw+Jpeg, it is down to the photographer at the end of the day what they use, as you can get fantastic shots in both :)

Thats why Dave I will be shooting in RAW+Jpeg with my 100D when I take pictures of birds and similar whilst I have left my full frame 6D on Jpeg seeing that my church and concert pictures are fine.(take a look at my Aled Jones pictures taken last week).

[antoeknee]

Re: RAW for Nat

The point of the post was to show Nat that as he's pushing the limits he may need to think about using RAW to get the results he's after.

If we go back to the days of film there were basically two types of photographer those that were happy to take their film to a processing shop and those that ended up with a darkroom at home.