on camera sharpening of pictures

Personally, I've learned to use both methods. I have parameters set in my camera that will give me pleasing JPGs right out of the camera if I need to turn around the shots quickly, but I prefer to work with RAW files when possible and post process the photos on the computer. I have far great control with the latter method.

Mark

bauerman wrote in post #2276678
The people that view the photographs of my children and family events do not look at the photos I share with any kind of critical eye. They don't care if the bokeh is pleasing, the rule of thirds was used in composition or if there is any barrel distortion visible. They could really care less if the photo is "tack sharp" or if maybe the white balance is off a little bit. They are very simply looking at my son or daughter.

Right, I was just dealing with the "whomever" you had at the end Honestly for my family shots I normally use the as-shot settings. I still shoot raw because I have a hard enough time remembering to check my ISO so I leave it set there all the time unless I'm really crunched for storage space.

I don't mean to imply that you don't have to worry about this if you use PhotoShop. Aperture, shutter speed, ISO, composition, and lighting are essential no matter whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW or letting the camera do the processing or post processing yourself.

Bottom line, if you're happy with the in camera processing then use it

e-k

E-K wrote in post #2276818
Bottom line, if you're happy with the in camera processing then use it

e-k

Agreed E-K - good dialogue - have a good weekend.

jfrancho wrote in post #2276709
Deadlines can be a good reason to use jpg, but not the only reason. Raw + post processing in an image editor is just a tool, just like using jpg and in camera parameters. If I can get an image like this or this using in cam settings, then what advantage will raw give me? Well, I will be able to make the processing decisions after I click the shutter, but chances are, those decisions would result in the same final output.

It gives you options after the fact. If you never need to excercise those options then yeah I would agree it's kind of pointless .

Myself I shoot RAW but I still set-up the camera parameters as I want the shot to turn out (where possible). For a large number of my shots I just pass them through DPP using the as-shot settings which gives me basically what the camera would have.

If you're talking "my" additional time then its measured in seconds if all I want, at this time, is the same image as the JPEG. The rest is computer time.

e-k

bauerman wrote in post #2276859
Agreed E-K - good dialogue - have a good weekend.

You as well

jfrancho wrote in post #2276709
Deadlines can be a good reason to use jpg, but not the only reason. Raw + post processing in an image editor is just a tool, just like using jpg and in camera parameters. If I can get an image like this or this using in cam settings, then what advantage will raw give me? Well, I will be able to make the processing decisions after I click the shutter, but chances are, those decisions would result in the same final output. Now, let's say I am getting paid for the images (for the pottery, I am). Time is money, and face it, a raw workflow - no matter how fast you are are - takes more time. If you can't get the results using jpg, then use raw. But you'll have more time to work on more things if you're more efficient in areas where the quality difference won't matter. Those images are made under controlled lighting, won't be printed large - if at all printed - and are all basically the same setup save a reflector or gobo here and there. These were both shot in the same run with about 60 other items. After shooting, post work - which included a crop and/or resize along with some high pass sharpening - took about 10 minutes total. Now this picture was shot in raw, and utilized many different post processing techniques. I spent about 2 hours total, over the course of a few days on it. I could have probably gotten close to it in jpg, but the flower might have died before I figured what settings would give me what I wanted. The right tool for the right person, with the right skills, for the right job. One is no better than the other, just more appropriate for the user or job.

Having just looked at your images I do not think that they are very good (this is not a personal attack), in fact I think that many of them are awful, and simply reinforce my point that in-camera processing is a waste of time.

Colin

bauerman wrote in post #2276539
I would consider myself a fairly "experienced photographer" and do not see the bang for the buck in shooting RAW and spending hours by the PC. Life is too short. I know many other "experienced photographers" that feel the exact same way.

I would argue, i would probably spend the same amount of time even if i shot jpg. Going through and deleting what should be deleted and keeping what needs to be kept.

Picking a jpg, i would still process it a little more, to fit the need. There is still a degree of editing you can put into a jpg that will help get the best of its potential. This was no different in the film, darkroom age.

I guess if you come from the perspective of taking 100 images and using just about every image, but even then batch processing through many programs can turn all RAWs into a standard JPG.

So its all relative, even in JPG. RAW has more leeway, but JPG still has a good amount too.

I've shot a lot of RAW and a lot of JPG. And probably would do more RAW+JPG if i had more memory(since my shoots are usually big).

Having just gone back and re-read all the posts in this thread I think that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting.

Accentor wrote in post #2277001
Having just gone back and re-read all the posts in this thread I think that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting.

Not agreeing with your stance on the topic should not be confused with understanding the topic.

Accentor wrote in post #2277001
Having just gone back and re-read all the posts in this thread I think that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting.

Well technically a JPEG always has some in-camera software processing

e-k

Accentor wrote in post #2276961
Having just looked at your images I do not think that they are very good (this is not a personal attack), in fact I think that many of them are awful, and simply reinforce my point that in-camera processing is a waste of time.

Colin

I will let the target of this note respond as well - but this is pretty harsh. This will not win you many allies on a forum like this one.

bauerman wrote in post #2277026
Not agreeing with your stance on the topic should not be confused with understanding the topic.

This is not English - what are you attempting to say?

bauerman wrote in post #2277045
I will let the target of this note respond as well - but this is pretty harsh. This will not win you many allies on a forum like this one.

I don't understand this either; I am looking for truth, not allies.

I shoot JPG for outdoors stuff especially if there's going to be lots of frames
I shoot RAW + large JPG for indoors stuff or shots that are more important.
If the extracted JPG isn't up to scratch then I revert to manual processing of the RAW with UFRAW, Gimp and DigiKam.

No matter what, the originals are archived before I do anything else.

Most of my PP is rotate (almost always tilted to the right dammit), crop, levels (usually lightening) and saturation (if levels have been boosted).
I could probably improve this by shooting with +1/3-2/3 EC.

I would probably shoot more RAW+JPG as well if I had a 20D that can clear the buffer faster.

bauerman wrote in post #2277045
I will let the target of this note respond as well - but this is pretty harsh. This will not win you many allies on a forum like this one.

It really doesn't matter to me what this person thinks. Elbows, a$$holes... who can really tell the difference?