PDA

View Full Version : Just dived in


Aqua-Digital
10-19-2013, 11:08 PM
Hi Guys,

Finally invested in a decent camera, I have always struggled trying to take adequate photos for promotional work. So I picked up an EOS 600D.

I already found I need a lense with better zoom but I knew that when I got it, and also one with decent macro, but that aside, just looking for some basic starter settings. I am getting half decent results with manual mode and playing about but I feel like a teenager on a first date fumbling for the on switch!

MarkoD
10-20-2013, 12:35 AM
Shoot in raw so you can adjust as much as possible in post processing.

That's probably the best tip anyone can give you

xenon
10-20-2013, 12:58 AM
Your camera settings will depend on what you are trying to take a picture of.

Give us some examples. :biggrin:

sphelps
10-20-2013, 01:43 AM
Shoot in raw so you can adjust as much as possible in post processing.

That's probably the best tip anyone can give you

Not to purposely contradict but I'd say that's pretty much the worst advice anyone could give you. Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with. In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers. So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

mrhasan
10-20-2013, 02:00 AM
Not to purposely contradict but I'd say that's pretty much the worst advice anyone could give you. Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with. In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers. So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

+1. I was also going to suggest AP mode for beginning the experiments. RAW is more...well...."RAW" so basically its better to experiment before going raw. Sometimes, its painful to edit raw pictures (takes a long time when you take too many images) and needs software (I guess a basic software for editing raws come with the camera but for proper utilization, PS is needed). And autofocus is always the best friend :mrgreen:

sphelps
10-20-2013, 02:14 AM
If you're looking for lens suggestions for aquariums I'd recommend you get yourself two prime lenses as appose to anything with zoom. Prime lenses are cheaper and take better pictures in terms of clarity and while you can't zoom that feature really isn't needed for aquariums.

A 50mm prime is a pretty common lens, no need for a macro version or the most expensive version which will only vary slightly in the aperture range. It's rare to use some thing like a 1.4 f number for aquarium shots and you'll have to get impossibly close to the subject to take advantage of the macro ability.

Next would be the macro (100mm for Canon I believe), this is probably what I would consider the best lens for aquariums. I prefer a larger lens like say 150mm, (Sigma makes a nice 150mm macro) simply because the larger the lens the further the min focus distance. You can also move the lens back but you can't move the lens through glass.

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 01:06 PM
Thanks guys for the help Its seems I need to get a basic grasp of the camera and then can play more. So far what I have taken is not too bad, the camera is very good at doing the dirty work for you it seems, manual mode is easy to tune will post some photos shortly, not all corals my wife makes a good subject also (ex model)

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 02:18 PM
first attempt at photography, clearly got a lot to learn but not bad start for me at least. got two good subjects, the wife and my corals.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1404445_538424152902700_1893805379_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1396908_538424296236019_1203709709_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1405013_538424566235992_2090086148_o.jpg

Rare and expensive coral! :mrgreen: other than being proud of course the reason I add this one is because its the first photo I have taken of Liz with the camera, but still looks like the exposure is wrong, background too light the walls are Mocha, I guess its the flash.
https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1396031_538423902902725_589647327_n.jpg

H2o2
10-20-2013, 03:18 PM
For sure you must have the actinic lighting right because that last photo sure has a lot of pop :-)

sphelps
10-20-2013, 03:18 PM
You need an external flash that you bounce off the ceiling to avoid those kinds of shadows. The coral pics look pretty good, WB could use some work and they're a bit soft but without telling us what settings and lens not much else to say.

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 03:21 PM
Lens is 18mm-55mm

settings for corals, WB i had on auto

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 03:23 PM
For sure you must have the actinic lighting right because that last photo sure has a lot of pop :-)

:mrgreen: Takes a lot of care to grow them like that! :lol:

Scythanith
10-20-2013, 04:02 PM
This has a little white balance correction, some black point adjustment, some more definition, and some output sharpening. By nooooo means perfect (I mean my editing, no your pictures haahaa), but shows off the patterning a little better :)

As for the camera info, listen to Steve, he's a pro :)

A couple extra pointers:

Shoot straight through the glass, NO angles!
Wear dark clothing, less reflections off the glass.
Use a tripod.
Use manual focus for stationary objects. This, combined with AP, can really showcase what you want to be the focal point of the photo.
If you can set WB easily enough (you can), set it to ~10,000K and start there. That's essentially the same as "cloudy" setting.
It has been mentioned but shut off the power heads and return pump.

Take lots of pictures and mess around with your settings! Once you find what you like you can probably save the entire batch of settings under a custom label and return to them every time you're shooting the tank.

As for the wife shot, Steve hit it on the head, bounce that light! Also, the camera doesn't always know what's right, you may have to dial in a bit of flash compensation. Usually looks like a little lighting bolt and a +/-. Your picture may have required a little "-".

Cheers,
Scott

http://www.lithicimages.com/photos/i-SbcqQBS/0/L/i-SbcqQBS-L.jpg

first attempt at photography, clearly got a lot to learn but not bad start for me at least. got two good subjects, the wife and my corals.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1404445_538424152902700_1893805379_o.jpg

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 04:06 PM
thanks for the tips ;)

Scythanith
10-20-2013, 04:08 PM
Also, keep an eye on your ISO settings. Try and shoot with the number as low as possible. That will keep the graininess of the picture down to a minimum. If the ISO is on auto, then look in your settings to see if you can limit its upper value while in auto. I'd say don't go past ~1600 iso. I don't know your particular camera though so that may be a little low. If you can get everything still enough, shoot at iso 400 all day long. This may work for stationary corals, but will likely not be a good setting for swimming fish. Those will be the ~1600 iso setting.

Good luck!

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 06:05 PM
thanks ;)

kien
10-20-2013, 07:00 PM
That's a great camera and great first shots. Lots of great advice here. My advice would be to remember to have fun with it! Photography can be as challenging, frustrating and annoying as reefing :-)

mrhasan
10-20-2013, 07:02 PM
That's a great camera and great first shots. Lots of great advice here. My advice would be to remember to have fun with it! Photography can be as challenging, frustrating and annoying as reefing :-)

Cause both need insanely amount of money :lol:

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 07:39 PM
yeah just found that out but just picked up S/H 70-300mm for $200 :)

sphelps
10-20-2013, 07:45 PM
yeah just found that out but just picked up S/H 70-300mm for $200 :)

That'll be good for outdoors but fairly useless indoors or for your tank.

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 07:51 PM
yeah I know the camera is not just for the tank ;) Getting a portrait lens also for the wife.

sphelps
10-20-2013, 08:04 PM
yeah I know the camera is not just for the tank ;) Getting a portrait lens also for the wife.

50mm prime is a great portrait lens plus good for tank. The same could also be said about the 100mm macro.

kien
10-20-2013, 08:54 PM
Cause both need insanely amount of money :lol:

I suppose it depends how you define "insanely", but photography is definitely cheaper than reefing. I haven't bought any photography related equipment in over 4 years. Can't say the same for my tank :lol: Also, the cost for me to start up into phorography was much much cheaper than the cost for me to start up my tank :neutral:

Scythanith
10-20-2013, 09:32 PM
I suppose it depends how you define "insanely", but photography is definitely cheaper than reefing. I haven't bought any photography related equipment in over 4 years. Can't say the same for my tank :lol: Also, the cost for me to start up into phorography was much much cheaper than the cost for me to start up my tank :neutral:

Haahaa nope! I'm the opposite. Getting close with the new tank build though lol!!

kien
10-20-2013, 09:43 PM
the new tank build though lol!!

^ this.

Eventually you will discover a set of lenses that work best for you and that will comprise your "kit". The tank on the other hand, there is no end to the madness :lol:

Also, I've found that photography equipment retains it's resale value quite well! I've tried out LOTS of different lenses and resold the ones I didn't like for a minimal loss. Almost the cost of a lens rental! Also don't be afraid to buy used lenses. Often times these lens last forever and people are selling them simply because they don't use them much or want to try a different lens. Out of my kit of 5 lenses, I only bought one of them brand new. The rest I got off kijiji 4 or 5 years ago and they are still taking rock in' pics.

sphelps
10-20-2013, 10:14 PM
It depends, if you're serious and shooting full frame $100K isn't that hard to reach, even the most serious reefers don't usually reach that kind of investment, not saying they don't but it's much harder to imagine.

Scythanith
10-20-2013, 10:26 PM
It depends, if you're serious and shooting full frame $100K isn't that hard to reach, even the most serious reefers don't usually reach that kind of investment, not saying they don't but it's much harder to imagine.

+1

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 10:29 PM
so here are some i did today (not at your level by any means but pleased with one days effort)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1403572_538605556217893_1597819157_o.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1412369_538597132885402_577920245_o.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1382979_538611802883935_1217992866_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/988736_538611869550595_1536371191_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1380203_538611986217250_1428196943_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1394371_538611982883917_260859491_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1379318_538612082883907_1327924208_n.jpg

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/5834_538612116217237_1110878836_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1376315_538612159550566_1020130436_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1381272_538612209550561_281556007_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1379282_538612522883863_1532073268_n.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1383509_538612506217198_794692774_n.jpg

Aqua-Digital
10-20-2013, 10:35 PM
Just playing ;)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1401243_538615912883524_1735837771_o.jpg

Scythanith
10-21-2013, 12:27 AM
Honestly you're off to a great start! Notice how the plate looks a little not right? That's the distortion that the glass is causing since you're not shooting straight through the glass. That's going to happen when shooting something on the sand bed unless you shoot top down with a waterproof housing, which I recommend you get your hands on! They open up a whole new world when shooting your tank!

Looking good!

Aqua-Digital
10-21-2013, 12:31 AM
yep the plate has been a many failed photo shot, thanks for the heads up

kien
10-21-2013, 12:43 AM
It depends, if you're serious and shooting full frame $100K isn't that hard to reach, even the most serious reefers don't usually reach that kind of investment, not saying they don't but it's much harder to imagine.

Yes, you can easily reach that cost, but I can also easily imagine that cost in a reef tank after you factor in cost of bulb replacements, consumable media, salt, fish, corals, etc, over the years. I consider myself fairly serious and shoot semi-professionally on the side (weddings, family portraits, etc) and don't have anywhere near $100K worth of equipment. I wrote off/claimed all of my photog equipment for my business 5 years ago and I clocked in somewhere near $20K. Again, I haven't had to replace any equipment or buy anything in over 4 years. It all still works and I'm still using it to do family portraits and the odd wedding. 5 years into reefing and I'm still buying $#!t for my tank :lol:

Rice Reef
10-21-2013, 06:45 AM
Yes, you can easily reach that cost, but I can also easily imagine that cost in a reef tank after you factor in cost of bulb replacements, consumable media, salt, fish, corals, etc, over the years. I consider myself fairly serious and shoot semi-professionally on the side (weddings, family portraits, etc) and don't have anywhere near $100K worth of equipment. I wrote off/claimed all of my photog equipment for my business 5 years ago and I clocked in somewhere near $20K. Again, I haven't had to replace any equipment or buy anything in over 4 years. It all still works and I'm still using it to do family portraits and the odd wedding. 5 years into reefing and I'm still buying $#!t for my tank :lol:

+1. Have all my lens and don't see myself upgrading the body for a long time however, for the tank the spending continues...

Ginu
10-29-2013, 08:01 PM
Well I use a Nikon D7000 and have a collection of lens (none professional unfortunately) 18-200 vr, 70-300vr, 50mm 1.8, 28-80afd and finally bit the bullet and bought a macro lens a Tamron 90mm and all I have to say is WOA...

http://oi39.tinypic.com/206z9dv.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/rtgupe.jpg

http://oi44.tinypic.com/b3rihh.jpg

http://oi43.tinypic.com/2gwsxo0.jpg

Please note these pics are taken under LED's which I find extremely difficult to capture and they have not been edited...

I love this new lens :)

Jason McK
10-29-2013, 11:49 PM
Not to purposely contradict but I'd say that's pretty much the worst advice anyone could give you. Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with. In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers. So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

Best advise ever!!!:clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2::clap2:: clap2:

Patwa
12-05-2013, 04:37 PM
Shoot in raw so you can adjust as much as possible in post processing.

That's probably the best tip anyone can give you

I agree.

People who disagree really have a weak understanding of what RAW really is and affords the user; see below


Not to purposely contradict but I'd say that's pretty much the worst advice anyone could give you. Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with. In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers. So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

While your overall advice is good, and that's because it's aimed and composed primarily for the "noobie" photographers in this forum, you're exclusion of the entire RAW format is fundamentally flawed.

You do know your stuff when it comes to photography, i'd be the first to admit that, as i've been lurking on this forum for a short while (was a user on Canreef many years ago, though). But you completely lack the understanding and thus, the benefits of using RAW.

Mind you, when I started shooting with DSLRs, I stuck with JPEGS for a few years. But when I read up on and started employing RAW, my photography game got exponentially better. I don't think you're there yet...maybe?


Shooting in RAW basically tells your camera "don't worry about it I got this" thus bypassing the processing ability your camera came with.

no it doesn't! you're giving misinformation. RAWs collects all the information from the sensor, that's it. And for the record, nothing compares to the processing ability of the human brain (ie. when working with RAW files, post-process, i mean) and the processing ability of a computer when dealing with RAW is SO MUCH more multiplied than the processing available to you on even the most expensive Nikon or Canon SLR on the market.


In addition raw files are larger and much harder to work with on a computer since you need special software to even open and view the file. Then you end tuning everything to what your see on your computer monitor which may be very different compared other video sources or printers.

they're larger b/c they have ALL the light information the sensor received when the shutter button was pressed.....why is it harder to work with? coz they're larger? lol

and no, you don't need special software to read RAW files....if you're on Win7 or 8, it's very easy. Also, Nikon and Canon come with software to view RAW

working with RAW is more involved, of course! BUT if you value higher-quality images, you need to go the RAW route at some point. And yes, you need special software. But it's no harder than Googling "Adobe Lightroom" and buying and installing the software haha

So unless you really think you can process images better than the fancy camera you just bought I'd advise against the hassle that comes with RAW format.

Anyone with a brain can process a RAW file better (on a post-process level ie. using Adobe Lightroom in your office while sipping some coffee) than ANY SLR out there right now.


I'd say better advice would be to stick with the basics relating to actual photography as appose to relying mostly on manual post processing. Shoot in jpeg and take lots of pictures. Choose an appropriate lens for the subject, the body is only as good as the lens you use. Try stationary subjects first like corals. Stick with auto focus until you get use to the other settings. Aperture priority mode is my preference and what I would suggest you try first. If you can keep the subject still (ie no tank flow) then choose a lower iso setting for better clarity. Try large aperture (small f number) for faster shoots and less depth of field, then try small aperture (large f number) for slower shutter speeds but higher DOF. The DOF because more important in macro shots. Adjust WB as needed, with LED lighting tune your lights more white to make this easier. Once you start getting clear shots with good color you can look at post processing but still no need for raw files. If you have the software most allow you to open jpeg files as raw format to get the same level of adjustment but there's really not much more in there you need.

the only part of your post I completely agree with, wholeheartedly

z

sphelps
12-05-2013, 11:38 PM
Gotta love that need people have to bump up old threads to only attempt to discredit someone on silly technicalities while offering zero new advice or any for that matter in regards to the subject. I like the phrase "in layman's terms", it's something I've become quite good at over the years in my profession and while perhaps a lot of what is said isn't necessarily 100% accurate it gets the point across without sounding like a complete tool or making someones else's eyes cross.

RAR files require post processing, sorry but they do. A RAR file contains only what the sensor recorded, nothing less and nothing more. Windows can only allow you to preview the file provided your camera format is supported and you have the plugin installed. You can't edit them with Windows alone nor can you convert them to jpeg so specific software is absolutely needed. Software may come free with your camera but ultimately you get what you pay for. RAW files are harder to deal with, not because they are larger but because you can't print them, post them, send them or share them with others, it's just bits and bites until you process it into jpeg. So unlike jpeg you're forced to manually process every image to take, that's harder than not having to do anything... During manual processing of RAW files you'll end up tuning the image to your monitor, you can be the most intelligent person in the world but if your monitor isn't calibrated properly your images will suffer.

So if you really feel the best advice for new photographers is to shoot in RAW so be it. It only enforces the act of relying purely on post processing rather than real photography, an art near extinction for that very same attitude. RAW has it's purpose, no doubt but there's a learning curve involved and I don't agree it's a good idea for beginners.

sphelps
12-05-2013, 11:54 PM
A good read on Ken Rockwell's website for anyone interested in reading all about the boring specifics of JPEG vs RAW

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

mohammadali
12-05-2013, 11:58 PM
what kinda clown fish is the black and yellow ?

Patwa
12-06-2013, 09:34 PM
Gotta love that need people have to bump up old threads to only attempt to discredit someone on silly technicalities while offering zero new advice or any for that matter in regards to the subject. I like the phrase "in layman's terms", it's something I've become quite good at over the years in my profession and while perhaps a lot of what is said isn't necessarily 100% accurate it gets the point across without sounding like a complete tool or making someones else's eyes cross.


not trying to discredit you, phelps.....don't take it so personal.

I don't need to offer new advice, you did a good job of doing that in your post! (see my original post where I commend you for that....did you not see that?)

You should always try to be accurate and deliberate in what you say, even if you're trying to convey it in "laymans terms" Otherwise, you open yourself up to people like me who will call you out on it. Unless you don't care, then I can't help you, and you can carry on.



So if you really feel the best advice for new photographers is to shoot in RAW so be it. It only enforces the act of relying purely on post processing rather than real photography, an art near extinction for that very same attitude. RAW has it's purpose, no doubt but there's a learning curve involved and I don't agree it's a good idea for beginners.

I never said my advice is for "new photographers is to shoot RAW"...maybe try reading my post again? My post was in your response assertion that RAW was a waste of time...nothing else

Newbies can and should start with JPEG until they feel comfy, but they shd aim to use RAW at some point as it's far superior at the end of the day.

RAR files require post processing, sorry but they do. A RAR file contains only what the sensor recorded, nothing less and nothing more. Windows can only allow you to preview the file provided your camera format is supported and you have the plugin installed. You can't edit them with Windows alone nor can you convert them to jpeg so specific software is absolutely needed. Software may come free with your camera but ultimately you get what you pay for. RAW files are harder to deal with, not because they are larger but because you can't print them, post them, send them or share them with others, it's just bits and bites until you process it into jpeg. So unlike jpeg you're forced to manually process every image to take, that's harder than not having to do anything... During manual processing of RAW files you'll end up tuning the image to your monitor, you can be the most intelligent person in the world but if your monitor isn't calibrated properly your images will suffer.


man, there is just so much wrong with this particular post, i can't even begin to comprehend. But i will. You really will never comprehend what working with RAW files can really do for your photography game, and especially how relatively easy it is to work with and incorporate into your photo-processing workflow.

And, of course, RAW files need processing. I never said they don't! lol ..read my post again? Why else are they called RAW!? My point is that processing of a RAW file is easy if you actually sit down and have everything set up (but obviously more involved than just just leaving your camera to process and spit out a JPEG you can use in like 5 seconds after you press the shutter release).

...and the processing of a RAW file on a computer by a human being is immeasurably better than the processing done on a camera. It's obvious you're not as techno-savvy as the next person (ie. me?)...it's all good. to each his own, right?

stick to what you know. and for you, if it's relying solely on the processing power of your camera alone, then that's cool beans, man. Leave the more complex stuff to the more tech-savvy people, i guess

A good read on Ken Rockwell's website for anyone interested in reading all about the boring specifics of JPEG vs RAW

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I love Ken's site, really, I do.

But if you've noticed, he writes for the "layman" ...people who want the bottom line wrt new cameras and lenses. And his opinions are just that: opinions, and directed at most photographers out there, who happen to be just amateurs and who don't give two craps about JPEG vs. RAW: they want their picture now, and they want it "perfect". For them, JPEG is the obvious answer (and yours).

no argument there.

z