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................

[ebiggs1]

As far as computers go, what you have will run DPP and LR with no issues.  There is no need to upgrade it.  You do need a pretty good monitor and as big as you are comfortable with.  A good video card, too.

I think I know what pexels are, they make the resolution in a photo sharp.

Hmmm......do we need to start a discussion of pixels?  Almost nobody understands what they are.

[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]

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.  

[jazzman1]

Far as pixels my mouth is closed, I'm all ears.  Don't want to look more stupid than I already look.  Continue please.!!!!!!!!!!

I have 2 decent monitors.... 17" 1080p on one of my i7 laptops, and a 22" 720p on one of my desktops.  But the desktop only has an intell i3 Processor, and not that good a graphics card.  All my Pc's have 8gb Ram.

[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.

[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]

"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."

First it is no more 'time consuming' to use RAW.  The conversion is automatic and if you do no editing there is no difference.  That is the beauty of it.

Lightroom, Photoshp and Photoshop Elements are all different programs.  PS and PSE do some of the same things but not everything.  So does LR and even DPP.  And there are some more besides just these.  Plus you can make use of all of them at times because their approch is different.  There are even free ones out there that don't cost you a cent.

But you need to pull back on the reins a bit, Kareem.  You need to decide what you want exaclty. This will determine which lens and which software is best for you.  Not the best for me.  If you don't stop and consider this, you are going to waste a lot of time and money. I may have jumped the gun a bit judging your needs and requirements.  I may have been in error.  I need you to decide and tell me.

You need to be honest and truly say, I see a difference in the photos so I want RAW.  And I want whatever it takes (learning) to process RAW files.  You need to say I want to shoot photos of people, wildlife and landscapes, or whatever, and aim your gear toward that goal.

You may need a better monitor?  I don't know.  But if you are on a laptop, heaven forbid, I know you need a better monitor.  If so, right now that is more important than a new lens or Lightroom or PSE.

[jazzman1]

First it is no more 'time consuming' to use RAW.  The conversion is automatic and if you do no editing there is no difference.  That is the beauty of it

As I said, I will do RAW, no problem.

Lightroom, You need to be honest and truly say, I see a difference in the photos so I want RAW.  And I want whatever it takes (learning) to process RAW files.  You need to say I want to shoot photos of people, wildlife and landscapes, or whatever, and aim your gear toward that goal.Photoshp and Photoshop Elements are all different programs.  PS and PSE do some of the same things but not everything.  So does LR and even DPP.  And there are some more besides just these.  Plus you can make use of all of them at times because their approch is different.  There are even free ones out there that don't cost you a cent

I had some free programs such as Gimp2 and others that I uninstalled after using my Canon programs.   Besides DPP, I have Canon Picture Style Editor, Photo Stich, and Image Browser.  Don't know what each does or if I should use them.  Most programs I find just duplicate the features of the others.  Gimp was too hard to learn, seemed complicated as is most of the free programs.   They are not user friendly as the paid programs.  Most don't have very good help files, nor user guides.  Same with free video editing programs.  I tried free ones but ended up buying a few.

But you need to pull back on the reins a bit, Kareem.  You need to decide what you want exaclty. This will determine which lens and which software is best for you.  Not the best for me.  If you don't stop and consider this, you are going to waste a lot of time and money. I may have jumped the gun a bit judging your needs and requirements.  I may have been in error.  I need you to decide and tell me

I know what I want, I already told you so.  I want to do landscape, wildlife, people, street photo's, historic sites and buildings, and scenic shots, for now   Later I may start a part time business and do portrets, sports, weddings, graduations, and other social events.  That's after I'm good enough.   But that's my plan, don't you remember???  Right now I'll shoot whatever I can just to practice.

You need to be honest and truly say, I see a difference in the photos so I want RAW.  And I want whatever it takes (learning) to process RAW files.  You need to say I want to shoot photos of people, wildlife and landscapes, or whatever, and aim your gear toward that goal

Biggs I've said this already.  I see the defects in the pic...I did'nt know that's what you were referring to.  I see stuff like that in my own pics from time to time, and mine are jpg.  That's why I asked you to tell me exactly.  What more do you want me to say????     RAW ain't that big a deal for me to do.  What's the problem now????   I've told you what I want to shoot above.  I just want to know is the 4 lense I will have after I get the next ones will be enough for what I want to do????

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You may need a better monitor?  I don't know.  But if you are on a laptop, heaven forbid, I know you need a better monitor.  If so, right now that is more important than a new lens or Lightroom or PSE

This may be a problem, cause my best 2 i7 Pc's are laptops.  That would mean replacing both.  The cost of a new laptop with the same specs is more than the cost of the next lens I'll get.   My 2 desktops I don't think have a fast enough processor, though they do have 8gb Ram.  Both have intel i3 proc.  I guess I could get out board monitors and hook them up to my monitors.  But what a cluttered space it'll make.  I would have to upgrade my grafic card on the desktops.  Boy oh boy.  It must be nice Biggs to be able do what you do...really really nice.

[ebiggs1]

I feel as if I have pushed you into RAW.  I did/do not feel like it is your decission.  I will do as you say now.  It is your decission.

Ok let's move on.

"Gimp was too hard to learn, seemed complicated as is most of the free programs."

This is a problem. I grant you Gimpshop is not as user friendly as PS but not by much.  LR is going to have a learning curve too.  As will all the software you will need.  A person that has the goals you do will need Lightroom and you will also probably need Photoshop.  You understand this?  You said..........

" Later I may start a part time business and do portrets, sports, weddings, graduations, and other social events"

"Both have intel i3 proc."

This will run Lightroom.

"This may be a problem, cause my best 2 i7 Pc's are laptops"

And it is a problem.  I know of nobody in the business that uses a laptop for editing work they are going to sell.  But you only need to get a good monitor. You can still use the laptops.  Why do you need two just alike?

"It must be nice Biggs to be able do what you do.."

Get ready, my friend Kareem, as this is only the beginning!   If you are going to be successful at what you just stated you told me you want to accomplish.  Just the start.........................................