DSLR 101

[ebiggs1]

Here is a sample of RAW and how it can help make your photos better. 

Normal RAW exposure.

Normal exposure jpg.  They look pretty close because you are looking at a computer monitor.  The RAW has been converted to jpg in post.  The original jpg was done by the camera, a 1Ds Mk III in this case.

However, suspose you got something wrong. In this case I under exposed it by 3 stops.  But it could be any condition.  WB, color balance, saturation, and on and on, etc.

Corrected RAW.

Corrected jpg.  But below lets look a little closer.

Especially check the shadows. Can you see the difference?  Need a better look?  OK, here is a 100% crop of that enlargment.

It should be blantly obivious that RAW is the way to go.  All else was equal. Same camera. Same lens. Same time of day. Same, same!

Get Lightroom................

[jazzman1]

BTW... I agree with what you said about inches vs. pixels.  Yes, depends on what one wants and is trying to do, one could choose to use inches or pixels.  I said what I said because in the words of Biggs himself...what I was talking about is "real life experience".  It was what I did in finding a solution.  It's what worked for me.  Inches may have worked also, but what I described was the process that succeeded in solving the problem.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

Bob it's hard to believe you're older than Biggs and me.  Your pic looks so much younger.

---

Well, I'm not trying to deceive anybody, so I went back and looked it up. The picture was taken (by a colleague at work) six years ago, when I was 71. I guess I should update it one of these days.

[jazzman1]

Bob you don't look 71 in that pic.  And you say you're now 6 yrs older man that's hard to believe !!!!   Man, your mind is still sharp as a tack and your memory seems to still be serving you well.  I do believe you Bob, it's just i never would have guessed had you not said.  You and Biggs seem to have lived a charmed life my friend, and you're both having the time of your life doing what you both love.  Must be nice, really really nice.  Keep up the good work, I'll be all ears.  Biggs and yourself have really been a big help and you guys still have much to teach and show me.

[jazzman1]

BTW....Are you still working??????

[jazzman1]

Biggs I see the wavyness in the pics, but I see that in the RAW as well as the jpg.  I can't tell the difference.

BTW...What's the fastest SD card you use with your camera's.  I want the fastest my camera can utilise.  I'm using SanDisk Class 10 Extreme Plus 80 mb speed .  Is that overkill with my 60D and SX60 HS Super Zoom???

[ebiggs1]

"Please be clear on one thing if you're not already: Ernie and I aren't arguing to get you to do things his way or mine. We're just telling you what works for us, in the hope that you'll find enough of it useful that it can help you become a better photographer."

This says it all.  Nobody wants a clone.  How boring would that be?  A person hears and either takes advice or they don't.  It's your choice.

I worked for Hallmark Cards for 40 years. I was the Graphics Arts Trainer for 20 of those years.  I had a photography business on the side.  Now I am retired now and this is just a hobby.  At this point I simply experiment with equipment and am happy. A drastic change for me for sure.

But on to you!  What I mean by seemingly pushing you towards a certain thing like 'RAW' for example, is I have found this to be, my opinion of the best.  It is not, and not meant to be, the end all way to do successful photography.  I still have highly successful and profitable friends that don't agree with me on a few topics.  How they do it, works for them.  I have a friend that uses DPP and CS2.  He won't move from that.  Is he unusual?  Darn right and maybe the only one left in the USA that does that.  But it works for him and it has for some time.

On this same thought trend, if you do not see the appearent improvement in the samples at the beginning of this thread, RAW may not be for you.  Actually it is likely a waste of time and effort.  As you grow you might come back and take a new look and say, "Hey, that is very much better."  Does this make it right or wrong?  Absolutely not.  It is all in what your requirements and expectations are.

On the inches vs pixels, neither is right or wrong. They are simply different ways to the same goal.  However, nobody knows what a pixel is.  Do you?  No, I didn't think so.  You do know what an inch is!  You can see your monitor right in front of you.  You know its size?  Pick a size in inches that fits.   When/if you get LR this is what you will see.

And this is the posted result.

[ebiggs1]

"Biggs I see the wavyness in the pics, but I see that in the RAW as well as the jpg.  I can't tell the difference.

BTW...What's the fastest SD card you use with your camera's.  I want the fastest my camera can utilise.  I'm using SanDisk Class 10 Extreme Plus 80 mb speed .  Is that overkill with my 60D and SX60 HS Super Zoom???"

First the SD card.  The fastest card is usually not a requirement unless you shoot video.  It is always best to use the SD card that Canon recommends in your 6D manual.  As a matter of fact, it is always best to use what Canon recommends no matter what accessory it is.  They built and know your camera better than anyone else.

Second do you not see unwanted aritfacts in the shadow areas?  How about noise?  How about a loss of sharpness?

[jazzman1]

Biggs I see the wavvy vertical lines in the upper building.  Don't see much else.  Noise???  No.   Not saying it's not there, I just don't see it.  Why don't you point it out and then i will tell you if i see it too.  Far as sharpness, it seems sharp to me.  It would be better if I had an a & b example to choose from.  On the face of it, looks fine to me.  Are you sure I would see all that from my monitor???  Is it the same as seeing it in person instead of on the net???

I'm going to stick with RAW.  No matter if I see the difference now  or not, I believe what you're saying that  it's best.  I will evenually see what you're talking about, I have no doubt about that. 

What SD cards do you use yourself???  What class and speed???

BTW...That's some Pc setup you have, even 2 27" monitors.  But I knew you would have a good rig with your professional experience and stuff you do.  No way you could do what you do without having a top flight Pc.  8 gigs of ram has been fine for me up to now.  And only 2 of my Pc's will take more than 8gb ram.  But I only need one for exclusive use with my Pics and Video's, and the one I'm going to upgrade maxes out at 32gb ram.  It's the only one with a high def monitor with 1080p, my others only have 720p.   If I add the editing software I will need more ram I believe.  I'm like you, besides working on pics and video I also want to be able to mulit task with other programs at the same time.  Right now I also run muliable programs at the same time with no issue. 

[jazzman1]

You're right about the inches vs. pexels, I have no problem with that.  To each his own.  Depends on what you're doing and trying to acheve and the program yu're working with.   I think I know what pexels are, they make the resolution in a photo sharp.  I don't know the tecnical explenation, but I know you need a minimum number of pexels for a given sharp image.  And I know if you crop a pic, your image will suffer if you don't have enough pexels to start with.  Anyhow I think that's right.

[ebiggs1]

What SD cards do you use yourself???  What class and speed???

I have a Lexar 16GB 400x speed and a SanDisk 16GB 40MB/s right here in front of me.