Any Photographers with DSLR's Around ?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Do not panic the first time you bring a RAW photo into a editor. It does look like crap. That is why you manipulate it.

People often ask if I Photoshopped our images. Well, if not Photoshopped then it's "Lightroomed" at least. It's the only way to get a print (jpg) from the negative (raw).

Then there's the folks who shoot jpg because it is "more honest". That is utterly clueless if you excuse my language, because now it is the camera that does the processing. Stuff like "vivid" settings can be done in-camera for jpg output or on the computer when developing a raw file. Both the same and on the computer you can be more honest by adjusting everything so that it looks exactly like the real scene.

I often use a circular polarizing filter. Make sure you have and use one in the tropics too!

cut it up, bring it to our gardens:


ciao!
Nick.

[MacG]

@Nick
Macro's are nice! Never tried to do it - as my regular subjects are already difficult enough.

Some years ago I began to help aspiring models with their carreer.

Only point is that it is almost impossible to get those imagefiles back to webstandards w/o loosing a lot of quality on the way to downsize that I have to do in steps.
Here is one sample

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by MacG

@Nick
Macro's are nice! Never tried to do it - as my regular subjects are already difficult enough.

Some years ago I began to help aspiring models with their carreer.

Only point is that it is almost impossible to get those imagefiles back to webstandards w/o loosing a lot of quality on the way to downsize that I have to do in steps.
Here is one sample

Nice pic!

Do a free trial at Smugmug.com. You can upload full resolution up to 27MByte IIRC and they do all the processing to smaller versions. Also, no limits on number of puctures etc.

Some cruiser friends have BIG cameras, some not so big


ciao!
Nick.

[MacG]

What is big?

Is this big? I use the Fujinon 220 mm almost exlusively: comparable to a 80 mm on 35mm format full frame.

The sheer size makes it virtually unworkable to go to remote locations, although once I did a job on the beach with the tripod, the flashheads (fed by a small generator) on a long powerline into the sea.

[barnakiel]

Our camera shoots raw but we never use it. On screen, there is no difference. In print, the only difference comes if you post-process the raw. So, IMHO, it is better to shoot hq jpeg, bracket, re-compose and then use the best outcome for publication.

Sure thing, once you start making money with your pictures, you will want to get the max of what your equipment can deliver. But at this point, you will likely have a camera that shoots raw at the rate most P&S shoot jpeg!

b.

[MacG]

You better use JPEG for webpurposes and use TIF for further processing.
I process through Adobe CS5 - have the full series.

JPEG is low in quality. But easy to resize.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by MacG

You better use JPEG for webpurposes and use TIF for further processing.
I process through Adobe CS5 - have the full series.

JPEG is low in quality. But easy to resize.

png works for the web as well, I think the browsers are all capable of reading it.

Once I start processing, I leave my files in psd until I am ready to use them.

Tiff is a good printing format, but the files are huge.

And, as a lossy format, JPEG gets compressed and loses quality every time you save it.

As well there is no point to using more 72 dpi for anything to be viewed on a screen. Use at least 240 dpi for printing.

One other hint, if you are going to use USM, do it at the end of the process.

[barnakiel]

I do not think jpeg is low quality.

An image can be saved in a lossless jpeg and then it is only up to the camera's engine how much of the original information is placed in the file.

So, to put it this way, a hq jpeg from a good camera beats a raw from a bad one hands down.

b.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I do not think jpeg is low quality.

An image can be saved in a lossless jpeg and then it is only up to the camera's engine how much of the original information is placed in the file.

So, to put it this way, a hq jpeg from a good camera beats a raw from a bad one hands down.

b.

Depends on what you want to do with it. If you need to recover highlights etc the raw from the "bad" may still be a better option

[MacG]

@ Jackdale

I use 1200 dpi for printing.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by MacG

@ Jackdale

I use 1200 dpi for printing.

great detail - notice I said "at least."

Your files might be huge.

[s/v Jedi]

A jpg can never be better than a raw file because the jpg only holds a small subset of the data in a raw file.

Remember that you can't display a raw file, just like you can't display a film negative (kinda). So the camera puts a jpg preview into the raw file and this is what you see on the display and when you "view" the raw file on the computer.

So, it's no wonder that you see the same picture with the raw file: it's just a preview generated by the camera just like if it were to record just jpg.

You must develop a raw file like a film negative. It holds all data that came from the sensor.

My camera's output Canon's .CR2 raw file format. Last year I started converting that to .DNG format while importing into Lightroom. Check out the DNG format, it is becoming kind of a standard for RAW.

ciao!
Nick.

[jackdale]

An example of the difference between a raw and jpeg can be found in white balance. You camera's picture in the LCD screen has been put through a auto white balance. In the raw format you will probably have adjust the white balance because it has not yet been done; it really is a raw photo as in unprocessed. This why you will adjust hue, saturation, contrast, etc. before you get what your eye saw.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Nice pic!

Do a free trial at Smugmug.com. You can upload full resolution up to 27MByte IIRC and they do all the processing to smaller versions. Also, no limits on number of puctures etc.

Some cruiser friends have BIG cameras, some not so big


ciao!
Nick.

500L?

[maytrix]

So I have a Canon T3i and Photoshop. How difficult is it to take 300 pictures in the RAW format and make them JPG?

Haven't used RAW yet, but I want to get the best possible pictures I can.