:tiphat:

Totally agree. I was just thinking it might just be too much and possibly discouraging for someone starting out...especially if you don't know your way around a camera ....let alone a program like Photoshop. It might just be me and probably in my head, but I tend to think jpeg encourages shooting more pics. Something people who are new to photography often don't do enough of. No one likes having to edit in post.

It's true, JPEG is the province of the snapshot shooter because it takes up less memory card space and is faster in editing programs like Photoshop becasue it's a smaller image file. Additionally, most of the cameras out there apply various image manipulation algorythms to JPEGS (in addition to compression) in the camera to adjust the image to have a color balance etc that the camera manufacturer thinks that the photographer will think is a pleasing image. From my standpoint, I'd rather make those decisions myself, hence I prefer to shoot in RAW. Doing so, I can adjust, for example, the exposure of the image just exactly as if I'd had the camera's exposure set differently. With JPEG, I can only apply an overlay of lightness or darkness (with all the added artifact that implies), not change the actual exposure settings.

For quick and dirty pictures, I just shoot in JPG just for the sake of time and file size. Even though I have a 32 gb memory card, shooting in RAW takes too much time to edit and the file sizes are just cumbersome to deal with. Simple color/contrast/exposure Photoshop adjustments work fine on JPG files and besides, you're not going to upload 1920x1080 resolution pictures to your online photo album and nobody wants to wait for a picture of that size to load. Unless you're shooting a wedding or some super important event, JPG is fine.

Editing a RAW image for exposure etc, then re-rezzing and/or resizing as a JPEG for an online photo album or something will result in a superior image to just shooting the thing in JPEG. There's nothing magic or esoteric about RAW. Rather than reserving this very basic concept for some super important event, it's more accurate to say RAW photo editing should be used anytime you have images that you care about. It's true however, if you're just doing snapshots, or if you don't understand basic photography, editing in JPEG is probably "good enough" and letting the camera make all the imaging decisions is reasonable.

http://media.ziptied.com/members/fil..._thumbs_up.gif

Some truth in that, I'll grant you, but each one that can produce equally great results.

RAW:
Pro's
-uncompressed/lossless data from your camera's sensor
-higher dynamic range
Con's
-requires post processing 100% of the time
-can't print without post processing
-larger files size (around 8mb's for an 8 mp image)
-not as sharp & lower in contrast (without post processing)


JPEG:
Pro's
-image standard format
-sharper
-can print without post
-no correction needed most of the time (if shot correctly)
-low file size (1-3mb for an 8mp image)
Con's
-lower dynamic range
-compressed file (opposite of lossless. You could lose data when you manipulate) Basically, data the human eye can't percieve is thrown away much like an mp3 file is to music.


The good news is that most DSLR's in-camera software process jpeg's pretty well as oppose to inexpensive point & shoots. Shooting RAW is great because it lets you edit white balance, exposure all with lossless data. It means fixing a mistake made in the field is easier to correct. I personally shoot in jpeg+RAW 50% of the time.

A perfectly shot image will not need post processing. If you have to heavily edit every single image you shoot in post, you're doing something wrong in the field.

Nice pics. I like the rpm & shift nob photo's the best.

:tiphat:

Yes, but you assume that everyone is capable of shooting a perfectly exposed image with perfect white balance, color, and saturation. It also assumes that every scene being shot has even light distribution and doesn't require any post processing. I use a Nikon D3 with professional lenses, been doing photography and darkroom work since the 70's and I am of the opinion that such an animal as a perfectly shot image rarely, if ever, exists in its ability to reflect the photographer's artistic vision. I rarely find any image that I shoot to be perfect even out of my $5000 camera with its $1700 lenses.

Show me somebody who doesn't post-process their photographs from their digital camera and I'll show you somebody who is just doing shapshots. It would be a very rare professional photography gallery indeed, whether shot in JPEG or RAW, that demonstrates images that are not post-processed. Ansel Adams photgraphic art was ALL about post-processing. Compared to the hours and money I used to spend in the darkroom cropping, exposing, dodging, burning, I rejoice in the ability to accomplish all of that and FAR more in front of my computer far cheaper and far quicker.

My point is that post-processing is desirable for virtually every image if the photographer wants to achieve the artistic vision he had in his head when he pushed the button. If that's the case, then IMHO far better to start with digital data that is accurately and easily amenable to such manipulation.

I think your logic is beyond the point of this thread. Geez it's just a file type. No need to get all worked up about it. I'm not arguing, in fact I completely agree. This isn't a jpeg vs RAW thread, so lets not turn it into one. Of course shooting RAW has it's benefits, but for someone who's just starting out like the OP's brother, it's more of a burden than an advantage.

Having a wealth of knowledge & experience with photography, You of all people should know $$$ equip doesn't always equal better pictures. I'm not a pro by any means, but the notion that every shot must be post processed to be any good is a bit of a reach. It's obviously more difficult to get it right in the field, but it's not some unicorn you'll never catch. Artistic vision aside, everyone I know does some sort of post processing, including myself. I guess my point is that people tend to rely on post as a crutch. Artistic vision starts in the field, not in front of the computer screen.

He's not stating every image should be developed in post. No one develops every single image, If they are then I want to know that photographer who shoots all images flawlessly. However, you shoot all your images in raw to have "uncompressed" quality. JPG is good for 60% of people. It gets them adequate RGB values. However I find the colors crushed and the inability to retouch and or edit is scary and unprofessional. But again the forum isn't comprised of fashion photographers car photographers. My two cents as a professional if you feel really good about a shoot after the first few shots switch to raw + L JPG. You'll he happy you did.


ThePhotographer

Of course. Artistic vision starts in the field but it doesn't end there for images that are important to the shooter. And if one is going to post-process in order to make the picture reflect what the shooter wants it to reflect, better to do it in RAW. Post-processing images shot in JPEG requires that you undo what the camera has decided about color, sharpness, white balance, and exposure, or even worse, try to overlay your own processing concepts on the decisions the camera has already made about those aspects.

Certainly I don't advocate post-processing every image one shoots. The majority of mine don't even get past the thumbnail stage. When I find an image that I like in my camera, I want to be the one who decides how it's going to print up, not my camera, or worse, KodakGallery (now Shutterfly, I guess) or Whitehouse Color.

I've started shooting in RAW + L Jpeg for everything so if I feel the need/urge to do some read editing in post I can use the RAW format. Otherwise if the JPEG image turned out the way I like it I may well just use that. Digital "film" is free so why not use both.

i guess i should ask what tripod is good now and good lenses?