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

Shooting at lower res?

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by pixelpuffin, Nov 2, 2020.

  1. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Yes, prints are better for looking at and sharing than looking at a screen I think.

    I've just started a project to digitise the family albums because many of the commercial prints therein have had it. This week was the start of the learning curve. I bought a scanner, which will be fine for most of the 25 years of pics, but the early stuff before we had a decent camera is on 110 film (the prints from the 1970s, early '80s are beyond saving). It is a bit surprising what can be got off of a 110 neg but no match for a digital camera.

    Photobooks are better than traditional albums. I've done two, both for family events. The fact that people can have their own copy is really good and I can still get copies from Blurb even though it is 8 years since I created the books.
  2. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Definitely agree on the photobooks
    Yes, I too scanned old 110 negs a few years back. Was stunned by what the scanner captured. The used scanner was £30 off eBay (no surprises eh’) and worked like a charm. I only had the 35mm masks, but improvised and digitised 110, 35 and sections of 120 film too, brilliant.
    Not heard of blurb. I know Costco do books, boots too I think

    I had a big collection of image bank books that I got when at college 30 yrs ago. Skipped them a few months back. But I always wanted to replicate the idea with personal photos.
  3. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Now that your existing laptop has been cleaned and that you do minimal processing, do you need to upgrade?
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Adobe build in a link to Blurb. You can build up a “book” in Lightroom without having to mess about with actual files then upload the lot. Sometimes when you put two pictures side by side a white balance difference can be apparent and in LR it is a doddle to equalise them. The downside is that the layout templates are* a bit restricted compared to the full Blurb layout tool.

    *were when I used it.
  5. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I’m going to put more RAM in. The maximum it takes is 16gb. For the cost of £60-70 it might make a big difference.
    However whether it will have the grunt to do book layouts is a totally different matter. I always say I’ll never shoot RAW, but I’m curious now to see what the difference is (not soccer pics) so I’ll probably benefit from extra RAM.
    I remember at college when I first used my Rollei 2.8F, it blew me away and I was already using both 5x4 studio / field cameras (linhoff, Horseman etc) Yet the 80mm Planar was unbelievable. it was a pure fluke that I got it for pittance and an even bigger fluke that the camera guy I took it too for a service was....ex Rollei Technician. He gave it the full works!! Sadly it hasn’t been used now since 1997! Tragic!!

    But if shooting RAW gives the same “WOW” factor as I experienced with the 2.8F, there’s a chance I’ll be smitten.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2020
  6. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    It won't. First time you see a RAW after years of JPGs you'll be mightily displeased.
  7. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately I have to agree with you, raw files need work but it is usually worth the effort.
  8. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Well, that’s certainly took the shine off it!
    Many of you have mentioned that jpegs continuously lose detail through editing. Isn’t there a way to edit without losing detail.
  9. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Hopefully they have not put you off. Editing a RAW file is much more flexible than editing a jpeg but you have to learn what to do. It is also lossless. I would say that all RAW files need some adjustments but the basics take very little time.

    From the posts above I do not have an understanding of how you much you edit your JPEG’s and how much you resize them.

    If you do start using RAW I expect you will need something better than the W10 photo app and that will cost and will make greater demands on your laptop.
  10. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    In my opinion there are two types of "serious" photographer: those who wish to inform the viewer and those who wish to impress the viewer. The former concentrates on Kipling's "six honest serving men" while the latter attempts to use technique to beguile. The two approaches are not incompatible if the photographer does not choose to make them so. Personally, I want to inform my viewers (umpteen years producing press pictures I suppose) and if something has to go, it's technical quality every time.
  11. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    You need to edit using either,

    1. non-destructive editor or
    2. a file format which doesn't use lossy compression

    So edit files as TIF, PNG or something like that. However, when you start with a JPG you've already thrown away some of the data. It's the nature of JPGs.

    My comment about RAW files was just to set your expectations. I shoot RAW, they mean I have all the data I could have possibly had using the settings I picked at the time. I can make endless edits and never lose anything, creating different JPGs at different points in time. But, when you first open a RAW file using a RAW editor you'll find it *probably* hasn't applied any profile beyond the default and the image is flat.

    Your camera is taking that RAW data and applying a preset, to saturate the colours, sharpen the image, increase the contrast and those are the images you're used to.

    Once you spend an hour with a RAW editor you'll find out how to get it to either 1. apply the camera settings as per your camera (e.g. Canon's DPP can do this, taking a RAW and giving you the same image you'd get from the camera but without the data loss) or 2. apply a default of your own preference as a starting point (which is what I use in Lightroom).

    But on a screen, at the moment you open a RAW file, there will not be any wow factor.

    For what it's worth, if I were you: I would stick to JPG (but I would change your multi-card strategy).
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    If you open the raw file with DPP you’ll see much the same as you would have got saving a large jpeg. By default it replicates the camera settings. But you can then see the effect of changing between standard, neutral, landscape etc. styles to see which best suits the picture. That’s how I started using raw files. You can with one click tell DPP to generate the same jpegs the camera would.

    The above isn’t strictly true because the camera records more colours than you can get in a sRGB jpg and you can display them in DPP but this won’t be evident on a standard monitor.

    What the others said is true in that third party raw software may open the file with a fairly “flat” interpretation - more like Canon neutral than anything else. Sharpening is only lightly applied but as pixel counts go up this makes less and less difference to the file.

    The raw files are these days 14 bit so they hold a lot more information per channel than the 8 bit jpegs. That allows a lot of adjustment room in terms of changing overall exposure or individual channel information.
  13. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Reading the last few posts RAW sounds a lot of palaver, the thought of spending what’s seems to be hours poring of images already taken and taken with the same care as I did with film and then, and then have to start all over again to create the “ masterpiece “
    I really don’t know if I have that passion these days. Without going off topic it all starts to seem a little off putting when a complete novice with the latest phone can waltz up, snap, add a few filters then transfer to a photobook app and move on.

    It makes me question the £1000’s of ££‘s worth of photo gear, computer, software licenses etc etc unless you are doing full blown exhibitions.

    I know it’s a hobby, but jeez it does make me question myself.
  14. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    It depends on whether you the edit pictures or not. Processing a raw file doesn’t need to take longer than processing a jpeg. Clearly using out-of-the camera jpgs wins hands down for speed. On a “busy” photography day I might take 40 pictures, more typically it is 5-10, very rarely more than 100. In a year up to 2,000 and I don’t think I’ve hit 20,000 in LR yet since 2007. This year so far I forget but it is about 280!
    EightBitTony likes this.
  15. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    OK a simple suggestion. Shoot in raw. Set up your software to process the raw files in exactly the same way as does your camera.
    The advantage of this method is that you now have a raw file that has all the data the camera captured and a JPEG file that is the same as you would have got from producing JPEGs in camera. Now if you find one that you want to edit you can go to the raw file and perform a non-destructive edit which you can then save in JPEG format. The resulting file will be of higher quality than would be the case if you had edited the original JPEG file.

    The advantage of creating the JPEG files on your computer is that it no longer matters if a setting on your camera gets altered by mistake, many of the settings don't apply to raw files. You can probably (I don't use Canon cameras so I don't know for sure) make more subtle changes to the processing in the software than you can achieve in the camera. If a new version of the software comes along that can do a better job of converting raw files to JPEG you have the option to apply the conversion retrospectively, and selectively, if you so desire.

    Phones can create some very attractive photographs but if you want a big enlargement or to shoot in poor light or with a long lens a dedicated camera and lenses will always do a better job.
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    I've never seen the point of RAW files because the JPEG format works just fine for me. The only rule I find I need to observe is to always keep an unedited version of the .jpg file and work on another copy.
    RogerMac likes this.
  17. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    Would you believe I found a book that I must have bought years ago and forgot - it was still inside Amazon carton unopened. I only found it as I was looking in the loft for my monopod.
    Book subject - RAW!!
    And that’s exactly how I work at present.
    Just ordered the extra RAM.
    Also did a stock check last night on my spare CF cards
    Found more!! I have 684GB of storage space on my spare CF cards. I’m low on USB sticks tho’ but they are far cheaper than the cards.
    I suspect I’ll never need to buy any more cards. By the time I run out I think my lad will be married!!
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.

Share This Page