on camera sharpening of pictures

Awful lot of rubbish been propounded here. If you want "quick" results or even to print directly from the camera (i.e. from the CF card) then by all means choose JPEG and select your preferred in-camera processing settings. If you want to produce the best possible images from your captures then shoot in RAW - there really is no contest here, and you experienced guys know that.

Colin

Careful children. Do not run with the scissors

Rick Wong wrote in post #2281019
Now there you have it.My mind always thinks more is best.Never thought of going - I tried pushing the parameters but was unhappy with the result.I went back to 0 settings.So are you saying that pehaps - settings give you more latitude for PP?

Not really. What I'm saying is that the histogram on the camera is derived from the jpg image generated in camera. That jpg image is produced using the in-camera parameters, even if you are really shooting RAW. Contrast can impact the histogram more than the other parameters. If you use the histogram to adjust while shooting your exposure results could be impacted.

And if I read a bit slower I would have realized that E-K already answered this. And much more clearly than I did...

Accentor wrote in post #2281374
Awful lot of rubbish been propounded here. If you want "quick" results or even to print directly from the camera (i.e. from the CF card) then by all means choose JPEG and select your preferred in-camera processing settings. If you want to produce the best possible images from your captures then shoot in RAW - there really is no contest here, and you experienced guys know that.

Colin

I agree, and unless you wanted to print directly form your camera, I really don't see any point in shooting Jpeg if you have the RAW editor for Photoshop..

With a few clicks, you can open all of your RAW files at the same time and correct them all at the same time. Just like an in camera setting but better because if you find a really nice image that you want to convert ot a PSD, you have the RAW file, which will get you so much farther in post processing.

Of course, if your worried about space on you memory card, or need to rapid fire the most possible images into your buffer, then it would make sense to shoot Jpeg...

Some people have posted that one should pride themselves based on their photographic skills rather than their PS skills.

However, PS work is correcting the optical downfalls of the lense, not one's technique. There is little one can do (shooting at 1/200 or higher, ISO 100, bracket exposure, f/5.6-9) but someones even that is not possible (shooting a waterfall at 5" f/32) and hence a little work in PS can correct the optical disadvantages in the lens.

Any photograph will benefit from some PS work, it is up to the owner whether he is content with the photograph as it is, or wants to improve it a little bit.

The only reasons for jpeg as I can see are: for sports (not to fill up the buffer too quickly) or for work that demands a lot of pictures to be taken >100 and most of them sent off to the clients ASAP

A lot of you guys who are advocating "better photographic skills" against "post photographic processing" are really exhibiting a form of inverted snobbery.

Take a step back in time and look at the dark-room processing applied to ALL film negatives. This certainly took more skill than the photographer's very limited input to camera settings in those days.

Processing (whether it be digital or chemical) is a complex and difficult to learn skill and as much a part of "Photography" (in its literal sense) as pointing the hardware at something and capturing the light-reflected data.

Colin

No offence please, but in MY experience this is hardly a technical problem but rather psychological.
Except for the sports and wedding shooters who are mostly pressed with time to deliver their shots, almost all photographers who strongly advocate against shooting RAW had their personal problems with learning advanced post processing.

Hermeto wrote in post #2284405
No offence please, but in MY experience this is hardly a technical problem but rather psychological.
Except for the sports and wedding shooters who are mostly pressed with time to deliver their shots, almost all photographers who strongly advocate against shooting RAW had their personal problems with learning advanced post processing.

Absolutely correct. Getting to grips with a high-end DSLR is difficult enough, coping with Photoshop is a nightmare. I only use Photoshop Elements, which is difficult enough (for insomnia try reading the manual), I have never met anyone who can cope with the "real thing" - seriously, I know a lot of guys (some of them very capable amateur photographers) who are not strapped for cash and have bought Photoshop and never used it.

I do find the included software (DPP) very good for RAW processing, and it obeys my keystrokes!!

Colin

Hermeto wrote in post #2284405
No offence please, but in MY experience this is hardly a technical problem but rather psychological.
Except for the sports and wedding shooters who are mostly pressed with time to deliver their shots, almost all photographers who strongly advocate against shooting RAW had their personal problems with learning advanced post processing.

Agreed. I'm fortunate enough to come from a graphics background hence I've allready got years of experience in PS to aid with my post processing. I think if people gave it the chance (and didn't think that all post processing involved sharpening, contrast, saturation till the image looks painted) they would shoot RAW and process their very best pictures. It's amazing how much 16bit can capture.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2276716
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

So do I

illy wrote in post #2284014
Some people have posted that one should pride themselves based on their photographic skills rather than their PS skills.

However, PS work is correcting the optical downfalls of the lense, not one's technique. There is little one can do (shooting at 1/200 or higher, ISO 100, bracket exposure, f/5.6-9) but someones even that is not possible (shooting a waterfall at 5" f/32) and hence a little work in PS can correct the optical disadvantages in the lens.

Any photograph will benefit from some PS work, it is up to the owner whether he is content with the photograph as it is, or wants to improve it a little bit.

The only reasons for jpeg as I can see are: for sports (not to fill up the buffer too quickly) or for work that demands a lot of pictures to be taken >100 and most of them sent off to the clients ASAP

Hey, if you shoot a waterfall at more then f14 you will have a lot of diffraction with a xt .I have used f11 and a 3 stop nd filter with good results.
I found this out after shooting them at f18 . Just thought I would save you that pain !Regards
Don

Accentor wrote in post #2284283
A lot of you guys who are advocating "better photographic skills" against "post photographic processing" are really exhibiting a form of inverted snobbery.

Sure you haven't got that responce inverted?

Panza wrote in post #2277387
That is so wrong and arrogant. A lot of PROFESSIONALS, as in PJ and Sports shoorts, will not use PS at all. It has nothing to do with the right way or the wrong way. When you shoot for a living you take pictures and try to make them as good as you can directly from the camera. Off course some pros do it othervise by that's my take on it.

Just came back to revisit this thread. And I don't appreciate being called arrogant for having an opinion. I shoot professionally, by the way, and I'm one of those who do it "otherwise."

Rumrunner wrote in post #2283931
I agree, and unless you wanted to print directly form your camera, I really don't see any point in shooting Jpeg if you have the RAW editor for Photoshop..

With a few clicks, you can open all of your RAW files at the same time and correct them all at the same time. Just like an in camera setting but better because if you find a really nice image that you want to convert ot a PSD, you have the RAW file, which will get you so much farther in post processing.

Of course, if your worried about space on you memory card, or need to rapid fire the most possible images into your buffer, then it would make sense to shoot Jpeg...

illy wrote in post #2284504
Agreed. I'm fortunate enough to come from a graphics background hence I've allready got years of experience in PS to aid with my post processing. I think if people gave it the chance (and didn't think that all post processing involved sharpening, contrast, saturation till the image looks painted) they would shoot RAW and process their very best pictures. It's amazing how much 16bit can capture.

I agree. It's really easier to process RAW files vs. JPEG. And I find the bit depth with RAW much more pleasing.

Hermeto wrote in post #2284405
No offence please, but in MY experience this is hardly a technical problem but rather psychological.
Except for the sports and wedding shooters who are mostly pressed with time to deliver their shots, almost all photographers who strongly advocate against shooting RAW had their personal problems with learning advanced post processing.

Funny. I shoot both sports and weddings. And I shoot RAW in both instances. It isn't that difficult, really. I think people perceive that it will take a great deal more time, but it doesn't.

Littlefield wrote in post #2285720
Hey, if you shoot a waterfall at more then f14 you will have a lot of diffraction with a xt .I have used f11 and a 3 stop nd filter with good results.
I found this out after shooting them at f18 . Just thought I would save you that pain !Regards
Don

I had to stop down to f/32 to get some shots in! Tons of post processing was involved. Hence why post processing is necessary, I didn't have my ND filter at the time and I had to use PS to remove the weaknesses of the lens in the photos.

what do ya'll use to open RAW files from CS2?