Do we have a place to show/discuss photo composition etc?

bluegrassmom said:Do we have a place to show/discuss photo composition etc?

Sheila made a thread about that - but I'd suggest you make a new one. With tips or questions or tutorials or whatever. We're all pretty easy here and it seems like people are eager to both learn and dispense advice (as they can).

Just now reading up on this still confusing topic but love your photo's Neil, thanks for sharing!

If anyone has Photoshop (which I can afford only as an educator!) there is a Camera RAW filter that allows you to open a jpeg in camera RAW. Not as good as taking the photo in RAW, but not far off it. Can be useful if you're short on memory when shooting...

I tried using RAW a while back, and it didn't seem to give as good results for creating an HDR. But I'll read through all the posts here,
and try again.

A friend of mine in Oklahoma takes some amazing pics of wild weather, and shoots RAW all the time.

I'll take some RAW images and jpgs, and do some comps.

Also will research it more at the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and here https://photographyconcentrate...
and here https://digital-photography-sc...
Sorry....accidently double posted.
Lots to learn.

After all this discussion (so far) I kinda hate to jump in. I teach digital photography. I even taught a class called: Should I shoot Raw? After 3 hours of discussion and looking at examples the answer was - depends. Let me try to share some of my thoughts in a brief manner. Are you a computer whiz? Do you like to spend more time setting at the computer than you do taking pictures? Shoot raw. Realize that when you shoot raw you have not yet created a picture. You are required to spend some time at the computer to turn that file into something. If you shoot jpg, you have a picture. Yes, in theory there is more info in a raw file to play with. I have yet to meet many people who are great at extracting this additional info. Let's shoot side by side, same camera, subject, light, etc. I'll shoot jpg and you shoot raw. I have a lot of experience doing this. Trust me. My jpg straight out the camera will look better than anything you can create in say, 2 hours of work using your raw file. I am not bragging, just trying to make a small point. In all my photography classes I strive to teach people to become better photographers and not people who need Photoshop. I do not have or use Photoshop. Yes, Irfanview is wonderful software that I tell all my students to get. If you have a Canon camera you already have a great processor for jpg or raw files - called DPP. Final thought - do what works for you. Stop reading 98% of what Google leads you to. Gene

Gene,

For the sake of argument, let's say that you're a photography god. That you know all that there is to know about photography and you're right about everything. Just for fun.

Most modern DSLRs have a setting that takes both RAW and processed .jpgs. Cards are cheap. Storage space is amazingly inexpensive.

Now, if you're the god of photography, I'll make a counterpoint using a little of my experience as an archivist: you can never go wrong in saving more data than less.

Now, putting my photography hat back on, I will say this: there are a LOT of shoots that I have done in only .jpg that I'd give just about anything for RAW files of, too.

In other words, all things equal, you're better off with more data if you can store it. And, today, most of us can.

Further, your argument kind of goes off the rails in that maybe you could shoot a better shot in straight .jpg than I could produce from a RAW file. But you're not here shooting what I see. I couldn't afford that on a lot of levels. But for me...for me here...I can get better results from a RAW file than I can from its accompanying .jpg right out of the camera. Which was part of the point of this thread.

The best counterargument (assuming storage isn't an issue) for not shooting/saving raw is the speed at which the camera writes to the card. If you're shooting quickly (the bees in flight I try to get), RAW is just impossibly slow.

Otherwise, there's no reason not to do both.

When one of my students suggests shooting both raw and jog of each shot, I suggest it is like wearing a belt and suspenders. Gene

I do hope you noticed that I did not tell anyone what format to use. I also did not say I never shoot raw. God is a bit strong. I'll settle for Muse. Gene

A little experiment using Easy HDR Natural2 preset:

Note: rollover/mouseover the first image to see the 2nd....I don't know why they shift a bit (?)

JPG Pseudo HDR vs RAW Pseudo HDR

JPG vs JPG Pseudo HDR

So far, a Pseudo HDR generated from a single JPG looks better (at least to me) than the PSHDR from a RAW (RW2 on my camera)....better color and
definition.

And a JPG PSHDR is better than the original JPG to bring out details lost in shadow in the original.
I'm not sure now a multi-image HDR is really that much if any, better than a Pseudo HDR from one well exposed JPG.

I still need to research & compare more images from RAW files vs JPG Pseudo HDRs. But so far, a single JPG Pseudo HDR
seems to be the best option (for me).

Would like to see anyone else's comparisons.

Maybe results would be different with a different HDR app, e.g. Photomatix? I don't have it, but do have Dynamic Photo HDR, and have
tried a bunch of similar apps before settling on Easy HDR & DPHDR.

I like Easy HDR as it automatically registers multi-images better than DPHDR. I love HDR photography as it reveals details lost in even a perfectly
exposed image. Skies are amazing.....e.g. Blair Valley, California last Feb.....no UV filter, either.

I encourage anyone to experiment & see what suits them.
We all see things differently.

Evermorelawnless,
hope my post didn't go against what you posted originally....I'm not against shooting RAW, and not trying to shoot it down (no pun), or debate about it.
And I'm not against taking a RAW & JPG for backup. I was shooting 3 bracketed RAW images this morning of the clouds plus JPGs,
and will keep experimenting. It may be my camera just doesn't shoot RAW well(?).....maybe it's just me.....I'm technically color blind in the blue range, LOL!

Anyway, thanks for starting this thread and sharing the info about RAW.....I see its value especially to adjust exposure if necessary.

Your pics of the bee on the lavender ice plant are really quite beautiful.

I shoot only raw now.

for a while, I was doing raw and jpeg, but I found I was never using the jpg files.

I always review and adjust my photos using Lightroom.

raw works for me

I agree, I prefer to shoot RAW; I shoot jpeg only when I don't have the memory to shoot RAW (I know, I need to buy more memory cards...)

Well, this isn't really a new discussion as even with film some people saw the use of being more in control of the process than others.

While JPEG and RAW seems like they are two very different approaches, I would argue that they basically are very similar. At some point or another all that raw data needs to be converted to something the human eye can appreciate. We can let the camera or some external software make an automated attempt or we can take control ourselves. No doubt automated software gets better for each generation, but until it can read my mind and make the result match what I envisioned for the photo, JPEG cannot replace RAW for me.

However I would agree with Gene that for most people JPEG is good enough or even superior. If you don't know or have any interest in learning how to adjust a RAW image there is also a fair chance that you will make a mess of the conversion. Good photography doesn't start with a good RAW conversion. It's definitely about being behind the camera, about the composition, the color and the light. It never started in the lab with film either, yet many developed their own film.

I used to take a lot of bug macros at high magnifications, often with flash and judging by the results I have no doubt that a carefully processed RAW is far superior to a JPEG. Why do I say that? Because these kind of shots often require lots of adjustments. The white balance for instance can be a nightmare to get right at shooting time. For instance the color of the flower the bug is perched on often taints the light, resulting in very hard to remove casts. Also contrast adjustments were crucial to me in these situations as this can differ wildly from shot to shot. Same with early morning shots of "sleeping" (the are not actually asleep, just cold and very, very still) bugs.

I would also often dodge and burn flash photos or make different exposures from the same RAW and mix them together by hand for better detail in highlights and shadows. Better flash diffusion could have helped some, but this is always an ongoing process for macro photographers and I believe most will continue to try improving their flash setup over time. Also as the depth of field is very limited some selective sharpening was very useful. As I already need to do all those adjustments to my photos JPEG made no sense at all. If the camera would do this auto-magically, then I would be happy to let it.

Now I do mostly floral photography, but even though I need to make far less adjustment with these I think carefully selected contrast and fine tuned white balance makes a real difference. I already spend a lot of time using the tripod and hunting the best possible light and trying different compositions, so RAW is just a natural part of that process.

The most difficult part for me is not the RAW conversion as such, it is the image selection. What makes this particular image good or bad? That's what I think is the most time consuming part.

This article convinced me to shoot RAW + JPG.

My thoughts on this issue:

I bought an expensive Nikon two years ago. I have spent the two years mostly (exactly as Gasrocks says) crouched over the computer, swearing. I bought a new computer, then another one (now I have a Mac) and Lightroom and Photoshop.
I bought books and researched on the Web. I think after two years of total agony, I am about ready to take photographs!

JPEG is just fine for most purposes. Having spent so much time and money learning about RAW and how to process them, and dragging around heavy equipment, I would say for most folks JPEG makes good sense. But, I like my RAW. Now I just shoot in RAW, then make a JPEG out of it if needed, the computer automatically files the JPEG with the RAW master so it is easy to find. Also the computers are getting better and better at automating things, like I don't even have to tell my Mac to make a photo into a JPEG for export to this site.

The new MacBook with the new operating system (called High Sierra) has improvements in the Photo processing program, that mimic what Lightroom does, and it is all there for free. It is 10X better than the Microsoft product. Also, I live 25 minutes from the Apple Store, they have free 90 minute sessions called Photo Projects, where they have a teacher to help you do your project. Maximum of 4 "students". Yesterday it was a retiree making a photo album that Apple will print for her, and me still working on transferring my Windows photo files the the Mac. These sessions are fabulous I can't say enough good things about them. I totally recommend Apple to new photographers, I struggled and struggled with the Windows system, and there was nobody to help. Instead of improving it, the last upgrade to the operating system made it dumber and less useful. The problem with linux as I see it is you need to be pretty computer-savvy as there is no "Help Desk" or Apple store. However it would probably be great for example if you liked computers, or if you had a friend or family member who used it for photography (this can be a very important consideration).

I bought an expensive Nikon two years ago. I have spent the two years mostly (exactly as Gasrocks says) crouched over the computer, swearing. I bought a new computer, then another one (now I have a Mac) and Lightroom and Photoshop.
I bought books and researched on the Web. I think after two years of total agony, I am about ready to take photographs!

Hi Mary,
I hope you go out this weekend with a full battery & an empty 16GB chip, and enjoy capturing the beauty you see around you.
And hope to see what you get, too.

I recommend one lens (fixed focal length or wide-tele zoom) & no tripod, just to keep it simple, and allow yourself more freedom.
See what you can do with less equipment.....makes you try harder, imho.

But whether you go light or loaded for bear (just images), just have fun with it.

If you shoot RAW + JPG you at least have all the data if you need it, or just to be more creative.

"Better to have it and not need it, than need it
and not have it."