Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by adamlewis88, Mar 18, 2010.
Youre able to recover SO much more with raw than jpg its just silly.
Or, just get it right the first time
Tru dat...why anyone shoots JPG (assuming they have sufficient storage space/cards, especially since it's so affordable now) is beyond me.
I just think that if you invest in a camera that can shoot in RAW, you should know what you're doing and you should take advantage of RAW.
Yeah because without using filters, I could have totally done that the first time
Especially with things like Lightroom now where you edit a raw image the exact same way you would edit a JPG only with more latitude available to you.
I only shoot RAW if I have a hard time getting it right out of camera, or I know I am going to be possibly making large (24x36) prints. Capturing and storing 100s of ~40MB RAW files as opposed to ~6MB jpg does make a difference. Yes storage is getting cheaper, but that still doesn't justify storing all of it.
you dont have to store the raws, when youre done processing you store your jpgs and a selected few raws.
Getting it right would have been to use filters.
But in all seriousness, yes that is something where shooting RAW does save your butt.
True, yes. But when in the field and your flash cards fill up, then your screwed. IBBuylargercards
Part of your investment in a camera is its ability to produce a great picture when captured correctly right out of the camera. Take advantage of it, let the camera do the work.
So tell me again why exactly shooting with a filter is any more 'right' than using technology to pull back highlights later? Why would I want to carry around more crap and mess with taking stuff on and off when I can simply do this later?
If thats right, let me be wrong all day long
I guess beautiful pictures just fall out of your camera, right?
In this case, the camera did the work. Its sensor recorded all that data and let me pull it back later.
No they don't just fall out, I try to get them right instead of trying to make a decent picture afterwards. I'm just saying I would rather take the time to get it right then and there instead of sitting in front of a computer editing them later. Its the same thing people did for years with film.
Oh you mean dodging and burning and using contrast filters? You know people worked a LOT in a darkroom, right? I cant stand it when people think that post processing is some kind of gimmick. It is literally the other half of the equation. Every great picture you have ever seen has been edited in SOME way.
Yes I do know that, I did it for years too. The main principle is still to try and get it right the first time. I post on my pictures as well, I just like to try and minimize it. RAW vs JPG is a never ending arguement.
And now technology has advanced to the point where this is not an issue, otherwise everyone would still use film.
And the cost of storage shouldn't be an issue because its not like you're developing piles of rolls of film and buying prints.
I only shoot raw.
its not an argument, though, as far as i'm concerned...
Which I did too in this case. I exposed for what I could and pulled back the hot parts. You still never explained why using a filter is any more 'right' than pulling it back later.
I shoot .jpg at work, it would take too long for me to process 1500 Pictures on a daily basis.
I guess my taking it right the first time was takin a bit too seriously.
My thinking is to get it as close as possible using filters, proper meetering etc so I have more to work with and less time sitting at a computer. I came from film where this is how I learned to shoot. It has just stuck with me. I also don't have the time to "process" all my files. I would ratther shoot it in jpg, tweak a little and be done. Again, to each his own. Wasn't knocking you or the way you shoot. My initial comment was meant to be funny.
Yup. Film you err on the side of underexposing, then push if you need to, on digital, shoot raw and err on the side of overexposing, because you can pull back and recover a fair amount.
i shoot both. if its an easy scene and have no issues capturing the scene as i see fit, i use jpg. If its something that im kinda iffy about RAW...
however, i shoot roughly an average of 300-500 frames a day, and fuck processing that many raws! lol Even with my super computer it still sucks.
i think both formats have there place.
Anyone have personal experience with shoot RAW on a 40D/50D and comparing it to a 5DmkI?
It seems like I can do so much more with a RAW file from my 50D then I can with a 5DkI. But then again, i just got the 5D and my sample size of RAW files taken with the 5D has been only a few pictures.