Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 02 Dec 2007 (Sunday) 17:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RAW - love it, hate it.

 
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Dec 03, 2007 19:49 |  #16

RAW is a time waster?:rolleyes:

I wonder what the boys in the darkroom used to complain about?;)


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PhotosGuy
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
75,941 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2576
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Dec 03, 2007 19:55 |  #17

I wonder what the boys in the darkroom used to complain about?

Fixer fumes!


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bill ­ Boehme
Enjoy being spanked
Avatar
7,359 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 88
Joined Jan 2007
Location: DFW Metro-mess, Texas
     
Dec 03, 2007 20:14 as a reply to  @ PhotosGuy's post |  #18

I never need to do any post processing corrections becaue all of my pictures are perfect.

Ahem ... please excuse me while I go wash my mouth with soap.


Atmospheric haze in images? Click for Tutorial to Reduce Atmospheric Haze with Photoshop.
Gear List .... Gallery: Woodturner Bill (external link)
Donate to Support POTN Operating Costs

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JasonW
Senior Member
Avatar
293 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
     
Dec 03, 2007 20:26 |  #19

Using RAW shouldn't really take any more time than JPEG. You can always right an action in PS to process the RAW images to give JPEGs or TIFFs straight from the camera. Yes the computer has to work but you can just walk away and let it go....

Personally I shoot 100% RAW (as you might have guessed). I can edit the images in ACR if I want or just process then as is. The only downside I see with RAW is that it tends to make me a bit lazier when taking the shot than I used to be using film. That issue is my problem not the format (if that makes sense..)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Dec 04, 2007 11:20 |  #20

Glenn NK wrote in post #4434699 (external link)
RAW is a time waster?:rolleyes:

I wonder what the boys in the darkroom used to complain about?;)

Oh, don't you remember? Let's see ...

  • Dry / cracked hands from too much time in the chemicals.
  • Can't see when you go into the room, can't see when you come out.
  • Loading metal reels (I got really good at this!)
  • No food or snacking while you work.
  • Radio reception is terrible in here.
  • Waiting 5 minutes for film development is boooring but you have to stay engaged since you have to agitate every 30 seconds.
  • Little sister needs to go potty so you have to put your stuff away to let her in.
- Keith -

- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Glenn ­ NK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,630 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Victoria, BC
     
Dec 04, 2007 12:32 |  #21

n1as wrote in post #4438514 (external link)
Oh, don't you remember? Let's see ...
  • Dry / cracked hands from too much time in the chemicals.
  • Can't see when you go into the room, can't see when you come out.
  • Loading metal reels (I got really good at this!)
  • No food or snacking while you work.
  • Radio reception is terrible in here.
  • Waiting 5 minutes for film development is boooring but you have to stay engaged since you have to agitate every 30 seconds.
  • Little sister needs to go potty so you have to put your stuff away to let her in.
- Keith -

So RAW is looking not so bad now eh?;)


When did voluptuous become voluminous?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
queenbee288
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,610 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Stanford, Ky
     
Dec 04, 2007 18:02 |  #22

I have found I like raw and photoshopin genreal lot more since I got a faster computer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tangcla
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,779 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 04, 2007 18:54 |  #23

queenbee288 wrote in post #4440802 (external link)
I have found I like raw and photoshopin genreal lot more since I got a faster computer.

HAHAHA that is so true!!


Clarence
www.tangcla.com - photography (external link)
Canon 5D Mark III x2 | 16-35mm f/2.8L | 24-70mm f/2.8L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
100mm f/2.8L IS macro | 200mm f/2.0L IS| 580EX-II x2 | 430EX-II | PocketWizard TT1/TT5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
islandboy
Member
32 posts
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere in the sun
     
Dec 05, 2007 12:44 |  #24

The only additional time I see spent in RAW is the time spent converting the file. If any major processing (WB, exposure, etc.) needs to be done it can be done much faster in RAW than in Photoshop. IMO, the only time advantage a jpeg has is if the photo is absolutely perfect straight out of the camera and there are enough posts on here about the quality of a coverted RAW vs. a straight-out-of-the-camera jpeg that I won't go any further on that topic.


Canon EOS 40D, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS, Speedlite 430EX II, G5, G11 with underwater housing, Powershot A95 with underwater housing, SD850is, Vixia HF S100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rooeey
-Shorty-
Avatar
2,554 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2007
Location: Sydney Australia
     
Dec 05, 2007 14:08 |  #25

In saying all this it seems many people prefer Lightroom to DPP for RAW
processing and conversion...

Why is this so ???


1D MK111 , 5D Classic,24-70F2.8, 16-35F2.8, 70-200F2.8 IS a 430EXII 2x 580EXII and a Mac...:cool:
http://s229.photobucke​t.com/albums/ee124/roo​eey/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rfreschner
ishka bibble
Avatar
2,576 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Andover, CT...................... Go Red Sox!
     
Dec 05, 2007 14:31 |  #26

rooeey wrote in post #4446024 (external link)
Why is this so ???

Ease of use and DNG support.


Rick
"We both can't be wrong; I must be right"
Bob Welch
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
figmented
Senior Member
Avatar
640 posts
Joined Apr 2005
     
Dec 05, 2007 15:55 |  #27

raw rocks.. i dont see what the big deal for WB is.. select the ones that look similar, adjust and sync.. big deal.

next question.


Canon 5D - Canon 20D - 580ex - Gary Fong Dong - Stofen
70-200 2.8L IS - 24-70 2.8L - 50 1.8 - 17-55 2.8 IS - 85 1.8
Lightroom & Photoshop Pro
www.slantphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidcrebelxt
Goldmember
Avatar
3,016 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Missouri, USA
     
Dec 05, 2007 16:07 |  #28

rooeey wrote in post #4446024 (external link)
In saying all this it seems many people prefer Lightroom to DPP for RAW
processing and conversion...

Why is this so ???

Jumping on the bandwagon? :eek:

There's more powerful, and plentiful tools in LR to be sure, and if highlight recovery is of interest to you, DPP simply can't handle it. But as for color (In my experience), LR for me shifts it all over the place until/if you can set a preset, whereas in DPP is one of the best I've seen.

That said I use LR, too. My advice is, if DPP works for you and you like its results stick with it. If you're tempted by the power of the dark side...er... Lightroom, give it a try.


David C.
Equipment: Canon Dig. Rebel XT; 18-55mm EF-S; 28-105mm EF; 50mm 1.8 EF
Sigma ef-500 DG ST, Elements, Gimp, Lightroom
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dcrebelxt (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hassiman
Member
130 posts
Joined May 2007
     
Dec 05, 2007 16:46 as a reply to  @ davidcrebelxt's post |  #29

RAW processing - How much better is LightRoom than ACR

Is LightRoom any better than Adobe camera Raw for processing and adjusting RAW files? I know they both use ACR but are the adjustment tools different or better in LR?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tangcla
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,779 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Dec 05, 2007 16:49 |  #30

hassiman wrote in post #4447017 (external link)
Is LightRoom any better than Adobe camera Raw for processing and adjusting RAW files? I know they both use ACR but are the adjustment tools different or better in LR?

You mean the one in Photoshop CS2/3? Yes, it has more control over aspects.


Clarence
www.tangcla.com - photography (external link)
Canon 5D Mark III x2 | 16-35mm f/2.8L | 24-70mm f/2.8L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
100mm f/2.8L IS macro | 200mm f/2.0L IS| 580EX-II x2 | 430EX-II | PocketWizard TT1/TT5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,465 views & 0 likes for this thread
RAW - love it, hate it.
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Telescopus
1208 guests, 333 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.