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]

It may not have anything to do with the shot, or may not be revelent at all.  I just asked to know all you did to create your shot.

[jazzman1]

BTW......Is f/4L aperture good enough for buisness purposes, or should I concentrate on f/2.8L  In low light can I compensate with f/4L with external lights????

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

BTW......Is f/4L aperture good enough for buisness purposes, or should I concentrate on f/2.8L  In low light can I compensate with f/4L with external lights????

---

I consider my f/4 lenses (16-35 and 24-105) to be outdoor lenses primarily. But a couple of months ago I did shoot an evening indoor event with my 24-105 and no flash at ISO 2500. The pictures came out fine, but I was using a 5D Mark 3. I don't think I would have attempted it with a lesser camera.

All that said, what you can get away with depends critically on what kind of lighting you have and what kind of action you're shooting. For studio work (portraits, product photography, etc.), where your subjects aren't running around and you can control the light, f/4 is plenty fast on any camera.

My advice is to start with what you have and gain experience. With enough experience, you'll know when you need to upgrade. If you're not sure, you're probably not there yet.

Ernie Biggs may not approve of me telling you this, but I also don't think you should consider either Lightroom or PSE until you've outgrown DPP. DPP is free while the others aren't; so it's easy and cheap to stay up-to-date. And the notion that LR guarantees a faster workflow is largely bogus. Either way, you have to convert your images from RAW to JPEG, and DPP lets you batch that, just as LR does. And you'll know when you've outgrown DPP. If you don't, you haven't.

[ebiggs1]

Acutally f4 is considered the middle.  Anything lower is a fast lens and anything abouve is considered a slower lens.

But we decided you were not going to buy anymore lenses until you got past this stage. Right?  That f2.8 is down the road.

I know Bob from Boston likes DPP better than I.  I really don't dislike it.  It just does not have the guts to be a pro level business friendly program.  Free has nothing to do with this.  It is a fact that no one in the business uses DPP in favor of LR and/or PS.  Nobody!  There is a reason.

"... the notion that LR guarantees a faster workflow is largely bogus."  No actually it is not bogus.  Just the use of "Presets" alone in LR is going to throughly trash DPP.  Maybe if you were to do 10 or 12 photos every week or so, the difference would not be too great.  Make it 1500-2000 shots per job, per week and LR is vastly faster.

When I import images, LR has all the photos in a dated folder.  My basic presets (lens correction and camera settings applied) done.  It has my copyrighted meta data saved and shows the images ready for final edit.  If no further editing is required another click or two saves everything as a jpg.  Just like the screen shot above shows.  To do 1500 photos may take three, maybe four, clicks of the mouse.

In reality it is more involved than this because there is the culling and cataloging.  Additional cropping and printing, etc.  DPP is not even in the game.

When I am on a shoot LR goes too.  I have a photgraphers cart with my 17" laptop on it.  The camera is tethered to LR with a jerk cord and powered USB cable.  As I shoot all the same presets are applied and it shows the photo full screen for all to see.

A little while ago, a few days, one of my backup hard drives told me it was full.  It had a little over 102,000 photos on it.  It is around 5 years old.  Those are just the keepers.  I am retired!

[jazzman1]

Acutally f4 is considered the middle.  Anything lower is a fast lens and anything abouve is considered a slower lens.

But we decided you were not going to buy anymore lenses until you got past this stage. Right?  That f2.8 is down the road.

 Right....

"... the notion that LR guarantees a faster workflow is largely bogus."  

Fellas I'm gonna stay out of this one and call it a draw LOL

I think getting the monitor soon is fine, not a problem.  As you say I can use it later, nothing lost.  But I will hook it to one of my desktops, not the laptop.  That desktop is my workhorse till I upgrade for another one.  It's a intel i3 Proc.  The monitor I have with it now is 20" 1600x900. resolution.  I'll also upgrade the Graphics Card.

That is some hookup you have there.  But as I said, you got it like that.  It must be nice my friend...real nice (smile)

[jazzman1]

I understand.  My thinking with it all is that it's not so important, to get much more than I have, at the moment, for now.  I do agree with Biggs that I will need, and should have...everything he's suggested If I'm to go into business.  I do know most times we get what we pay for, and that most free stuff won't usually do for most professional work.  And the few times freeware will work, it's not easy to use, and asks for much more input from the user.  Paid software is usually more user friendly, with better help files and manuals, and many times have features freeware don't have.  Otherwise, why would one spend good money for a product you can get free.  But for now, alot of things I have to pay for, I feel can wait for awhile.   I even have a list, with the order I want to purchase things.  Some things I feel I should buy sooner, some things later.  But I'll get everything on my list over time.  Biggs may chew me out also, but I too think I should use DPP for now cause it's free.  No need at this monent to spend money on a program when I have one free that works for me.  I do agree with Biggs that LR, PSE, and APS is a must as I progress.toward my goal.

Thanks for the input on the aperture of lens.  That helps me alot in where I'll go with it all.  I don't have a 5D Mark 3 at the moment, so my f/4L's will do for now.  But on my list in my long range plan is a FF body.   I don't think I should go into business with a crop sensor, other than as a 2nd body, and as a backup.   Not sure witch model I'll get, will decide that when I get ready to get it.  One of the requirements I'll look for is a body good with low light.  My thinking is that I can get f/4L lense in the next two lens I plan to purchase (keep my lens in same quality range), then later get specialty range lens, for special situations in low light, in f/2.8L lens.   Like if I need something for closeups, sports, wildlife, etc...in low light.   Biggs might shoot holes in my thinking though, he would know better than me. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Hope you're not getting sick.  We have had a bad allergy season up here so far.

You don't need a new computer.  You need a good monitor.  I think it should be the next purchase.  It will hook right up to one of the laptops.  And it will still work on a better desktop some day.  Your laptops will run Lightroom.  No problem.

Did you keep the EF 28-135mm ?  Did you return it?  If you still have I would keep it from what you have said lately.  It is nice to have that extra reach sometimes.  Plus it is a 'best buy' vs cost.

Quite frankly, however, you will struggle until you get a better, bigger monitor.  Look for the biggest and best you can afford.  It will not be hard to best a laptop's monitor.  Unless you paid several grand for it, that is.

---

Some laptops have rather lame graphics processors and cannot drive a large monitor at full resolution. And a monitor driven at less than full resolution will usually have poor image quality.

[ebiggs1]

Yes, sir you are right.  I can't imagine anybody trying to do real and final edits on a laptop.  But what do I know?  

[jazzman1]

Bob I understand and agree.  That's why I'm not going to get the monitor for my laptop.  It's a 17", and does have 1080p resolution but my Graphics card is not the best for this.  I rather get a new desktop setup than try to make my laptop work.  When I got my laptop, I did'nt know I'd be getting into serious photography.

[ebiggs1]

"That's why I'm not going to get the monitor for my laptop."

Not trying to tell you what to do.  If you are going to buy a new desktop and monitor why don'tyou get the monitor as soon as you can.  Use it on the laptop until you get the new desktop?  You will need it anyway?  Yes, no?

Even if it doesn't work well, you would be out nothing.