New Lens, Old Camera Question

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by Ricochetrider, Feb 17, 2021.

  1. Time, its all about time. Sometimes you just do have the time to mess around trying to save bad photos.
     
  2. To me, processing RAW is not at all trying to save bad photos - it is part of the process of creating an image. Just like it was in the "good old days" working up a negative to create the final print. All under my control - which was hard and expensive to do with color negative film if one wanted to create one's own prints. I try to avoid saving bad photos - a polished turd is still a turd.

    I come from shooting slide film almost exclusively - so getting things right at the moment of exposure was mandatory as almost nothing could be changed after the fact. Shooting SOOC JPEG thus should come natural to me - but I very much prefer shooting RAW and preserving my options for later. As David pointed out, for a wildlife photographer it isn't uncommon to come home with 1000 images and process only a carefully selected 10. When I shoot anything but wildlife, I don't produce nearly as many images - so the workload processing RAW isn't high then either.

    Nope. To me it's about the process and having control. I can view all my images without processing any - and in many cases that's exactly what I do. Then I select a few to process - to post and share on some websites or for sale/prints. It's like having my cake and eating it too.
     
    Mary Doo and Sanford like this.
  3. It gets sillier. I f you think you need to do something to the image to make it right, it makes a lot of sense to begin with an image that allows you to do that without the limits JPEG imposes. The rest, as Dieter mentioned, is the same.
    I do not know why that is so difficult. But hey...
     
  4. Using Raw instead of JPEG is not about messing around to save a bad photo. Another red herring, nonsense argument.
    Yes, getting exactly what you want takes time. A JPEG as provided by the camera can always be improved upon. So you're saving time by making do with, instead of saving, a bad photo.
     
    Sanford likes this.
  5. Just a quick addition to the above conversation: extra effort at the time of exposure saves you from having to make adjustments later. Having said that, RAW does provide insurance.

    I'm a JPEG shooter, even when I'm getting paid. BUT - when I do get paid I'm shooting RAW as well, just in case. It did save my butt once or twice, let me tell you.

    Bonus: underexposing RAW is often better than baking in ISO on a JPEG. ISO invariance comes into it, but that depends on the sensor.
     
    Mary Doo likes this.
  6. Leaving aside all the jpeg vs RAW debate, did @Ricochetrider ever get to the bottom of his settings issue?
     
    Sanford likes this.
  7. "Leaving aside all the jpeg vs RAW debate, did @Ricochetrider ever get to the bottom of his settings issue?"
    I am also curious whether or not the OP found a solution, but why worry about that when having a good old fashioned pissing match about something else is a time honored Photo.net tradition.
     
  8. I have been a photo.net member longer than you and I don't like RAW. How about that!?
     
  9. Maybe I should have put an emoji after above?
     
  10. Which oil should I use in my new car?
     
  11. The lubricating kind.
     
    ericphelps likes this.
  12. Since you were using the super-wide 7-14mm, would it be possible that you turned on "Keystone Compensation" to reduce distortion? If so, the camera would gray out the "Raw Only" selection, but you can still select Raw + Jpg. Turn Keystone off and "Raw Only" would be available again. This restriction is applicable to all lenses. Not sure why, but it is what it is.

    Maybe this is not the reason why you cannot access Raw-Only. But this is one of the few reasons. Good luck!
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2021 at 9:11 PM
    Ken Katz likes this.
  13. Re Raw and Jpeg: I select this setting most of the time and admit to just using the Jpg version that looks good enough. But Raw is important when the exposure is less than ideal - e.g., too bright or too dark or, worse, partially too dark and partially too bright. Raw makes it easier to recover these bad areas, if they can be recovered at all, without introducing too much artifacts. In general, it is always good practice to shoot raw or at least include this option.
     
  14. (I am catching up on this thread..) Think this is probably what happened - either OP had turned on "Keystone Compensation" or the super-wide automatically turns it on. Thus the camera disables "Raw-Only".

    I would be interested to hear from OP.

    @Ricochetrider, I hope the prior "discussions" about Raw vs Jpg had not scared you away?. :D
     
    ericphelps likes this.
  15. Jeez. What would you have done back in the film era when negatives had to be developed and then printed in the darkroom before you could get a decent image? RAW processing is lightning fast in comparison.

    @ Ludmilla. Shooting RAW has nothing to do with number-crunching or pixel peeping. The benefits of decent colour and improved dynamic range are obvious on the macro scale. Just by looking at the entire picture.

    This is a SOOC Jpeg:
    DSC_9886-small.jpg

    And this is the shadow detail I could recover from a RAW file:
    DSC_9886-mod-small.jpg
    The manipulated RAW picture is how I saw the scene.
    No single JPEG exposure would have got me the result I visualised and wanted. Not without bracketing and involving a lot more time and p*ssing about, both at the scene and in post.
     
  16. I shot slides.
     
  17. You have managed to polish a turd. Well done.
     
    Sanford likes this.
  18. And then waited for the lab to process them.
    So why the hurry these days?
    I don't see a lot of illustrations coming from you to support JPEG use!
     
  19. In a past life, sometimes people wanted photos ASAP and they wanted slides. A 24 hour turn around from a local E6 processor was faster than post processing digital files.Theoretically, slides, the keepers anyway, were ready to go as is, no post processing required.
     
  20. Any subject with a dynamic range that fits in the 7 stops of a slide film would take about 5 minutes tops to process from RAW - adjust the white balance, maybe adjust any skew, crop and get the blues out of the shadows - done!

    Anything that exceeds those 7 stops and you're in negative-film territory and a world of pain to get a decent positive print/scan. And taking a load more time than adjusting a RAW file's tone curve and white-balance.

    I'm really not seeing a heap of time saving anywhere. Just a 'that'll do' attitude by accepting an always compromised JPEG.
     

Share This Page