mangrovedutch wrote in post #13038264
OK, reading this leads me to a question.
Is it possible to get a nice, sharp and crispy straight out of the camera (JPEG), or is it the nature of this beast, that you have to shoot in RAW and process in DPP (the best PP for this camera according to the general consensus of what I've read), in order to get a decent usable image?
The reason for asking is that I prefer to get the image straight out of the camera, and tweak here and there if I want to (not have to). I prefer to have done all the work (composition, lighting, ISO, shutterspeed, and focus point), and get an image without having to build an image out of loads of RAW data.
As I've said earlier on, I don't have a 7D.
But, these cameras are designed to put out good images, including good jpegs. I can't imagine (and I've never heard) that the 7D would put out "inferior" jpegs, assuming you used good exposure settings and used good shooting techniques, and assuming you didn't want or need to do any of the "serious" post-processing for which the Raw file can give the most benefit.
But, TeamSpeed mentioned something worth considering and that is that he has actions/routines that are made to prepare an image for final output. One important consideration here is "output sharpening". Your jpeg has been given "input sharpening", which may be plenty for your needs, or it may not. Many images, after sizing to an output size (for Web, sharing or print) can benefit from some type of sharpening at that size and for that use. In fact, Lightroom has a built-in Output Sharpening function for this. The "traditional" way for Photoshop users is to have actions for a given need -- either for typical USM settings, maybe one that gives you a layer with a mask so you can brush in sharpening selectively, maybe some more elaborate setup. In Photoshop you can run an action in the editor, but there is also a nifty utility called the Image Processor that you can run from Bridge -- you can run a Resize action and then a Sharpen action and then PS converts and saves the resulting jpeg in a destination you have chosen.
Other apps will require a different approach, depending on its capabilities and your needs.
I don't shoot in RAW, I just don't
. From my understanding, RAW is basically unusable without processing, which I know is a great way to shoot as you capture lots more data than JPEG, but call me old fashioned
, I just don't want to have to Post Process every image in order to have an image that I can use. I'm not against learning how to process RAW, but for me it just not capturing an image there and then, whereas for others, it is part of capturing a moment and then spending the extra time to build that moment even further. I'm sure that there will be moments where I really want to build an image in order to get a certain mood, so I will learn how to shoot RAW and process accordingly. I want that to be my choice, not a forced issue because that is how this camera works.
You don't "need" to shoot Raw to get a good image. If the light and your shooting work together to get a great jpeg, well, more power to you! Raw comes into its power play when you want or need to do post-processing for luminance and color tones because it has a significantly greater amount of image data than the jpegs and, because of that, you have greater latitude in making adjustments to those things without creating "arifiacts" that are destuctive to your IQ. Plus, a Raw file is preserved, despite how much processing you do with it. Changes are only applied when you convert to an RGB image. The software can "remember" your settings so that you can return to the version that you have created, or you can also revert to the original or some other state to create a new version.
As to Raw requiring more work in post-processing, all I can do is reiterate the strength of DPP -- with a Raw file you start with a preview that is pretty much what a jpeg would have been, and if you are pleased, you can quickly convert it to a jpeg for output, or to a tiff if you want to edit in an app like Photoshop at the higher quality of the tiff file. So, it takes a bit of time to do the conversion, but that's time, not so much "work".
So, Raw is a great format, but it's not required -- I and many others here put years into shooting jpegs. But, as we became aware of the benefits of Rw shooting, at some point we made the leap.