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]

Ok Obiwan (lol)  I believe you.  So I guess Canon can charge alittle more over the L version because it fills a nich market.  I could see where it would be desirable for some.  But I think I will keep the L on my list.  Will be awhile before I could get it though and that sucks.  The EF 24-105mm L I have is a great lens and I love it.  I just long for a little more range at times.  I'll just have to keep using my EF 75-300mm till I can get that L lens.  I'm still sticking to my plan and my list.   I had no intentions to buy anything.  Just window shopping, I do that all the time.  I try to keep up with the different discounts and rebates and lowering of prices, so when I do decide to purchase I've done my homework.  I usually do my research before I make any purchase.  I consider myself an informed shopper and rarely buy anything at less than the best deal, rarely at retail price.

[ebiggs1]

"Also, why can one not improve, IQ with lessor quality lens, in the pics with post editing to match the better lens???  Why can't a pic's IQ match the quality of better lens in/after post editing???  I'm sure you have a logical answer for all this."

I really don't understand this question!?  Are wanting to know if you can improve the lens resolution in post editing?  That is not possibile.  You can't improve something that isn't there to begin with?

[jazzman1]

"Also, why can one not improve, IQ with lessor quality lens, in the pics with post editing to match the better lens???  Why can't a pic's IQ match the quality of better lens in/after post editing???  I'm sure you have a logical answer for all this."

I really don't understand this question!?  Are wanting to know if you can improve the lens resolution in post editing?  That is not possibile.  You can't improve something that isn't there to begin with?

It what just a rookie thought.  Seemed logical at the time.  But you're right of course, one can't improve something that's not there.  That's the correct and perfect answer. 

[jazzman1]

Yes I'll forget about the business.  Really have'nt been thinking much about that, only in the sense of gear I buy.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

i will continue with dpp for now, besides it's all i have to work with.

btw.....i also have picture style editor can i use it too???   does it go with dpp or are they for different purposes.  seems to have some of the same features as dpp.  i suppose dpp is the better program since no one has even mentioned pse.

---

A picture style is a set of biases for brightness and relative color strength that are intended to be optionally applied to certain types of scenes. Several (Portrait, Landscape, etc.) are built into DPP. The Picture Style Editor allows you to define new picture styles, but you'd have to be extremely finicky to want to bother to do that. I'd suggest you ignore the PSE. If none of the existing picture styles give you what you want for a given picture, you can always make the adjustments manually.

[jazzman1]

Thought you were'nt going to answer this.  Thanks for the input.  For now I see no need for Picture Style Editor.  Should I save my pics in RAW or in Jpg???  I've been saving them in Jpg.    Did'nt think about having the ability to go back to a RAW pic and edit it again.  Since RAW pics are so big I'll store them in an external drive.  I have an external drive connected to all my Pc's now, but think I should get another one deticated just for pics.  I use my externals now for storage and to make monthly Image backups after Microsoft comes out with their monthly Windows updates.  I'll probably get a 2TB USB3 drive for now and a larger one later if needed. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

Thought you were'nt going to answer this.  Thanks for the input.  For now I see no need for Picture Style Editor.  Should I save my pics in RAW or in Jpg???  I've been saving them in Jpg.    Did'nt think about having the ability to go back to a RAW pic and edit it again.  Since RAW pics are so big I'll store them in an external drive.  I have an external drive connected to all my Pc's now, but think I should get another one deticated just for pics.  I use my externals now for storage and to make monthly Image backups after Microsoft comes out with their monthly Windows updates.  I'll probably get a 2TB USB3 drive for now and a larger one later if needed. 

---

Save them in RAW. As you get more experience, you'll look back at some of your older pictures and cringe at the primitive editing job you did then. Besides, you may want to make, over time, multiple JPEGs in different resolutions and/or croppings for different purposes.

When I see you referring to multiple 2TB disk drives, it tells me that you're saving too much. Learn from the bad pictures and throw them out. And when you have multiple good pictures that are duplicative, save the best ones and ditch the rest. Even if you had infinite storage, saving everything would quickly become unmanageable.

FWIW, I've never had any reason to use the Picture Style Editor.

[jazzman1]

i was only talking about getting 1 extra external drive dedicated just for my pics.  i already have an external drive with each pc for monthly backups.  wanted to get another one just for pics.  i don't plan on saving all my pics, i delete most from every batch now.  i took about 600 pics when i went to the zoo and only kept appox 200 pics.

[jazzman1]

bob i'm still trying to wrap all you and biggs have said about raw and jpg around my head.  but i believe with time it'll all fall in place.  you two have been at this for years, proably even had schooling years ago.  this stuff is 2nd nature to you guys, but i'm struggling along best as i can trying to just grasp the basics.

[jazzman1]

i see i still have much to learn about raw and jpg.  i have alot to learn to decide between the two even.  this is way more complicated than just learning to use my camera.  but i can only learn if i try to learn.   if i can't grasp it all in a resonable amount of time i may decide that photography should just a hobby.