Now true beleiver in RAW

I just bought a 1D mkiiN body with a 85 mm 1.8 and a 24-70 2.8 "L" lens and was having some reservations about the camera " unfounded in that it was all in the operator not the equipment"
I had nevwer shot raw and was having a problem getting quality jpegs and they were all at less than 5 mpx , a member here said shoot raw and you will get all of the files to be at 8 mpx!!

WOW what a differance!!!!

Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eightweight wrote in post #11389138
I just bought a 1D mkiiN body with a 85 mm 1.8 and a 24-70 2.8 "L" lens and was having some reservations about the camera " unfounded in that it was all in the operator not the equipment"
I had nevwer shot raw and was having a problem getting quality jpegs and they were all at less than 5 mpx , a member here said shoot raw and you will get all of the files to be at 8 mpx!!

WOW what a differance!!!!

Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From what you say here, you are either getting your terms mixed up and misinterpreting what you are seeing, or your camera settings are sub-optimal. You say you are getting "less than 5 mpx" from your jpegs and are getting "8 mpx" from your Raw -- do you mean you're getting 5 megapixels and 8 megapixels respectively? That would mean that you have the jpeg setting in the camera to be less than the best quality, and you can "fix" that in the camera to shoot Large/Fine.

But, if what you are seeing is file sizes of 5 MegaBytes and 8 MegaBytes then that is simply because the camera uses jpeg compression to create the image file and it will in fact have a smaller file size.

Whichever it is, welcome to the world of Raw shooting!

eightweight wrote in post #11389138
was having a problem getting quality jpegs and they were all at less than 5 mpx , a member here said shoot raw and you will get all of the files to be at 8 mpx!!

You got some bad information.

There are many reasons for shooting RAW, as you will no doubt discover, but that's not one of them.

RAW vs. JPEG is a religious discussion, and photographers will get into fistfights over the topic (especially the RAW folks).

Using RAW doesn't make you a pro, or a better photographer, anymore than driving a Porche makes you a race car driver. Or using expensive pots and pans makes you a chef. Or owning a watercolor set makes you an artist. It's merely a media choice.

If you like RAW, use it. If you need to learn to control the camera better, do that. RAW won't fix poor technique.

And file size isn't a measure of a RAW file or photographer skill. I can artifically inflate a JPEG file if I want.

File size doesn't indicate a RAW photo. In fact, total megapixels in your camera actually matters little beyond a minimum amount (about 6-8mp). I was responding to the [apparent] megapixel rating of a file, either filesize or camera pixel count.

1000arms wrote in post #11390818
What is your point please?

BestVisuals wrote in post #11390779
RAW vs. JPEG is a religious discussion, and photographers will get into fistfights over the topic (especially the RAW folks).

Using RAW doesn't make you a pro, or a better photographer, anymore than driving a Porche makes you a race car driver. Or using expensive pots and pans makes you a chef. Or owning a watercolor set makes you an artist. It's merely a media choice.

If you like RAW, use it. If you need to learn to control the camera better, do that. RAW won't fix poor technique.

And file size isn't a measure of a RAW file or photographer skill. I can artifically inflate a JPEG file if I want.

Reminds me of that Cheerios commercial. "Good speech, Dad."

Heh!

BestVisuals wrote in post #11390779
Using RAW doesn't make you a pro, or a better photographer, anymore than driving a Porche makes you a race car driver. Or using expensive pots and pans makes you a chef.

The difference between using raw and jpeg is like the difference between owning and using expensive pots and pans vs buying TV dinners. They both result in something edible, but one way gives a lot more control over the outcome.

Yeah, and to take that analogy a bit further: How well you can cook determines which tastes better

Raw is awesome but if your taking good exposures from the begining then you dont need it. If your questionable about your work then Id definitely be using it!!! My opinion, I was a raw shooter but after spending too much time behind the machine and not pressing the shutter button. Then something was definitely wrong.

BestVisuals wrote in post #11390779
RAW vs. JPEG is a religious discussion, and photographers will get into fistfights over the topic (especially the RAW folks).

Using RAW doesn't make you a pro, or a better photographer, anymore than driving a Porche makes you a race car driver. Or using expensive pots and pans makes you a chef. Or owning a watercolor set makes you an artist. It's merely a media choice.

If you like RAW, use it. If you need to learn to control the camera better, do that. RAW won't fix poor technique.

And file size isn't a measure of a RAW file or photographer skill. I can artifically inflate a JPEG file if I want.

+1 he could not say it better, Notice what he says If you need to control the camera better, do that!!!! Raw wont fix poor technique.

Go out and shoot quite a bit and pay attention to your settings. Do a white balance, pay attention to your ISO, F stop and shutter speed. Everything else will fall into place!!! the more you get comfortable with your camera and know what button does what the better you will get.

I bought a 5D MKII and I took some junky shots for 2 freaking months wow I should have stayed with my 20D instead. No wrong I was not using it properly. Raw did not help me either.

jay25 wrote in post #11401380
Raw is awesome but if your taking good exposures from the begining then you dont need it. If your questionable about your work then Id definitely be using it!!! My opinion, I was a raw shooter but after spending too much time behind the machine and not pressing the shutter button. Then something was definitely wrong.

Well, to each his/her own, but I don't think the OP posted to start a Raw vs. Jpeg debate -- there are tons of those threads that are filled with plenty of hot air and we don't need this to become another!

jay25 wrote in post #11401380
Raw is awesome but if your taking good exposures from the begining then you dont need it.

Yup. And the day I can be certain of getting every single shot perfect in the camera, that's the day I'll switch from raw to jpeg. And the first pics I'll take will be of the squadrons of pigs flying over a frozen hell.

hollis_f wrote in post #11402649
Yup. And the day I can be certain of getting every single shot perfect in the camera, that's the day I'll switch from raw to jpeg. And the first pics I'll take will be of the squadrons of pigs flying over a frozen hell.

Heh! I gotta admit, that got a chuckle out of me!