…i’m not convinced. A valid comparison is .wav vs .mp3 in music. If you want to be serious about music, you’ll do everything in .wav and avoid .mp3. JPEG is fine for webpages, but to make professional prints you’d convert to tiff anyway, after post-processing in RAW…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
MaximusB wrote:Thats true, RAW is better when you are blowing up pics to huge sizes. But other than that its not ideal, it also takes up a shitload of memory. Long live NIKON.
…i’m not convinced. A valid comparison is .wav vs .mp3 in music. If you want to be serious about music, you’ll do everything in .wav and avoid .mp3. JPEG is fine for webpages, but to make professional prints you’d convert to tiff anyway, after post-processing in RAW…
[/quote]
This is quite untrue. I have made a couple of excellent 20" x 30" prints from jpgs out of an old d70s.
Wavs and mp3s are not valid comparisons at all. I agree the mp3 codec pretty much kicks the fuck out of the music quality the same as when you kick the shit out of a jpeg for the web to help it load quickly due to bandwidth restrictions, but you would never treat a jpeg for print this way.
Jpgs have very controlable levels of compression (and can also actually be spat out of the camera lossless just like you can also choose to have a compressed raw.) and at higher settings use very clever gamma conversions, discrete cosine transforms, quantization matrices and Huffman coding to remove irrelevent info from the file without affecting quality.
Tiffs are big bloated files and yes they are this way because they are lossless(no compression) but the quality difference in a print is negligible.(Zoomed in past 100% on your flash monitor is another matter.)
So the only other reason to use tiffs is because they support transparency, which is not needed outside of graphics realms.
All of the changes I would want to make in raw processing I found I could just as easily do in PS with jpegs.(And that includes HDRS.)
The clincher is that raw is a proprietry format, not standardised, and to open and process them you have to use each manufacturer’s proprietary software.(Of course you can open canon and nikon in ps and it keeps up with the latest versions, but still some newer nef and raw files won’t open in older ps versions.)
They also open up differently and look different in different software.
After all that, I guess in the real world you let the cameras hardware do the job (shoot jpegs) because it’s faster (hardware is always faster than software) and takes up less memory space with negligible quality differences, but if you like to fuck with things later (which I personally sometimes do) then shoot a few raws and play with them later in Ps to your heart’s content.
In other words horses for courses,---- use both!
MaxiumsB,
What lens do you use for the D300? I swear that’s my graduation gift to myself next year.
I wanted a D700 but it’s $1000 more, and I’d rather pick up the 17-55mm 2.8 DX lens (I know the 24-70mm is one of the holy grails of their lineup, but I hate the DX crop on that and the 17-55 is awesome).
I think the D300 AF motor is stunning and I personally prefer Nikon ergonomics.
OP,
Go to www.dpreview.com and click on Discussion Forums at the left, then select the forum for your camera model. Plenty of good discussions, photography challenges, awesome photographers on that site.
Also, photo.net has an AMAZING membership of photographers…I think nearly 600,000 of them with unbelievable galleries.
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Turiel wrote:
Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Is there anywhere we can see some of your work?
Its one of the mags I work for. You can see a lot of my work there. Im currently working in my own webpage (the old one was shit) so hopefully ill have it ready this month.
Bummer, all I got was this error message when I tried to punch in your site.
Apache/2.0.59 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.59 OpenSSL/0.9.8d PHP/5.2.1 Server at www.fashionvictims.com Port 80
Guess I will have to wait for your own webpage. 
[/quote]
UPS… sorry forgot they changed the name. it is www.soyvictim.com
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:This is quite untrue. I have made a couple of excellent 20" x 30" prints from jpgs out of an old d70s.
Wavs and mp3s are not valid comparisons at all. I agree the mp3 codec pretty much kicks the fuck out of the music quality the same as when you kick the shit out of a jpeg for the web to help it load quickly due to bandwidth restrictions, but you would never treat a jpeg for print this way.
Jpgs have very controlable levels of compression (and can also actually be spat out of the camera lossless just like you can also choose to have a compressed raw.) and at higher settings use very clever gamma conversions, discrete cosine transforms, quantization matrices and Huffman coding to remove irrelevent info from the file without affecting quality.[/quote]
…i’m not attacking the point you’re making, but i have to ask: in the realm of photography, is there irrelevant info? Honestly, i’ve been on a couple of boards on photography recently and these guys [mostly guys] are a bunch of anal retentives who dwell on every detail. Now, i don’t know whether this is universal, but the OP is going to do a course at uni soon. Will he be laughed out of the classroom for using JPEG?
[quote]Tiffs are big bloated files and yes they are this way because they are lossless(no compression) but the quality difference in a print is negligible.(Zoomed in past 100% on your flash monitor is another matter.)
So the only other reason to use tiffs is because they support transparency, which is not needed outside of graphics realms.
All of the changes I would want to make in raw processing I found I could just as easily do in PS with jpegs.(And that includes HDRS.)[/quote]
…i guess i have to find out for myself when the time comes, but i find this hard to believe, especially since you’ve included HDR. I’m going to get back to you on this…
…this shouldn’t be a real problem to an aspiring professional photographer. Staying up to date with the latest software is simply good business, and depending on the platform [PC or Mac] whenever a new camera is released, it doesn’t take long before the new profile is added to PS or Lightroom…
…4gb and higher memorycards are relatively cheap these days, and what professional does not do post processing on his photographs? Ofcourse you’d shoot both, but RAW is seen as the modern day negative. This is what you want to keep safe, right?
…one other thing Cheeky, when you shoot JPEG and you do a little processing in you software of choice, and then save that JPEG as a new JPEG, doesn’t that degrade the new JPEG slightly because it’s a lossy format?
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Jpgs have very controlable levels of compression (and can also actually be spat out of the camera lossless just like you can also choose to have a compressed raw.) and at higher settings use very clever gamma conversions, discrete cosine transforms, quantization matrices and Huffman coding to remove irrelevent info from the file without affecting quality.
Tiffs are big bloated files and yes they are this way because they are lossless(no compression) but the quality difference in a print is negligible.(Zoomed in past 100% on your flash monitor is another matter.)
[/quote]
No, you can’t get JPEG out of DSLR lossless. JPEG is limited to 8 bits per channel, whereas almost all DSLRs can do at least 10 bpc. TIFFs can handle 16 bpc and have lossless compression, not no compression.
I’m not saying shoot RAW or shoot JPEG, but your information is blatantly wrong.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
MaxiumsB,
What lens do you use for the D300? I swear that’s my graduation gift to myself next year.
I wanted a D700 but it’s $1000 more, and I’d rather pick up the 17-55mm 2.8 DX lens (I know the 24-70mm is one of the holy grails of their lineup, but I hate the DX crop on that and the 17-55 is awesome).
I think the D300 AF motor is stunning and I personally prefer Nikon ergonomics.[/quote]
Look at the 17-35/2.8. It’s an FX lens, so if you do upgrade to a D700/D3/something new, you won’t have to get new lenses, and you won’t waste sensor real estate. I always try to steer people away from DX lenses because now that the market is being filled with FX bodies, it doesn’t really make sense to buy DX lenses (unless you know you’re never going to upgrade). What if there’s a cheap D3 on the used market in the next few years? What if you decide you like 35mm film better? FX lenses have got you covered.
Absolutely brilliant stuff guys, good bit of debate too haha. Thanks alot for your post Turiel, that is exactly the sort of thing i’ve been looking for, battery grip has been reccomended by a friend who is very into photography too and he insisted on how benificial it was, so this just confirms it for me. UV filter i hard mixed opinions on, so opted not to go for one included in a Canon deal, this is probably the right choice if i need to pick a real quality one. Memory card wise i currently have a 4gb one and a 2gb one i could use, but it does seem a good idea to get some smaller ones too, i’ll definitely look into it. I will also look into the 50mm lens, but it im not sure how soon i would be able to afford one, but after all, I should focus on improving with what I have for now, after all its all about using what you’ve got, as you say.
This is actually really all a big buildup for my two-pronged entry into photography that will start with a trip with my family to Japan and Thailand (in august) where I hope to be at a stage where i could produce some very good photographs and start me on my journey a little. Then of course, university, where I hope to be at the stage where I am very confident with my Photography already.
Oh and my tripod is very old (20+ years) but also in very good condition and hardly used (relatively), its been looked after and it was handed down, it certainy seems sturdy and good quality, its called a Kenlock 3000. I think it will work alright for the time being at least.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Cheeky_Kea wrote:This is quite untrue. I have made a couple of excellent 20" x 30" prints from jpgs out of an old d70s.
Wavs and mp3s are not valid comparisons at all. I agree the mp3 codec pretty much kicks the fuck out of the music quality the same as when you kick the shit out of a jpeg for the web to help it load quickly due to bandwidth restrictions, but you would never treat a jpeg for print this way.
Jpgs have very controlable levels of compression (and can also actually be spat out of the camera lossless just like you can also choose to have a compressed raw.) and at higher settings use very clever gamma conversions, discrete cosine transforms, quantization matrices and Huffman coding to remove irrelevent info from the file without affecting quality.
…i’m not attacking the point you’re making, but i have to ask: in the realm of photography, is there irrelevant info? Honestly, i’ve been on a couple of boards on photography recently and these guys [mostly guys] are a bunch of anal retentives who dwell on every detail. Now, i don’t know whether this is universal, but the OP is going to do a course at uni soon. Will he be laughed out of the classroom for using JPEG?[/quote]
Yeah the anal retentives are funny, I mean there’s getting more informed about what you are doing to make better photos and then there is that carry on…
What is funny is the irrelevent detail I’m refering too is irrelevent because the methods jpg compression uses (which are way too fuckin’ complex to get into here) mainly remove things the human eye cannot see anyway, or is particulary bad at distinguishing between. Or even the fact that the information is arranged in a different way (packed) to take up less space (smaller file size) something you definitly won’t notice. Jpgs also just get rid of repetitive data so it doesn’t have to be stored.
So yeah, information that the human eye can’t even discern is the definition of irrelevent in photography.
I agree the OP is going to be taught the ins and outs of raw at uni, BUT…I will be so bold as to say if they laugh him out for using jpeg he should find another university.
[quote]Tiffs are big bloated files and yes they are this way because they are lossless(no compression) but the quality difference in a print is negligible.(Zoomed in past 100% on your flash monitor is another matter.)
So the only other reason to use tiffs is because they support transparency, which is not needed outside of graphics realms.
All of the changes I would want to make in raw processing I found I could just as easily do in PS with jpegs.(And that includes HDRS.)
…i guess i have to find out for myself when the time comes, but i find this hard to believe, especially since you’ve included HDR. I’m going to get back to you on this…[/quote]
It’s true I tell ye! you can adjust white balance, exposure etc.
[quote]The clincher is that raw is a proprietry format, not standardised, and to open and process them you have to use each manufacturer’s proprietary software.(Of course you can open canon and nikon in ps and it keeps up with the latest versions, but still some newer nef and raw files won’t open in older ps versions.) They also open up differently and look different in different software.
…this shouldn’t be a real problem to an aspiring professional photographer. Staying up to date with the latest software is simply good business, and depending on the platform [PC or Mac] whenever a new camera is released, it doesn’t take long before the new profile is added to PS or Lightroom…
After all that, I guess in the real world you let the cameras hardware do the job (shoot jpegs) because it’s faster (hardware is always faster than software) and takes up less memory space with negligible quality differences, but if you like to fuck with things later (which I personally sometimes do) then shoot a few raws and play with them later in Ps to your heart’s content.In other words horses for courses,---- use both!
…4gb and higher memorycards are relatively cheap these days, and what professional does not do post processing on his photographs? Ofcourse you’d shoot both, but RAW is seen as the modern day negative. This is what you want to keep safe, right?
[/quote]
Yep cards keep getting cheaper and if you just shoot the odd landscape I think raw is not a problem,
but if you’re shooting action, raw is too slow and you can fill an 8 gig card in absolutely no time flat.
As for pro photographers processing, I think it depends what they shoot. Some of those big raws can take up to 30 seconds to open, and that’s after you manually choose all the settings with which you want the file to open. If the preview is crappy, so that you have to fuck with it a few times until you get it right, then that’s more time wasted, just to open a file.
Then the proper processing begins.
Multiply this by 500 to a 1000 shots made at a wedding or sports event and you can see why raw can start to waste your time and productivity.
JPGs are universal. Raw is proprietary to camera make and model and even camera firmware version. Without solid manufacturer support you won’t be able to use your raw files again.
This is already happening to people, finding out some of there old nefs etc are not ever able to be opened again because there is no longer software that supports them.
So in 10 or 20 years, whatever software you’re running on whatever computer you’re using may not be able to open a long-forgotten 20-year old proprietary raw file. Hell raw isn’t actually even a proper format, it’s just data off a sensor.
So in regards to raw being compared to real negatives or even jpgs (able to be seen or open by nearly everyone everywhere with some longevity) raw = massive fail.
O.K /rant.
My apologies to the OP for the hijack, but I love photography and the chance to discuss it with like-minded individuals.
So maybe I should fuck off to a photography forum instead…ha!
Hope the OP learns something, I did.
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Jpgs have very controlable levels of compression (and can also actually be spat out of the camera lossless just like you can also choose to have a compressed raw.) and at higher settings use very clever gamma conversions, discrete cosine transforms, quantization matrices and Huffman coding to remove irrelevent info from the file without affecting quality.
Tiffs are big bloated files and yes they are this way because they are lossless(no compression) but the quality difference in a print is negligible.(Zoomed in past 100% on your flash monitor is another matter.)
No, you can’t get JPEG out of DSLR lossless.[/quote]
Ah shit you’re totally right…that was a dumb thing for me to say, I meant JPG also supports lossless operation in PS, as in you save in Photoshop at level 12 and it is lossless, (won’t suffer from generational loss.)
Yes, Cameras create their JPGs from the 12 bit or more raw data as it comes off the sensor, and can pack up to 14 bit linear raw data into 8 bit JPGs.
But…
Raw and JPG also have the same effective bit precision. JPG has 8 bits per color per pixel and raw may have 12 bits, but here’s the big catch: raw is 12 bit linear, and JPG is 8 bit log, gamma corrected or some other non-linear transform derived from the 12 bit linear data. Thus in the shadows where this might matter the two are the same, since the full 12 bit resolution in the dark areas is preserved by the non-linear coding.
So to sum it up.
Raw records usually with 12 bits, but a linear 12 bits. JPG uses only 8 bits, but these are after the log and gamma conversion, and thus preserves the 12 bit precision at the shadow levels where it’s important!
Actually today, most TIFF images and readers remain based upon uncompressed 32-bit CMYK or 24-bit RGB images.
Of course TIFF offers the option of using LZW compression, a lossless data-compression technique for reducing a file’s size.
[quote]I’m not saying shoot RAW or shoot JPEG, but your information is blatantly wrong.
[/quote]
You were right at least one of the things I stated was blatantly wrong, so thanks for catching me up on that.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…one other thing Cheeky, when you shoot JPEG and you do a little processing in you software of choice, and then save that JPEG as a new JPEG, doesn’t that degrade the new JPEG slightly because it’s a lossy format?[/quote]
We actually did some tests on this when I was studying to be a multimedia producer.
We found even after ten iterations of a file saved out at about mediumm compression there was hardly any discernable degradation of the image.
Plus you can save out of Ps at the highest level and it will be lossless and if you keep doing this you shouldn’t have nay generational loss.
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
MaxiumsB,
What lens do you use for the D300? I swear that’s my graduation gift to myself next year.
I wanted a D700 but it’s $1000 more, and I’d rather pick up the 17-55mm 2.8 DX lens (I know the 24-70mm is one of the holy grails of their lineup, but I hate the DX crop on that and the 17-55 is awesome).
I think the D300 AF motor is stunning and I personally prefer Nikon ergonomics.
Look at the 17-35/2.8. It’s an FX lens, so if you do upgrade to a D700/D3/something new, you won’t have to get new lenses, and you won’t waste sensor real estate. I always try to steer people away from DX lenses because now that the market is being filled with FX bodies, it doesn’t really make sense to buy DX lenses (unless you know you’re never going to upgrade). What if there’s a cheap D3 on the used market in the next few years? What if you decide you like 35mm film better? FX lenses have got you covered.[/quote]
Hell yeah, I have a friend who has the 17-35/2.8 on his D3 and it is sharp, sharp, sharp and of course real 17 wide on the FX.
…but this is similar to how mp3 conversion works, and even at the highest level, mp3 still is audibly worse than wav files. Well, i’m staying unconvinced until i can verify this for myself, so let’s let this go for now…
…yeah, that’s true, but as a side note: the 5dII buffers 14 RAW shots before writing to disk. I also think that the OP should invest in a QuadCore Mac or an Intel i7 PC, these new computers handle large files beautifully including HD video…
…well, we’re going to agree to disagree on that one…
[quote]We found even after ten iterations of a file saved out at about mediumm compression there was hardly any discernable degradation of the image.
Plus you can save out of Ps at the highest level and it will be lossless and if you keep doing this you shouldn’t have nay generational loss. :-)[/quote]
…i haven’t seen anyone mention that [the higher end] DSLR shoot in the lossless JPEG format?
Just to confirm I am actually reading all your ranting, it’s great stuff and I am learning from it for sure. That would probably be one of my questions actually, in terms of post-proccesing I want a laptop that will handle it well, i was thinking of going for an NC10 for the bargain price but obviously the 10.2" screen wouldn’t be too appropriate. My budget is not very high at all and it’s only going to get lower once i start University i’m sorry to say.
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Just to confirm I am actually reading all your ranting, it’s great stuff and I am learning from it for sure. That would probably be one of my questions actually, in terms of post-proccesing I want a laptop that will handle it well, i was thinking of going for an NC10 for the bargain price but obviously the 10.2" screen wouldn’t be too appropriate. My budget is not very high at all and it’s only going to get lower once i start University i’m sorry to say.[/quote]
…it depends on what the course requires of you in that department, but a netbook will not be sufficient. On the surface the NC10 appears to be able to handle quite a load, but these things are made for websurfing and the odd youtubevid, not graphics…
…you’d have to ask your University which platforms they use, but scrape together extra dough and look for a secondhand Macbook. They handle graphics pretty well out of the box, but if you’re a techy, a secondhand windows based laptop tweaked to run CPU intensive softs like Photoshop should not set you back much more than 400 pounds? Good luck, and keep us posted!
I did it part time for a bit and still dabble with it as a hobby. Some great points by everyone.
In particular:
HG Thrower - I second what he said. Learn to shoot manually as quick as you can. You’ll find out there’s times when you’ll have the camera on “auto” and it’ll tell you it can’t make the shot when you actually could.
Turiel - Lots of good pointers. Get a UV filter as well as a polarized lens. If you’re shooting a bright, sunny day, a polarizer is a must. (IMHO) Another CF card would be a good idea. I tend to use 512 or 1 gig cards because CF cards can go bad and it sucks to be on a job, have a corrupted card and not have a backup. Might want to think about a portable storage unit to download your card into occasionally. Extra battery grip and/or extra batteries? Yes!
A 50 mm lens is a good idea. My primary lens is a 24-85 mm and I also have a long range lens.
RAW vs JPG - Hahaha. Nice to see the debate continues. Like Cheeky said, RAW is proprietary which can be a headache. I find it’s also easier to correct really harsh setting mistakes in RAW vs in JPG. That being said, I’ve always shot in JPG and have JPG files from the mid-90’s which still have no visible loss to them after all this time. Play around with both and see what you like.
You’ll find everyone has an opinion about pics. Some get anal because the pic doesn’t follow a specified set of rules and because of that it’s trash. Other times something will be so random I’ll wonder WTF the photographer was thinking. Sometimes you can follow the rules, other times you can throw them out. Don’t be afraid to experiment.
And depending on how far you want to go with this, like MaximusB said, you never know when an opportunity will present itself and where you’ll end up. I’ve helped shoot a hair/fashion show at a local hair salon, a wedding, covered MMA seminars and met (and hung out with) Bas Rutten, Randy Couture and Rich Franklin, and was hired to help assist shots at a powerlifting competition at the Arnold Classic, among other things. When they had the “DC Test Fest” in 2006, Shugart used my pics for the main article (which seems to be taken off the site now. Boo.)
One great resource is the Canon Digital Photography Forums: Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums
They cover pretty much everything there is about photography and you could easily spend the day reading through it.
[quote]jake_j_m wrote:
Just to confirm I am actually reading all your ranting, it’s great stuff and I am learning from it for sure. That would probably be one of my questions actually, in terms of post-proccesing I want a laptop that will handle it well, i was thinking of going for an NC10 for the bargain price but obviously the 10.2" screen wouldn’t be too appropriate. My budget is not very high at all and it’s only going to get lower once i start University i’m sorry to say.[/quote]
I work with MAC stuff.pretty cool. But there are ppl in this forum that know a lot about computers, so you want to ask them, they can give you some pretty good advice.
YOU MUST FIRST LEARN THE RULES, and master them, THEN you brake them, that way you are going to have excellent shots.
I strongly recommend learning the Rule of Thirds.
[quote]Tech9 wrote:
I did it part time for a bit and still dabble with it as a hobby. Some great points by everyone.
In particular:
HG Thrower - I second what he said. Learn to shoot manually as quick as you can. You’ll find out there’s times when you’ll have the camera on “auto” and it’ll tell you it can’t make the shot when you actually could.
Turiel - Lots of good pointers. Get a UV filter as well as a polarized lens. If you’re shooting a bright, sunny day, a polarizer is a must. (IMHO) Another CF card would be a good idea. I tend to use 512 or 1 gig cards because CF cards can go bad and it sucks to be on a job, have a corrupted card and not have a backup. Might want to think about a portable storage unit to download your card into occasionally. Extra battery grip and/or extra batteries? Yes!
A 50 mm lens is a good idea. My primary lens is a 24-85 mm and I also have a long range lens.
RAW vs JPG - Hahaha. Nice to see the debate continues. Like Cheeky said, RAW is proprietary which can be a headache. I find it’s also easier to correct really harsh setting mistakes in RAW vs in JPG. That being said, I’ve always shot in JPG and have JPG files from the mid-90’s which still have no visible loss to them after all this time. Play around with both and see what you like.
You’ll find everyone has an opinion about pics. Some get anal because the pic doesn’t follow a specified set of rules and because of that it’s trash. Other times something will be so random I’ll wonder WTF the photographer was thinking. Sometimes you can follow the rules, other times you can throw them out. Don’t be afraid to experiment.
And depending on how far you want to go with this, like MaximusB said, you never know when an opportunity will present itself and where you’ll end up. I’ve helped shoot a hair/fashion show at a local hair salon, a wedding, covered MMA seminars and met (and hung out with) Bas Rutten, Randy Couture and Rich Franklin, and was hired to help assist shots at a powerlifting competition at the Arnold Classic, among other things. When they had the “DC Test Fest” in 2006, Shugart used my pics for the main article (which seems to be taken off the site now. Boo.)
One great resource is the Canon Digital Photography Forums: Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums
They cover pretty much everything there is about photography and you could easily spend the day reading through it.
[/quote]