Can I see some sample "RAW" (unprocessed studio) shots???

A good thought, but JPEG means that it is already processed in-camera.

If you shoot RAW, you can still see if it is under or over-exposed, and in fact you can adjust the settings to see just how under or over it is. Then, next time, you start out with an idea of how much off you really were, and can adjust your settings to a new starting point.

I do agree with the part about trying to get it right in-camera, rather than relying on RAW to save you and not bothering to get the settings right in the first place.

DiscoLizard wrote in post #2936902
A good thought, but JPEG means that it is already processed in-camera.

I think that the point that you overlooked is that there is no "intellegence" in the conversion process from RAW to JPG -- it is just a simple conversion algorithm that cannot apply a priori knowledge of corrections that need to be made in order to make it look like the actual subject.

And also overlooked human nature. If one shoots JPEG, they know they can't fudge it much in post. So they work harder at getting it right in camera since there is little recourse later if botched. But when one shoots RAW, there is always that background knowledge that they can fix it in post, and thus less pressure to get it right, and a 'good enough' attitude.

Shooting 'slides' puts the pressure on to get it right, especially when it was about $25 a roll and you shoot 10 rolls on assignment. Shooting JPEG does much the same thing, putting more pressure on getting it right or the image could be lost.

bill boehme wrote in post #2937056
I think that the point that you overlooked is that there is no "intellegence" in the conversion process from RAW to JPG -- it is just a simple conversion algorithm that cannot apply a priori knowledge of corrections that need to be made in order to make it look like the actual subject.

RAW images can be looked at with the same in-camera settings. I can set up ACR to use the camera settings for the conversion, look at them in the ACR, decide what I want to do, make note of that desired change, and shoot with that in mind next time. I do it all the time. You would think that one of these days I would get it right and just shoot jpg...

Two methods to get to the same end - a useable image from the camera.

bill boehme wrote in post #2937056
I think that the point that you overlooked is that there is no "intellegence" in the conversion process from RAW to JPG -- it is just a simple conversion algorithm that cannot apply a priori knowledge of corrections that need to be made in order to make it look like the actual subject.

Not in order to make it look like the actual subject, but you can certainly set sharpness, saturation, etc.

I guess it just depends on how much drive you have to get better - shooting .jpg for me isn't necessary, because I can see when I get it wrong in RAW, and I still try to get better exposures the next time, I just have a better idea of how far off I was than if I were shooting JPG.

Jim M wrote in post #2932116
Speaking where I have no business speaking, if you are trying to get a handle on lighting, I would shoot in JPEG at first. I look at it as being like the difference between shooting slides and negatives. If you wanted to learn about light control back in the film days, you should have shot slides in my opinion. That is because there was no one between you and the finished product, including yourself. Nothing was open to interpretation. What you saw on the slide was what you got when you exposed it......

I am rather intrigued by your novel advice which, in some ways, seems to run counter to the general feeling about learning how to shoot with a DSLR.

I am new to DSLR cameras, but have used a film SLR for more than 35 years shooting mostly slides and your point is very well taken. I think that perhaps some of the respondents have assumed that you advocated JPEG over RAW, but my take on what you said is that shooting in JPEG is a great teaching tool because it forces discipline in learning in order to get good results and once you have developed good skills, then you will have greater adjustment latitude available to you in RAW because of starting out with a better quality RAW image. A simple illustration is that an underexposed RAW image cannot be PP'ed to look as good as a correctly exposed or even as good as an overexposed RAW file.

Bill, thats exactly the way I understood what he was getting at, and I do think its a great teaching tool. I wouldn't advocate they shoot JPEG for anything important, but just like many film shooters used to go out and shoot some chromes to keep from getting rusty, shooting JPEGs can do the same thing. Going out and leaving all the crutches (film or RAW latitude) behind and shooting only JPEG for a day every few weeks will really help you get in tune with your technique.

Shooting without the crutches tends to give it more importance, and also a great feeling of accomplishment when you do nail every shot you took that day, and with no safety net at all. Shooting chromes and getting 36 perfectly exposed images really boosts ones confidence. Shooting JPEG can do the same thing.

But if shooting something important, rather that just practice shots, I wouldn't recommend shooting JPEG. Having the RAW flexibility is more important for a number of reasons, regardless if you nail the exposure or not.

Given the talk of jpg vs raw, I thought I'd post a sample to get this back on the OP topic. There is no way to post a "raw" file on this forum for *all* to see. The only thing we can post is gif/jpg, etc which by their very nature are processed, but taking a jpg straight out of the camera is pretty close as someone mentioned...the only processing is simple, non interactive processing. So, here's a jpg straight out of the camera. The only processing is for size so I could upload it. The relevant exif is below. The lighting setup is a single Alien Bee B800 at about 1/4 power shot through a large translucent panel. The panel is about 3 feet from the models and the light is another 2 feet behind the panel. Looking back, I probably should have thrown a little light onto the guys hat, but then again...this was a publicity shot for Guys & Dolls...which is about gamblers and mostly takes place at night...so, it ended up working out. Hope this helps.

Canon 1D Mk2
24-70 f/2.8 L @ 55mm
1/125 sec, f/5
Mode: Manual
Metering: Spot
ISO: 160
AF mode: Manual focus
Drive: Single frame shooting
White balance: Color temp=5600K
Flash: Off
File size: 6,143KB
Image size: 3504 x 2336
Color matrix 4: Adobe RGB
Color space: AdobeRGB
Saturation: Normal
Contrast: +1
Sharpness level: 3
Tone: Normal

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Gosh, I didn't mean to hijack this thread.

Salleke wrote in post #2921682
This picture looks very good unprocessed. I would love to see the processed one.

Pretty girl by the way.

Good luck.

TOO BAD SHE RUINED IT WITH A NOINK!


LOL...just kidding, great picture....

Jim M wrote in post #2942235
Gosh, I didn't mean to hijack this thread.

Ditto. I didn't realize we strayed so far from the topic at hand. Sometimes I follow the converstaion and not check back on the title/intent of the thread. I apologize for that.

Me too! It was such an interesting discussion that I forgot about the original question.

To reply to the OP, there are some good articles on the Adobe web site, especially by Bruce Fraser, the Guru of Photoshop and a leading authority on color. Here is a link to Understanding Digital RAW capture that may help answer some of your questions.

Jim M wrote in post #2932116
Speaking where I have no business speaking, if you are trying to get a handle on lighting, I would shoot in JPEG at first. I look at it as being like the difference between shooting slides and negatives. If you wanted to learn about light control back in the film days, you should have shot slides in my opinion. That is because there was no one between you and the finished product, including yourself. Nothing was open to interpretation. What you saw on the slide was what you got when you exposed it. With a negative, the printing phase allowed for all kinds of adjustment and misadjustment. You may or may not have gotten what you were after depending on how it was printed. Even printing my own color negatives, I fiddled with them and subjected them to interpretation. I could create what I had in mind, but the negatives were too forgiving for me to have learned much from. A similar situation exists with raw and JPEG. Raw, like a negative, is designed to be fiddled with and is very forgiving. The end result may be much better than the same image shot in JPEG, but adjustment is required to get there. So practice with some JPEGs. When you get so you don't blow the highlights or send the shadows into oblivion when you didn't mean to, then you have the basis to start playing with raw images. Just my two cents worth.

I like what you've written here.. makes perfect sense to me Thanks!

bill boehme wrote in post #2942897
Me too! It was such an interesting discussion that I forgot about the original question.

To reply to the OP, there are some good articles on the Adobe web site, especially by Bruce Fraser, the Guru of Photoshop and a leading authority on color. Here is a link to Understanding Digital RAW capture that may help answer some of your questions.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it!

I do actually shoot Jpeg, alongside RAW which eats up my CF card, so I get to compare each shot as they would have been converted anyway. I definitely will look at my images differently now after reading everyone's comments/suggestions.. very helpful!

redbutt wrote in post #2942178
Given the talk of jpg vs raw, I thought I'd post a sample to get this back on the OP topic.....
Tone: Normal

Nice shot Redbutt! Looks like you nailed it!