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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[jazzman1]

Wow, I did'nt know they made a 400mg speed card.  Where do you get that card from?  Since you don't do video, why would you need such speed?         Remember, I do shoot video, 1080p, so speed of a card is important to me.  But I don't shoot video with my DSLR, I use my Camcorder for video.  I do want to get SD cards that's compatible with both, that's why I ask about the speed for cards.  I'm not sure, I'm no expert, but I think shooting video would be hard on my DSLR and may cause premature wear over time.  It could even effect the shutter life expectancy, but I could be wrong on this...just my thinking.

You mentioned only working with 2 or 3 pics at a time with DPP.  I'm sure you were talking about for practicing editing, am I correct???  

I was looking at L lens yesterday and putting what I would like in the future in my wish list.  I was checking out the Canon 70-300mm f/4 4-5.6L.   Which do you suggest for me, this, or the 70-200mmL we spoke off.   This has a little more reach for just a few more $.   The aperture is not as good in the longer range though, I thought that may be deal breaker.   What's your opinion of the two, which one is best???

I saw PSE 13 on sale this week for $69.00.   But you think LR would be better for me.  If so, I will hold off and get LR when I catch it on sale.  I have no idea which editing programs is best for me so I will have to depend on your judgement., I know you like LR  I would like to not duplicate editing programs.  That's just as bad as duplicating lense.   Speaking of lense, what other lens should I look to put in my collection other along with the 24-105mm, and the 50mm, and the one of the two  long range I asked about in the above paragraph.  I'll put it or them in my wish list.  There's so many lens of different focal range I have no Idea what I will need in the future.  But I do want to add what I want in my plan so I can work toward them.  I've told you the kind of stuff I would like to shoot.

I'm sorry I cannot see the faults in the pics you posted, heck I hear about noise all the time in posts.  But most times I don't know how to detect it, even in my own pics.  I do see stuff I know are bad but do not know exactly what it is, or the cause.  Sometimes pics I shoot looks like it's glare from the sun, some pics look under/over exposed, while most are not..  Some times a line such as the sea/shorline will be curved not straight as it looks to the eye.  I'm not sure what causes such defects, my camera, my lens, or me.  I'm not yet knowledgable to determine stuff like that, but would like to know.  

[ebiggs1]

"Wow, I did'nt know they made a 400mg speed card."

The SD card says 400x Speed on it. I don't really know what that means except it works and it is as fast as I have erver needed.

"You mentioned only working with 2 or 3 pics at a time with DPP.  I'm sure you were talking about for practicing editing, am I correct???"

Yes, don't confuse it with many more until you know what you are doing.

[jazzman1]

Thumbs Up

[ebiggs1]

"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."

You got a A/B comparison in the very first post!  DId you not?  It is also enlarged serverly to show the issues more prominently.

If you truly do not see or can not tell any differences in the two, I strongly suggest you stick with jpg.  I retract my earlier advice about going to RAW.  Bottom line, RAW is not for everybody.  That is why Canon includes it on their cameras.  Even the lofty 1Dx has jpg.  I never shoot jpg anymore because it is so easy to convert now.  But I used to.  I only used RAW for my best work.

Look at this A/B again on you best monitor more closely.  If you do not see the advantage switch back to jpg.  This is due to the compression it applies to a jpg.  Every time you save a jpg it gets compressed and degraded a little more.  A RAW never gets degraded.  You always have its original untouched file.  Big difference.

As I said if this does not jump out and slap you in the face, you really will be better off using and sticking with jpg.  Actually straight from the camera jpg can look sharper than RAW.  Sharpness is not the single consideration, however.  If you are only looking at how sharp a photo is, you are probably not ready for RAW either.  Remember most people use jpg and are quite happy with the results.  It is not a right or wrong thing. It is what works for you.

Let me know so we can decide on how to proceed.

[jazzman1]

Yes I do see the difference now now that you pointed it out.  I saw it in the other pics you posted but did not know what I was suppose to look for.  I see stuff like that all the time in my own jpd pics.  As I stated in the privious post I just did'nt know what it was, what caused it.  Remember I'm a newbie.  I always 1st consider myself as the source of any defect.  Always think it's something I did, or did not do.  Some setting I could change but don't know what.  Sometimes I think it could be my lens since I have cheap ones.  Only really good one I have at this point is the 24-105mm.  I used to think it was my DSLR since i had a entry level Rebel.  At this point I don't know enough to know if a issue is my lens, my camera, my settings, or me...and most times I go with me.

In any event I would like to continue with RAW no matter.  I think it's something I should know how to use, whether I use it now or later.   But as of now I see no reason not to use it.  It's a little more time consuming saving my pics to my Pc.  Otherwise not a problem.