on camera sharpening of pictures

Weddings and Raw:
I realize there is a time constraint with weddings, but isn't that the point of getting paid to shoot them? I can't imagine shooting a wedding in anything other than raw. Each picture must transmit subtlety and emotion, and these feelings can only be enhanced by the quality and precision that a good raw workflow can provide. The WP gets paid for being able to do that quickly. Additionally, wedding photos generally all make it to print, and they're usually printed in relatively large sizes. I am a big supporter for the 5% of the time I think jpg is appropriate, but why all the emphasis on jpg for the WP? Seems contradictory to me.

Raw Converters
Anyway, the answer to the question:

Adobe Camera Raw.

Photographic Skills vs. Format
As far as the comments about having better photographic skills to shoot jpg, I'd say it is because of my experience using raw that I understand more about proper exposure and processing. There is no other way to get inside the process of converting data into a picture. I wish we had raw back when I shot slides.

Waterfalls
For slow shutter waterfalls, or any moving water, a ND filter will be preferable to stopping way down. If you want to get really fancy, make bracketed exposures and combine them using HDRI software, there are plenty of threads on that subject here.

NIKONUSER wrote in post #2286219
what do ya'll use to open RAW files from CS2?

I use the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) plugin for RAW conversion.

Why all the anger here? We all have different needs, just deal with it.

I think that RAW is out of the question for most of what I do because I CANNOT alter images, it is unethical and photographers have been fired for doing so. Also, I shoot for newsprint, yearbooks and other local publications, so why shoot RAW when a JPEG medium is all that is required?

In studio, it is always JPEG because I totally control my environment, so why shoot RAW?


When doing a wedding, I shoot a mix of RAW and JPEG large, usually JPEG for natural light shots and controlled lighting shots (flash in manual or powerlights) and I shoot RAW for ETTL shots because ETTL should never be trusted.

I used to shoot RAW for everything, now I change quality settings when it is needed. But JPEG is still my primary weapon of choice. Editing an event used to take hours, now it takes minutes. My deadlines are always met and the boss likes that.

If I was doing large gallery prints I would be a RAW only guy, but even to 24x30 a JPEG large will print beautifully. I have them hanging in my studio and in my home and they all came from a JPEG.

Some people will argue that a 16 bit TIFF prints better than an 8 bit JPEG, but I have yet to see a print that demonstrates that, and I have ordered both and done a side by side. JPEG won because it looked no different, and it saves on storage space and upload time.

I do not have anything against RAW or TIFF, but it is too easy to fall into the trap of defending the use of RAW to cover up poor exposure technique, I know because I used to do the same thing. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that, I'm just saying that it is an easy trap to fall into.

rabidcow wrote in post #2286428
I think that RAW is out of the question for most of what I do because I CANNOT alter images, it is unethical and photographers have been fired for doing so.

There's a difference between doing white balance and colour corrections and cloning stuff out or pasting things in

e-k

Don't confuse passion for knowledge with anger.

That's a little puzzling. So, it's more ethical to let Canon's firmware engineers to alter the images? Should you even use a flash? I think you do nopt fully grasp the concept of a raw workflow. I'd argue that a raw workflow can be used to create a more truthful representation of the scene. I'd also argue that plenty can be acheived to present an unrealistic facsimile of an event using in camera params and jpg mode. Here something interesting: it's OK to desaturate an image completely, but bump it 5%, and the photojournalists scream murder.

That echos my opinions posted earlier in the thread. Most of don't shoot for these purposes, so raw is a better answer.

Anyway, if it works for, go with it. Judging by what you've posted in the past, it does. But "jpg is goodf enough for me" is not a compelling reason for me to avoid using raw when it is the right choice.

Bob_A wrote in post #2286371
I use the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) plugin for RAW conversion.

Bob,

Where can I find the plugin for raw conversion? is it going to be in their website? what is it called?

Thanks.

jfrancho wrote in post #2286726
Here something interesting: it's OK to desaturate an image completely, but bump it 5%, and the photojournalists scream murder.

Preaching to the choir. But that is the way of things.

jfrancho wrote in post #2286726
I think you do nopt fully grasp the concept of a raw workflow.

Removing RAW from the workflow in these situations also keeps image servers from being clogged with large images. Editors don't want to deal with it. In most cases I turn in images straight out of camera and my clients and editors do not want to deal with anything else but an easy to use JPEG.

jfrancho wrote in post #2286726
But "jpg is goodf enough for me" is not a compelling reason for me to avoid using raw

It's not a matter of what is good enough for me, it is a matter of what is required in today's fast paced environment.

I hear ya. I suppose in an industry that has had both editorial and pictorial scandels, they have a right to be a little paranoid.

Now you're adding another reason to your argument; raw and jpg aren't mutually exclusive. My point was that even when you're in jpg small mode, your camera still makes a raw file. It just doesn't save it. By your original reasoning, if you set the wrong settings in the camera, it isn't "ethical" for you to submit it. The fact that a raw workflow is both a storage and resource hog is valid, though I imagine that could easily be solved by redustribtuting a few useless managers' laptops to the photogs .

Your exact situation was one I pointed to as a valid argument to use jpg, I just don't completely buy in to your reasons for it. Though, who am I to argue...

Good stuff.

NIKONUSER wrote in post #2286727
Bob,

Where can I find the plugin for raw conversion? is it going to be in their website? what is it called?

Thanks.

Google is your friend ... just type in Adobe Camera Raw and it's the first link in the list. However, Adobe must be updating the site because when you click on "Windows" it takes you too a page with an error message. Try tomorrow and see if it works.

Bob_A wrote in post #2286963
Google is your friend ... just type in Adobe Camera Raw and it's the first link in the list. However, Adobe must be updating the site because when you click on "Windows" it takes you too a page with an error message. Try tomorrow and see if it works.

oh thats why... I was googling it a while ago before I ask you, then when I try clicking one of those link it says error on the page, I'll try it tomorrow... thanks a bunch

I think that there are a lot of people throwing around absolutes in here and in this art, there arent really any absolutes when they pertain to taking and processing your images. Reading the first page of posts and watching folks say "you're wrong" is a prime example. No one is wrong, its just what works or doesnt work for them.

I see a lot of folks that proclaim that RAW is the only way to go, like its an absolute, and when I look at their images, I'm not seeing anything that special that could not have been done just as easily with a jpeg.

I've also seen folks that argue that RAW is just a crutch for bad skills (both here and in all the other threads on this subject around the net) and when I look at their photos think that maybe they should have tried RAW to fix a few of them.

The point is there are no absolute rules or answers here, all you can do is make the decision for yourself based on what you want/need out of your photography.

I have shot tens of thousands of RAW images and hundreds of thousands of total images over the last several years. Except under extraordinary circumstances I mainly use jpegs at this point. Its what works for me, my clients and my bank account.

I shoot RAW again every now and then, usually when a new RAW processor or update comes out to see if anything has changed, but till now, fall back on jpegs again.

I've come to that conclusion because, through using both, that I end up doing virtually zero processing to the RAW images that would have required the RAW image to benefit from it. I found that I almost all the time just did a slight sharpen and possibly a quick color adjustment and then just convert it to jpeg or tiff for the final delivery.

Comparing those to the jpegs, I would end up with basically the exact same thing and find that its just easier and quicker to run a group of jpegs through a quick PS batch process than to deal with the RAW images.

If I found my images required a serious amount of color correction, WB correction, contrast adjustments, noise reduction or anything like that, then I would shoot RAW, but for the most part none of that is really required. On ocassion I'll shoot in some strange light that might require that so I shoot RAW, but most of the time I'm shooting in a situation that is consistent enough that I get fine results without all that work.

So I've concluded that after shooting a lot of images, others should do the same. Do all of us need to use the same settings on our gear? Heck no. Just because this works for me I would never tell anyone else with certainty they shouldnt be shooting RAW.

Do I suggest they try jpegs cause they might find it works for them? Yes, but dont tell them absolutely it will work.

Should everyone here use zero settings in camera? No way. I'm sure with certainty that setting some parameters in camera will work for some people. Even for me, I find that one step up from zero in sharpening is what I like. Its not enough to screw with the image and I can add sharpening later as well, but its enough to give the MkIIN (which has a soft look to it) a better look that is easier to tell between a slightly soft shot and a sharp one. But its not for all.

People need to step back from their computers, take a deep breath, listen to what posters are asking and make suggestions to them, without telling them what is right or wrong. Because there isnt really a right or wrong, just what works for some and what works for others.

Good post, Jim.

The thread started as a question about whether people use in-camera sharpening or not. Stong opinions on both sides.

It morphed into a RAW vs. JPEG discussion, again with strong opinions on both sides.

There is no absolute here - you can shoot RAW or JPG. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Likewise for using in-camera sharpening vs. post-processing.

For the record, and for what it's worth, I usually shoot RAW because I value the advantages more than I scorn the disadvantages. And I use in-camera sharpening along with some PP sharpening, depending on the situation. The nice thing about RAW is that if you use DPP, you can back off the in-camera setting 'after-the-fact' if needed. Not just the sharpening but all the camera settings. Anyway, different cameras and shooting situations sometimes require different sharpening strategies. In-camera is my base, but PP is where I change and/or refine it.

My recommendation is to experiment for yourself. My 5D has very good in-camera sharpening, the 30D not as good but I still use it (to a lessor extent). Use it, use PP, use combinations, and see what works best in different situations. You may be surprised at how well the camera does. Or maybe not.

jfrancho wrote in post #2286354
Weddings and Raw:
I realize there is a time constraint with weddings, but isn't that the point of getting paid to shoot them? I can't imagine shooting a wedding in anything other than raw. Each picture must transmit subtlety and emotion, and these feelings can only be enhanced by the quality and precision that a good raw workflow can provide. The WP gets paid for being able to do that quickly. Additionally, wedding photos generally all make it to print, and they're usually printed in relatively large sizes. I am a big supporter for the 5% of the time I think jpg is appropriate, but why all the emphasis on jpg for the WP? Seems contradictory to me.
...

The standard solution for this is to shoot RAW + JPEG, so you mostly can work with your JPGs but have the RAW available if needed to deal with a problem frame or for a special order large enlargement etc. Uses more memory etc however.

jfrancho wrote in post #2286354
Raw Converters
Anyway, the answer to the question:
Adobe Camera Raw.
...

Yes ACR/CS2 does give excellent workflow advantages. If you can't aford it yet the free DPP is very acceptable RAW convertor.

jfrancho wrote in post #2286354
Photographic Skills vs. Format
As far as the comments about having better photographic skills to shoot jpg, I'd say it is because of my experience using raw that I understand more about proper exposure and processing. There is no other way to get inside the process of converting data into a picture. I wish we had raw back when I shot slides.
...

Yes I agree, it tends to give back a lot of the creative possibilities that BW darkroom work provided and more, but without being shut in a smelly darkroom.

I think there is some inverted snobery about shooting JPG. Yes you have more latitude if you shoot RAW but you also have more IQ. Not only do you have the full 12bit range of the sensor rather than the 8bit of a JPEG, the RAW converter demossaic algorithms will be more advanced than will be possible on the camera's limited processing power/time product. Plus you can use much more advanced masked layer sharpening that will be better than the in-camera. So there are major technical advantages.

Its also a lot easier to deal with colour temperature in PP with RAW, I don't have to mess with the camera menu on location just take reference shots of the WhiBal card now and again.

Tom W wrote in post #2287214
...It morphed into a RAW vs. JPEG discussion, again with strong opinions on both sides....

Good point - it could be a contender to the "protective filter" debates for largest number of threads.

vwpilot wrote in post #2287103
I think that there are a lot of people throwing around absolutes in here and in this art, there arent really any absolutes when they pertain to taking and processing your images. Reading the first page of posts and watching folks say "you're wrong" is a prime example. No one is wrong, its just what works or doesnt work for them.

I see a lot of folks that proclaim that RAW is the only way to go, like its an absolute, and when I look at their images, I'm not seeing anything that special that could not have been done just as easily with a jpeg.

I've also seen folks that argue that RAW is just a crutch for bad skills (both here and in all the other threads on this subject around the net) and when I look at their photos think that maybe they should have tried RAW to fix a few of them.

The point is there are no absolute rules or answers here, all you can do is make the decision for yourself based on what you want/need out of your photography.

I have shot tens of thousands of RAW images and hundreds of thousands of total images over the last several years. Except under extraordinary circumstances I mainly use jpegs at this point. Its what works for me, my clients and my bank account.

I shoot RAW again every now and then, usually when a new RAW processor or update comes out to see if anything has changed, but till now, fall back on jpegs again.

I've come to that conclusion because, through using both, that I end up doing virtually zero processing to the RAW images that would have required the RAW image to benefit from it. I found that I almost all the time just did a slight sharpen and possibly a quick color adjustment and then just convert it to jpeg or tiff for the final delivery.

Comparing those to the jpegs, I would end up with basically the exact same thing and find that its just easier and quicker to run a group of jpegs through a quick PS batch process than to deal with the RAW images.

If I found my images required a serious amount of color correction, WB correction, contrast adjustments, noise reduction or anything like that, then I would shoot RAW, but for the most part none of that is really required. On ocassion I'll shoot in some strange light that might require that so I shoot RAW, but most of the time I'm shooting in a situation that is consistent enough that I get fine results without all that work.

So I've concluded that after shooting a lot of images, others should do the same. Do all of us need to use the same settings on our gear? Heck no. Just because this works for me I would never tell anyone else with certainty they shouldnt be shooting RAW.

Do I suggest they try jpegs cause they might find it works for them? Yes, but dont tell them absolutely it will work.

Should everyone here use zero settings in camera? No way. I'm sure with certainty that setting some parameters in camera will work for some people. Even for me, I find that one step up from zero in sharpening is what I like. Its not enough to screw with the image and I can add sharpening later as well, but its enough to give the MkIIN (which has a soft look to it) a better look that is easier to tell between a slightly soft shot and a sharp one. But its not for all.

People need to step back from their computers, take a deep breath, listen to what posters are asking and make suggestions to them, without telling them what is right or wrong. Because there isnt really a right or wrong, just what works for some and what works for others.

Well said, but with all due respect, I don't agree with you 100%. I know whenever I ask for advice like this, I love to see strong opinions and diversity so I can gather the experience of many people, and make my own descision. If I want a list of pros and cons, I can find that on Google.