I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in -or ??
I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in -or ??
Canon DSLR EOS 500D
Canon 18-55mm, Canon 50-250mm
If you after quality of your images and you know how to edit- proccess your images then
full steam ahead for
it will take more -Gb- of your HDD space but I think its worth doing
ask around for more good reasons to do so ...
However, that said let me say that gives you the best potential to produce the best image but it has a bigger curve and requires more knowledge.
Some cameras shoot both at once, and that's what I do, but it uses up a lot of storage.
Maybe until you can say you're no longer a newbie, you should stick with , and then work up to once you have your head around the whole photography thing a bit more. Do some reading about and see what that brings you. files are very big and not all software can process them, but that's just part of the curve.
Think of it like your camera - when you're new you put it on manual - then after a while you work up to the various dials and settings - using is similar, so it's better to walk with before trying to run too quickly.
When I first started photography I only captured in JPG mode. I really regret not having RAWs of those early shots nowadays
imo go +JPG
Horses for. Sometimes is better, sometimes is the preferable choice. In general: if you've got the time shoot - if nothing else, you always can create the exact same from the as when you shot directly.
All feedback is highly appreciated!
I have a rule - if the shot might matter later I shoot, if it's something that's disposable or for quick bulk processing, like sport, I'll shoot
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
Thanks for the info.
I have software to convert files, should I adjust any of my images before conversion??
The idea of afile is that there is extra data to allow more scope in adjustment before posterisation occurs. If you are just converting images without adjusting...then it's no different from JPGs...except you are just wasting time and computer power
The biggest drawback with jpgs is the fact that you can't make a image out of one... but you can always make a jpg image out of a file.
Which mode makes best sense to you?
If you were shooting hundreds(or more) images per day and needed speedy turnaround of images, shooting may end up slowing you down relative to shooting in jpg mode.
I always shoot in . The reason is that there is more bit depth in the format, so there is significantly more latitude. If you use LightRoom to develop your files then it's very straight forward. It is a simple matter to recover lost detail in highlights and shadows. The main reasons to shoot in would be if you're shooting lots of frames and you have a small or if you're not worried about quality and just want to bang out a few quick prints.
Hope this helps
. I too saw the .
[QUOTE=arthurking83;482642]The biggest drawback with jpgs is the fact that you can't make aimage out of one...QUOTE]
Not entirely the case, because with Photoshop, you can use the Open As... command and open a JPG as a Camera file, but of course it'll never be the same as starting with a true file from the beginning.
I'm with the others though and would advise on shooting in Camera unless, as Kiwi says, you're shooting "disposable or bulk images."
Canon: 5D Mk II, 40D, 10D all gripped, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2.8L, 24-105 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS, 50 f1.4, 100 f2.8 Macro and other assorted accessories.
Some stalk, some chase and some pursue... but I hunt.
G’Day. I’M A NOT A GOOD Photographer, I’m a beginner however I been shooting film in the 1970s the cost factorme.
Now I’m back to photography thanks to the digital-age“. Digital it is a lot cheaper” when you got your gear together.
I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, ho swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or . I started shooting not long ago and I found there is a difference, I would not go back to JPG.
I discovered a instant comparable difference…so I’m sorry Mr Rockwell on this one you are wrong.
And for all you photographers thinking or JPG.. tray you’ll properly surprise your selves, what have you got to lose?
I shootbut I think its horses for .. I shoot because I do alot of post processing.. if you dont do post processing and are happy with minor adjustments out of the camera then continue to shoot JPG. When you start getting more into post processing then change over to . The down side to is that the files are MUCH bigger.. so be prepared for the amount of space your images will start to take up on your hard drive.. I started to shoot around the time I moved out of the Green/Auto mode on my camera.. having said that, there is nothing wrong with shooting auto/green and there is nothing wrong with shooting in JPG.
- Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
- Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
- Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his, he changes space-time.
- Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
- Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for thewhen he shoots a landscape - the waits for him.
- Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
- Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.•
- Beforeor releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a sticker and the less good get a sticker
- Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
- Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
- Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by theof his genius
- Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
- Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
- Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of
- Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
- When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
- Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
- Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
- Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
- Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his
- Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
- The termwas coined after Ken Rockwell's silhouette
- Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
- A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" Rockwell
- Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
- Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues.
(Its a joke)
regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff
OK Kym , we all know how much you disapprove of Ken.
is a lot more mucking about and does not necessarily give a measurably /noticeably better image. Nearly all of the images Mongo has posted on AP have been from originals and doubts they would have looked any different if they had statred off as
Mongo used to shoot most of the time but more recently he has found it makes so little difference that he mostly shoots now unless it is something really important.
Otherwise, shoot .
The benefits of are significant.
Firstly, images are essentially untouched, and the least-processed image your camera can create. It's literally the data captured by the camera. White balance information is not written to images, so you can apply whatever WB you like. With a JPG, the camera permanently writes WB information to the image, based on whatever WB you've chosen prior to , or whatever the camera decides if you're using auto-WB.
images contain a much greater bit depth (minimum of 12 bits) than JPG. With a 12-bit image, you have 4,096 brightness levels, as opposed to 256 with JPG. This means you have finer gradation and much more latitude for recovering detail from under-exposed images. Some cameras have a higher bit depth when shooting .
Think of files as digital negatives. These are as pure as you can get.
What scares a lot of people is the concept of having to process the image. In practicality, there's only one extra step, and that is conversion from to JPG (or PSD, TIFF et al.). It takes a whole 30 seconds to do it, and it isn't complicated at all.
The advice I always give people is to capture the highest quality image with the camera, as you can never add what wasn't there, and you never know what your future requirements may be. You may only be uploading small JPGs to a Web site now, but in the future you may need much higher resolution and depending on your image, you may need to recover shadow detail that would be heavily compressed and perhaps unrecoverable if you're working with an 8-bit JPG.
The other concern people have with is the file size. With the current generation of DSLRs with pixel counts pushing into medium-format territory, the images are rather large. My advice still stands: Do not compromise image quality unnecessarily. Flash cards and hard disks are very inexpensive these days, so storage should never be a reason for throwing away previous detail in your images.
I like my Photos like my sushi...
Website - www.dylanbenton.com.au
Canon 5dMk2 | Canon 40D | Canon 17-40L f4 | Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro | Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II USM |
For all of the reason everyone else has said, shoot.
But I must confess, when shooting digital I'm about 90% , 10% . I may regret this later but IMO much of what it comes down to is output. Where are your images destined?
Shooting only for facebook and I think it's overkill, but jpegs for exhibition prints and you might be handicapping yourself.
Having said that, is important when shooting and it's not necessary any more troublesome to deal with the file sizes, conversions etc. But it is a good habit to get into establishing good work flow.
Now my reason for shooting most the time:
-slow shooting speed on my camera (S5 - quite ancient by today's standard)
-bad (too lazy)
-computer not fast enough (too poor)
- files are massive on a S5 (25mb) for a 6mp output
-Output are generally web, maybe 10% print.
In an ideal world, I would like all my files to have a back-up but I live.