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................
"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.
@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.
I'm back home Obiwan. Thanks for this lens discussion. I'm taking it all in. No I have not examined any of those old B&W photo's, but i have seen some.
You know I made a compromise in my lens purchases when I chose f/4's instead of f/2.8. Before I got my 70-300mm L, I was looking at the 70-200mmL in 2.8 and 4. In every review I read the 2.8 L tested better than the f/4L, but I would have still went with the f/4. I even chose my 70-300mm L, knowing the 70-200mmL was a sharper, better rated lens. But I felt the compromise I made was best for me. Saying all this to show you sharpness is not absolute with me. It is an important charactoristic of a lens that i look for but not the only thing.
On a Monitor, I'm going for a HP 23" 1080P mod # 23cw. What do you think????
LR 5 or 6??? 6 is newest, reading mixed reviews. Some think 5 better.
