Lens Envy

Wonder if the 600mm impresses the girls on the beach...

darktiger wrote in post #2195138
Wonder if the 600mm impresses the girls on the beach...

If they knew it was $7200 it might impress a few....

Oh god, now it's becoming uncool to shoot RAW?!?

I can't keep up.

Petkal wrote in post #2194630
Nice image and the story, compadre.

It was actually the first ever LOW field trip.....I even got some good shots of Pelicans, Coots & some Mallards (posted in the Bird Forum)

sugarzebra wrote in post #2195297
It was actually the first ever LOW field trip.....I even got some good shots of Pelicans, Coots & some Mallards (posted in the Bird Forum)

Oooohhhh mama, can't wait !
Please file your expense report with the LOW treasurer Jagwire.

Petkal wrote in post #2195303
Oooohhhh mama, can't wait !
Please file your expense report with the LOW treasurer Jagwire.

Oh good, if the trip can be expensed for photographic reasons, does that mean I can now legitimately post in the Professional forum?

whiskaz wrote in post #2195286
Oh god, now it's becoming uncool to shoot RAW?!?

I can't keep up.

LOL-It's always been the case!

It should be no suprise that a lot of sport shooters shoot JPEG and artsy fartsy and lazy people shoot RAW.

I'm in the latter

Ditto... but I don't like to think of myself as lazy, just prone to mistakes... and semi artsy-fartsy

I don't do a whole lot of adjusting in RAW, but the illusion that it's somehow a better way to do things, works for me. I don't have tight deadlines for getting pics of my daughter posted to the web, either

whiskaz wrote in post #2195386
Ditto... but I don't like to think of myself as lazy, just prone to mistakes... and semi artsy-fartsy

I don't do a whole lot of adjusting in RAW, but the illusion that it's somehow a better way to do things, works for me. I don't have tight deadlines for getting pics of my daughter posted to the web, either

I agree and have shot everything in RAW for the last year or so....it seems like good insurance that you are always going to get an acceptable result. The only processing I do in RAW is level the horizon, adjust the exposure and usually warm the temperature 2-300 degrees. Its a good system but it does take a significant amount of time.

Another reason I shoot in RAW is to have a 'permanent' digital negative, which makes sense theoretically, but I'm not sure how important that is practically.

rabidcow wrote in post #2194984
All I shoot is JPEG, I have learned how to get the exposure right the first time, and in doing so I have had no need for RAW....I have never met anyone else in my line of work that shoots RAW, we basically think that it is plain silly.

Nice to hear this from someone else, especially a pro.

I tried to use RAW but I never saw any benefit to it.

I've never had any complaints with JPGs. I find the AWB is good for most situations (except artificial lighting) and if my exposure was so far off I would have noticed in the LCD screen and retaken the shot.

rabidcow wrote in post #2194984
All I shoot is JPEG, I have learned how to get the exposure right the first time, and in doing so I have had no need for RAW. Pixel peepers will jump on me at this point and state that I am throwing away 1/3 of my image info by not shooting RAW, but this is balogna when it comes to print.

Depends on the size of the print.

Fair enough. The key phrase, I think, is "your line of work."

For news and magazine stuff, JPEG is fine. Saves time, helps meet deadlines, etc. Also, JPEG is suited to the end result - publication in a magazine or newspaper. Even a double-page spread on SI isnt exactly a very large print, so doesn't need RAW.

For a lot of other income-earning applications, RAW is needed. Foe example, my agency requires 50MB files, which means up-ressing.. and a 12-bit RAW file is indeed better. For print sizes of 16x20 (a fairly normal output for me) or larger, RAW helps.

Horses for courses - there is a reason both exist.

Vandit

most pro sports shooters dont muck around with RAW these days. slows the camera down, much more to deal with in processing. and many publications just want the shot ASAP, and you rather you shoot JPEG and just get it right in the camera.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2195854
most pro sports shooters dont muck around with RAW these days. slows the camera down, much more to deal with in processing. and many publications just want the shot ASAP, and you rather you shoot JPEG and just get it right in the camera.

these guy use the best equipment, work on getting the exposure right, handle probably hundreds if not thousands of files a week and trust their equipment to do some processing for them.

sounds about right to me especially if the end result is practically indistinguishable from the more laborious route.

ed rader

Consider if you will that the light source for surfing shots is fairly consistent for most of the day even with clouds. And even I not that WB tends to almost be spot on when shooting outdoors.

Take those same jpeg shooters into indoor situations with inconsitant lighting and I would bet that about half of them would start shooting raw.

That noted. I take both .CR2 plus .JPG because that way I have the best of both worlds.
I am getting to the point where I could just ignore the raw, but I also have 20 years experience as an imagery analyst and just have issues with doing something that results in a loss of information in the image. However, that is just my hangup.

If you can do the job with jpeg, great. But if you can afford the processing time and storage to shoot raw then I think that a professional would want to make sure they have the best quality for the customer and that is a raw shot to start with.

Just my opinion,

Longwatcher wrote in post #2196200
Consider if you will that the light source for surfing shots is fairly consistent for most of the day even with clouds. And even I not that WB tends to almost be spot on when shooting outdoors.

Take those same jpeg shooters into indoor situations with inconsitant lighting and I would bet that about half of them would start shooting raw.

That noted. I take both .CR2 plus .JPG because that way I have the best of both worlds.
I am getting to the point where I could just ignore the raw, but I also have 20 years experience as an imagery analyst and just have issues with doing something that results in a loss of information in the image. However, that is just my hangup.

If you can do the job with jpeg, great. But if you can afford the processing time and storage to shoot raw then I think that a professional would want to make sure they have the best quality for the customer and that is a raw shot to start with.

Just my opinion,

that would be a good time to shoot raw for sure.

i know the loss of information bit is a tough one to get past. my buddy is a devout raw shooter for that reason and he also will not crop any photos so he's not willing to give up any information even when it makes for a better photo !

ed rader