1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Poll - Which format do you use most of the time?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Jun 27, 2011.

  1. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    I think that's an excellent application. It is mad not to use it, but so many of those who have been given it for free don't.
     
  2. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    On the other hand if you've just paid out £600 for CS5...;)
     
  3. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    I always shot RAW, but with the current cameras I use (D3, D7000) , the quality of jpgs is so good I now shoot jpgs nearly all the time.
     
  4. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Even if all the other RAW convertors out there were free I'd still rather use DPP. I sometimes use Photoshop afterwards but even when I was up to date I never used the Adobe RAW convertor.

    Canon seem to like adding new features to it too....whenever they release a new camera it seems it's worth checking what they've done to DPP. It keeps getting better:cool:

    PS. You can check for the latest version using the Canon Download Centre
     
  5. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    Yep, it's up to 3.10 now, for those who haven't bothered with it for a while :)

    Dave
     
  6. Towershot

    Towershot Well-Known Member

    used to shoot Jpeg all the time ,but then bought elements 8 which opens Raw and havent looked back.
    So so much better in raw...........
     
  7. Damien_Demolder

    Damien_Demolder Well-Known Member

    !

    Really?
     
  8. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Jpegs for me, as Clive mentioned the current crop of cameras are so good, set up correctly they make raw an unnecessary complication, accept for those who like fiddling or need an ego boost.
     
  9. Jacqui Jay

    Jacqui Jay Grasshopper's Sage

    Always raw; there's not always time to change settings when shooting 'on the hoof' or 'on the fly' and raw is invaluable.
     
  10. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Recently bought a Canon 1100D, tried a few shots in raw, played around in DPP, thought, "Sod this" and reverted to JPEG - life's too short.
     
  11. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    ... I thought that was what expensive cars and expensive cameras were for ... :)
     
  12. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    No those two examples are for impressing the general public. Whereas the use of raw is used by photographers to establish their standing within their peer group.
     
  13. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    The number of time the past and present ownership of expensive cars and cameras is brought up on this forum leads me to believe otherwise. :)

    I use raw simply because the results are better not to score any points.
     
  14. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Ah but..........


    "The thing about raw is it requires skill, time and judgement to actually improve over JPEG output. So there is a learning before you can look at an image and say, X, Y & Z need to be tweaked "

    There's the problem. Skill, and judgement are both in short supply with yours truly, my ego refuses to accept that I have either.
     
  15. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Most modern cameras, if correctly used, can deliver very decent JPEGs but almost always at the expense of the finest detail which can be recovered by working on the raw file. I agree that it's more work and not always justified but unless one has taken a raw file in the first place the opportunity is lost.

    ... you don't think I believe your last paragraph do you? ;)

    I know you like a good argument but that'll have to do for now as I'm off out :)
     
  16. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Rog, in actual, physical comparison, the Jpeg output at 200ISO from a GF1 with a 20mm F1.7 compared against a Leica 50mm Summicronusing FP4/ Acutol, both printed to 20'x16' reveals more detail in the former, which is good enough for me. Bye the way this all refers to B/W, I haven't as yet aspired to the dizzy heights of colour.

    When I read the claims etc of many around here I do feel inadequate.......they all know so much, somebody's got to play " Poor Tom".

    Me argue? Sorry you have the wrong guy, I'm all sweetness and light;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011
  17. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Precisely.

    Use JPEG and you've thrown away quite a lot of the dynamic range of the sensor .... to say nothing of the artifacts which the lossy compression inherent in JPEG guarantees.
     
  18. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Yes Brian that's also been my experience - but with different cameras and lenses. It boils down to the fact that at equal magnifications there is still plenty of detail left in a digital image long after the grain in film (even the finest) has obscured any more detail.
     
  19. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    EXACTLY, thank heavens another photographer and not a pixel peeper with his head up his arse. Expertise is no substitute for natural ability and talent,in fact the converse is often true.

    Every evening before getting into bed I kneel down and say a little prayer, it starts

    Please God protect me from Gobbledygooks, Demons, Jehova Witnesses, Teetotalers, Vegans, cyclists and experts.;)

    P.S. There are a few more but I mustn't alienate everybody...........at least not in one go.:eek:
     
  20. john_smith

    john_smith Member

    I thought all bread was cooked.

    I'm afraid it's the "Expert Group" for me.
     

Share This Page