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................
@ebiggs1 wrote:"Thanks. I did forget about the crop factor here. You're right, 85mm would be better for me. Do you think a different lens better?"
Yes, I do. A 50mm would be better. Better yet neither!!!!!!!!!! You have the 24-105mm. Do you not???? It includes 50mm and 85mm.
See my privious answer to this.
"I'm not in the the lens buying zone now, I'm satisfied for now. My budget has'nt changed things are as I told you."
Hmm, OK, I am glad you come to this conclusion. You need a good monitor next. The bigger the better. Than a good post editor.
A 85mm prime can be better than a zoom. You can't just say that without qualifications. THAT is the point I am trying to get across to you. Why I stress, your notice of sharpness most of the time as the sole point of a lens. Just as when a sharp photo must be sharp, all photos are not necessarily so. You must consider the whole which also includes the camera.
@ebiggs1 wrote:"I'm not in the the lens buying zone now, I'm satisfied for now. My budget has'nt changed things are as I told you."
Hmm, OK, I am glad you come to this conclusion. You need a good monitor next. The bigger the better. Than a good post editor.
A 85mm prime can be better than a zoom. You can't just say that without qualifications. THAT is the point I am trying to get across to you. Why I stress, your notice of sharpness most of the time as the sole point of a lens. Just as when a sharp photo must be sharp, all photos are not necessarily so. You must consider the whole which also includes the camera.
I like this pic too.
I'm aware of what you say about lens, and camera too. I will think hard on that when I get my FF body in the future. By then, the top body today be obstlete so I won't decide till I'm ready to buy. I'm picking my lens with FF body in mind. I speak so much about sharpness because I'm building my lens foundation and want these 1st lens to be sharp. I can go for the other qualities in my lens later, I can factor all that in as I build my lens collection. I plan to probably have maybe 8-10 more lens total overtime. I will need ...... indoors, lowlight, closeups, wide angle, Micro, long range, very long range, etc. The qualities for each I will look for at the time and purpose I need them for. Some I will look for good boken (fuzzy background), etc.
I have a monitor in mind and LR too. All in good time. Kinda wanted LR next.
"Sharpness", hmm that is a biggie for sure but as I say it is not the sole issue. You need to remember almost any piece of cheap, ----, glass will become sharp as it stops down. You don't want to consider any of the other issues a lens can have? 
No. 1: Lens Flare
No. 2: Vignetting
No. 3: Converging Verticals
No. 4: Barrel Distortion/pin cushion
No. 5: Lens Diffraction
No. 6: Build
No: 7: Ease of use
No. 8: etc ... and on, and on, and on ...
Have you ever looked at some of the old Civil War photos? I mean really look at them? They are sharp, now I mean really sharp. Do you think we have better or worse or the same lens technology today as they had over a 150 years ago?
Sharpness is important. It is very important but it needs to be kept in perspective and all things considered.
For instance I just sold two lenses, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.4, which are claimed by some to be the sharpest lenses in these focal lengths made. Period. Bar none! I chose and would rather have the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 and EF 85mm f1.2. Why, you say? Because f1.2 was a bigger factor for me than "sharpness".
I might add, BTW, the waterfall photo was done in PS. There was no filter on the lens involved. And there was no tripod used either. It is a sample from a tutorial on how to use PS.
@ebiggs1 wrote:"Sharpness", hmm that is a biggie for sure but as I say it is not the sole issue. You need to remember almost any piece of cheap, ----, glass will become sharp as it stops down. You don't want to consider any of the other issues a lens can have?
No. 1: Lens Flare
No. 2: Vignetting
No. 3: Converging Verticals
No. 4: Barrel Distortion/pin cushion
No. 5: Lens DiffractionNo. 6: Build
No: 7: Ease of use
No. 8: etc ... and on, and on, and on ...
Have you ever looked at some of the old Civil War photos? I mean really look at them? They are sharp, now I mean really sharp. Do you think we have better or worse or the same lens technology today as they had over a 150 years ago?
Sharpness is important. It is very important but it needs to be kept in perspective and all things considered.
For instance I just sold two lenses, a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f1.4, which are claimed by some to be the sharpest lenses in these focal lengths made. Period. Bar none! I chose and would rather have the Canon EF 50mm f1.2 and EF 85mm f1.2. Why, you say? Because f1.2 was a bigger factor for me than "sharpness".
I might add, BTW, the waterfall photo was done in PS. There was no filter on the lens involved. And there was no tripod used either. It is a sample from a tutorial on how to use PS.
Thanks Obiwan, that's great info. But really, I was already aware of all those things you mentioned about difference in lens, encluding aperture. I mentioned aperture myself in getting f/2.8mm or faster for low light and indoors. After all our conversations and all your comments, you should be aware of what I know and don't know. I've told you more times than I care to mention I'm aware that sharpness is not the only quality in a lens to look for. Still does'nt change what I'm looking for in a lens at any particular moment. I have my reasons and needs and that is the biggest factor in what I look for at any given time.....same as you, I'm no different.
Far as all the other issues lens have the problem for me is I see very few in my own pics. I see and read about all that in site reviews and such. Even in reviews of the particular lens I'm using at the time. But I rarely see alot of those things with my naked eyes in my very own pics that I take. That's really my problem Obiwan....what I can see with my own eyes. Things are only a problem for me, if I can see those issues in the pics I take. I've found, as you say all the time....."my real world results" are not the same as all those site reviews that point every issue out of a lens or pic. I see very few of those issues I read about in those reviews in my pics. Not saying my pics have none of that, just that I rarely see that stuff in my pics. But really Obiwan, an issue is only a n issue if I can see it. If I don't see it, it's not a problem I'm gonna concern myself with too much.
Yep, I like your pic, and see the object was not sharpness there. Did'nt know how you created it, but thought you created that look with aperture and shutter speed. Did'nt think you used a filter, you said you don't like or use them. I can also envision LR or PS alterations. In fact where did you take that pic???? You seem to have alot of photo secenary and opertunies where you live. You seem to get out taking nice pics at will. Your town must be an intersting photo opt place to take shots. Here where I live there's no lack of photo oppotunities. I will start to venture into some of those shots you take all the time. I just wanted the lens I thought I would need to accomplish the shots and resuts I want. I know LR will aid me along in that venture and desire. I'm going to start experimenting and using deifferent setting with aperture and shutter speeds.
"But really, I was already aware of all those things ..."
Sometimes I am not so sure. Sometime I think I get conflicting thoughts from you. But as you say, real world use it all that matters. That is the most important thing. Not a single spec can beat that! As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It begs the question, why spend more than is necessay on your lens if what you are doing is working? If you don't go hog wild for top of the line "L" glass, you could have so many more lenses. And believe me there are middle of the line lenses that are spectacular. Especially in the sharpness area. Most of them suffer from things that appearantly don't bother you or you are not noticing them. Isn't there some logic here?
One reason why I was not so positive with you statement of faster lenses, from your f4 to a f2.8, is only one stop. One stop is not a deal breaker or money maker most generally. Now if you said I want a faster lens in the f1.4 range, yeah, that is a bigger deal.
I trhink my work here is done. You are on the road to making your own conclusions. The ones that are right for you. That is success in my book. 
Remember, how you intend on using/viewing your photos is important, too. Viewing on a laptop or u/l to Facebook or any web photo sharing site, ipad, photoframe, etc does not require top notch gear. 11x14 prints and larger does require a different approch or any photo you plan to sell for instance.
I don't have top of the line monitors but I do have good monitors that suit my needs. At Hallamark we had the best money could buy. I don't need the best money can buy and can use that money for some other goodies. You need to judge the same for yourself. You may not benefit all that much from LR either. All this is just designed to start your thought process. It is a lot cheape than buying and regretting.
I have a photo book that is titled, "All you have to do is look." That says it all. There are photo ops everywhere. All you have to do is look. Some of the photos in it are on my Facebook if you care to wander over.
@ebiggs1 wrote:"But really, I was already aware of all those things ..."
Sometimes I am not so sure. Sometime I think I get conflicting thoughts from you. But as you say, real world use it all that matters. That is the most important thing. Not a single spec can beat that! As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It begs the question, why spend more than is necessay on your lens if what you are doing is working? If you don't go hog wild for top of the line "L" glass, you could have so many more lenses. And believe me there are middle of the line lenses that are spectacular. Especially in the sharpness area. Most of them suffer from things that appearantly don't bother you or you are not noticing them. Isn't there some logic here?
One reason why I was not so positive with you statement of faster lenses, from your f4 to a f2.8, is only one stop. One stop is not a deal breaker or money maker most generally. Now if you said I want a faster lens in the f1.4 range, yeah, that is a bigger deal.
I trhink my work here is done. You are on the road to making your own conclusions. The ones that are right for you. That is success in my book.
I don't have top of the line monitors but I do have good monitors that suit my needs. At Hallamark we had the best money could buy. I don't need the best money can buy and can use that money for some other goodies. You need to judge the same for yourself. You may not benefit all that much from LR either. All this is just designed to start your thought process. It is a lot cheape than buying and regretting.
I have a photo book that is titled, "All you have to do is look." That says it all. There are photo ops everywhere. All you have to do is look. Some of the photos in it are on my Facebook if you care to wander over.
I understand what you're saying here. I have'nt done anything with any of my pics other than upload them to my pc for viewing. I have'nt blown any up, nor printed any out on photo paper. Maybe that's why I don't see many of the distortions spoke of. All I've done is take pics and look at them on my laptops. Maybe this is the problem. Maybe I need to blow a few up, print them out on photo paper and then judge what I see???? I do follow what you say here and maybe a monitor should be my next purchase.
I'm not home now, had to go up north to take care of some business. Will be back by friday and will do some tests and things to try and see some of the distortions you say I should be seeing. I do believe everything you've told me, not a problem. But sometimes I can't see your vision or your obstervation in my own pics. Their is a problem somewhere, and I have to find it. I know whatever it is is on my end. It would just be so good if I could see with my own eyes some things you say I should see.
I agree there is no shortage of subjects to take pics of. I just have to get out and take the pics. I do need to venture out from where I've been going to my park scene. I need more different challeges. Now that I have my 70-300mmL I can start to take pics of the fishing boats and ships coming from the ocean with their catches. And all the other ships. There' yatch, tour boats, frighters, etc. I also want to find lovely landscapes, mountains and valleys. I want to catch the sunrise and sun et. I'm going to start getting more serious shots starting next week, even if I have to venture off a ways from home.
I would love to see your stuff on facebook, but I don't do facebook....don't have an acc. Is there anywhere else I can see your work??? Do you have a website??? I'm not much into those social websites....facebook, myspace, twitter, etc. Not really into smart phones. I have a dumb phone, I buy minutes, have no contract or internet for my cell. I am tech savvy, it's my choice. I rather spend time with my camera, computer, and other grownup toys. Being tied to a cellphone evetywhere I go, is not my idea of fun. I see peeps everywhere on their phone...bank, stores, movie theater, the beach, etc. I don't want to be addicted to my cell like those people. I don't text, and have a rule I won't talk on my phone while driving unless it's important, and then only with my bluetooth connection. I don't do ide conversation on my cell. I just don't ever want the day to come when my phone is glued to my face everywhere I go..
I hope you don't let me go on my own from here, I have much to learn from you still. I've learned alot since we started and I still value your opinion and suggestions.
