|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
2 questions
Had a discussion on another thread and it made me wonder... 2 questions: 1) Do you shoot in RAW and why? 2) Do mostly shoot with flash or natural lighting and why? Sep 14 05 11:17 pm Link 1) Do you shoot in RAW and why? - So much more control in post processing. Ultimately yields a larger image. No loss in quality during post p. 2) Do mostly shoot with flash or natural lighting and why? - Both, but no on camera flash. Try to be versatile in studio, and on location with images I produce. Sep 14 05 11:29 pm Link 1.i'm usually clothed when shooting... 2.i mostly use flash, as the majority of my shoots are done outdoors, during the night, or in dark, abandoned warehouses/factories...natural light during the day...and available lighting indoors(decorative lamps, flourescents, fog lamps, tv's, rope lighting, christmas lights, etc.) i don't own studio lights... Sep 14 05 11:34 pm Link 1. I shot JPEG (hi-res/low compression) vs RAW cause I shoot LOADS of images and dont have time for all the post processing poopoo that RAW requires. 2. I have several flashes, umbrellas, softboxes, flashheads and power supplies, and use them when conditions require it, but Im a BIG fan of available light, and will opt for that if and whenever possible...  Sep 14 05 11:41 pm Link 1) It depends. Generally, if I have lots of light, and I know my exposure is spot on, then I know that very little post-processing is required, and I shoot in JPEG. On the other hand, if either the subject or the setting is dark, and/or the exposure is tricky, and there is a significant likelihood that I will have to mess with it in post-production, then I shoot RAW. It also depends on the client's needs. If it is an event and I'm shooting tons of photos that are basically going to be used as snapshots, then I shoot JPEG. If I'm doing fine art photos in small quantities, that I know I will want to blow up to very large prints, then I want the finest quality image I can get, and I'll shoot RAW. To me, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. 2) Both. I used to shoot primarily nature and travel photography, almost always with available natural light. But I've been doing a lot more studio work the last few years, and enjoy creative studio lighting as well. I refuse to use built-in camera flash under any circumstances. Sep 15 05 12:22 am Link 1. jpg 2. studio strobes, although I've been experimenting outdoors a bit - using a reflector outdoors. Paul Sep 15 05 12:26 am Link Jpeg ...shoot to many pics to shoot raw,once in awhile ill shoot raw if i feel like doin some of my fancy stuff cause its much better to edit in.. I shoot mostly indoors with white lightings... I like shooting indoors... But i like shooting out doors also and will Use avail light mostly.. At nite i will use white lightnings and infared outdoors. Nite shooting with avail light and long shutters has gotten me alota nice stuff... I like to experiment and will use anything in a shoot.. Candles...led lighting..christmas lights..the light from a tv gives out a very good spectrum... My fave is a 6 foot funhouse mirror i place 30 feet outside the studio and shine back into the wall thru the whole building 50 feet to the white wall... It keeps the models warm on winter days and gives off some of my best work!! "Warning do not open eyes when using the mirror it is using sunlight that is very bright"...!! (:------ Hj Sep 15 05 12:38 am Link with the right light jpeg but usually raw so i can adjust wb and do a little exposure comp if need be i just got a little more equipment so im doing alot more indoors with strobes but i like available light and reflectors since i dont ant to spend a load of money on a good off camera flash and my lights arent exactly the most portable Sep 15 05 12:45 am Link i'd personally shoot RAW/TIFF if my intended use was for print, and jpeg for web applications. artificial light where clarity of the minutest detail is of importance or when natural light isn't ample, and natural light when a more natural and artsy effect is desired for the images. Sep 15 05 08:32 am Link Visual Mindscapes wrote: When I shoot digital, I am usually not too concerned about fine image quality. It's digital, right? RAW takes a lot more time to write to the memory card, takes more space, and takes more time to edit. Anything over 5 megapixels in the lowest compressed .jpg is not losing any color quality that I am not going to makeup in post. There are enough pixels to keep it sharp. Sep 15 05 10:15 am Link 1) Depends on what I'm shooting for, but I typically shoot jpg 2) Depends on what I'm shooting, sometimes I shoto studio and sometimes I shoot on location with natural light Sep 15 05 10:19 am Link RobHowardStudios wrote: Gotta disagree Rob. While digital is nowhere near 4x5 quality, it can take MF head to head. Sep 15 05 10:21 am Link I shoot RAW when I'm shooting < 100 images because my pre-PS Nikon software works better with it. Flash or strobes in the studio, but love to utilize natural light outdoors. Sep 15 05 10:22 am Link 1. Always raw, never, ever jpeg*. Too much lost information, not enough post production flexibility. Lots of people always chime in with "well, if you know what you're doing in the first place you shouldn't need to shoot raw..." bullshit. I like to compare it to shooting a polaroid vs. a negative developed by hand under controlled conditions- which would you want? Best part is, you can go back an redevelop that neg anytime and anyway you want if you're working raw. In the next couple of years, all the bellyaching over storage space, buffer speed and card prices will be passe'. 2. Light as is appropriate to the situation, but I prefer existing when possible. I just like a more natural, subtle look- even when shooting strobes. *unless you're a photojournalist who needs to transmit images on the spot Sep 15 05 10:58 am Link 1) I always shoot in RAW and then use Canon's Digital Photo Pro software (DPP) to convert to jpeg or TIFF when going into photoshop. I find RAW leaves more capabilities to adjust color balance and tweak exposure and DPP makes it easy to apply those changes in batch and then dump to jpeg images. 2) Still shooting natural light with some modifiers such as reflectors and diffusers. This is simply a personal choice at this point in time. I enjoy exploring natural light and working with it more than visualizing my own light and trying to create it. Sep 15 05 11:54 am Link I'm going to test RAW vs. .JPG and see for myself. I have a suspiscion that I don't lose enough quality to worry about it for the applications I use digital for. Enough of you swear by it. I guess I'll have to see for myself. Thanks again MM for (possibly) broadening my otherwise narrowed mind. Sep 15 05 08:23 pm Link Hi res jpeg. Outside most of the time. I do have novatron studio lighting when I have to use lighting. I would rather shoot outside than in a studio. maybe why my outside looks better than my studio work. bs Sep 15 05 08:30 pm Link chapa wrote: Whew..... I thought I was the only one. Sep 15 05 08:49 pm Link I do usually shoot RAW, mainly because of less file compression. Most of the time I can post process an image just fine whether RAW or converted JPG, a little care while shooting goes a long way ;-) I don't use flash. Natural or reflected light, or studio lighting :-) Sep 15 05 08:57 pm Link 1) RAW 2) mostly (probably 85%) natural, but I'll use fill flash or a reflector if the MUA got a little to dark around the eyes. I feel like I'm drifting back to the "use lights" thing after having drifted away for a while Sep 15 05 08:59 pm Link Visual Mindscapes wrote: RAW because it lends itself to far more processing flexibility (you can save an iffy shot.) Visual Mindscapes wrote: Flash because I hate using a tripod. Also, where I shoot my indoor stuff has crappy windows. Sep 15 05 09:02 pm Link .... Search the forums I'm sure you'll find PLENTY of raw vs jpeg debates. Sep 15 05 09:14 pm Link (I know it's the concert photography thread you're talking about, and I'm glad these questions are here rather than continuing to hijack.  ) 1) Raw, because it fits into my workflow better. I use PSCS, and I've cusomized Adobe Camera Raw to have the default settings closer to how I like them. For example, I feel that my camera doesn't treat midtones well. When I expose for the highlights (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor … ight.shtml) and "develop" for the shadows, I usually think the midtones are too dark. So I have every photo I take start with brighter midtones than my camera captures. This saves me a lot of time when batch processing Raw files. ( ) 2) This really depends on what I'm shooting any why. In the studio, I almost always use strobes, though I do get some good magic hour light coming into the dressing room, so I sometimes shoot in there. Outdoors with with models, I usually have a fill flash, but not always. When what I'm shooting already has carefully planned lighting, such as concerts, theater, dance, etc., I do not use a flash at all. I'm often shooting at the request of the lighting designer, so to use a flash would be very detrimental. And it's distracting to the performers and the audience. Sep 15 05 09:20 pm Link Brian, your comment about boosting the midtones is interesting. I'd like to see a before and after example but it sounds like you don't have one the way you're processing your files, right? Paul Sep 15 05 10:48 pm Link 1. Raw. I shoot for the end process of printing. Shooting RAW allows for a wider color gamut then JPG. Wider Color Gamut allows for better more vibrant prints, when going thru the whole ICC profile from start to finish. Also Raw allows for more accurate color correction with the color chart, and again allows for more accurate prints. 2. Fair mix of studio light and avaible light. I personally love the warmth of natural light, but you dont have the flexibility of workin in a studio with controlled lighting. Sep 15 05 10:55 pm Link The only difference here is 20 points in ACR's brightness slider. Factory default is 50, and my custom default is 70. (I also have the Calibrate sliders all over the place, based on how I find my camera responds to colors.)  Sep 15 05 11:03 pm Link Interesting, thanks. I'll have to experiment a bit. That looks like about the difference I'd get if I adjusted the highlight slider in Levels. Paul Sep 16 05 12:34 am Link It's closer to the difference you'd get if you adjusted the midtones slider in Levels. The white part of the shirt is changed less than the skin and bricks (for example). In ACR, the Exposure slider adjusts the white point, the Shadows slider adjusts the black point, and the Brightness slider adjusts the midtones. Sep 16 05 12:45 am Link OMG Raw Jpeg wars !!!!! Raw is for quality Jpeg is for quanity plain and simple no if ands or butts about it... Daaa... set the camera for whatever you are doing and take the lens cap off b/c 7 stop range aint going to save that pic whatever you shoot inn... How many make a living at photography and how many are weekend shooters here?????????????? I ask b/c you all sound so serious about questions for the most part solve themselfs on a shoot... or in PP Sep 16 05 12:56 am Link DragonFlyImage wrote: I wouldn't call this a war. There have been much more heated debates in these threads: Sep 16 05 01:08 am Link I dont know I guess I see the threads and see the photos and I cant believe the pics are for the most part pretty good so that brings me back to the start of the thread and I am thinking {opps thinking lol} seems like they worked it out or have an understanding of what to do to fix a problem or anything else I can understand not just this thread but others too that if a weekend shooter may not know things but a semi or pro should I would think know a good part of photography I am not an essay writter that is for sure is there a thread for that? > : "" {}(),,,, .... ::; Sep 16 05 01:35 am Link DragonFlyImage wrote: Might I add that I only process on a Mac which is the only machine in the whole world worthy of doing graphic work. And I shoot a Nikon as it is the best camera. And I drive an import. No domestic wheels for this photographer. No sir. Sep 16 05 01:45 am Link usedfilm wrote: Mac! Sep 16 05 02:27 am Link I dont shoot with digital, but with raw you get pretty danm close to film quality but you have to have a ton of flash cards. But I use mostly Natural lighting. Somthing about it. Makes things seem more real and canded, not posed... i dont know. Sep 16 05 08:58 am Link |
