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

What a dreary place this is.

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Brian, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Only looked at the rain section. Now this guy is good, no, this guy is seriously good.

    These photographs convince me I should have taken up knitting.

    Hope it's tipping down on Friday, the new 35mm f2 needs an outing.

    Cheers Brian
     
  2. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Yes, think he may have been a pro at one time. Used to use Leica. Think he now shoots Fuji digital. Look forward to seeing some more of yours. My armament for my 'rain pics project' is an Olympus AF-1 Mini. Trouble is that a roll of B&W from it is likely to sit in a 'frige queue for a while awaiting development. I must get away from Hotel California more often. Need some of your steely determination! ;) Cheers, Oly
     
  3. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Swapping from Hotel California to the Chelsea Hotel might help :)

    In fact comparing my Leica snaps and the Fuji is very interesting. Actually it isn't apart for me. Using the combination of camera settings and Nik Pro they provide a definite style, it's hard to define. Perhaps it's because both are so suitable for a certain type of photography.

    Brian.
     
  4. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    OK, Brian, one up this a.m.: 'When it is OK to be out of focus.'.

    Hope you had a good day in the rain and damp.

    Cheers, Oly
     
  5. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Ah was wondering what he used, as think there may be some 4/3 format on his site as well and in flickr. Great stuff. I know his Alfama locations very well and shot there many times over several years (but attempting travel / visual art, not street).
     
  6. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Morning,

    Yesterday was a washout, gout raised it,s ugly head. Never mind, played around in the "darkroom" , will post the result later, but it's very difficult to discuss prints when your viewers are looking at a dreadful image on a monitor.

    However back to our friend Palha.

    He and I share a great deal in common............ Well one thing, we both use JPEG, we both consider raw a waste of time.

    I see from the web he has never been a professional, merely an enthusiast. Camera seem to range from Nikon D ( something) to a couple of Fujis ,Interestingly one of his favourite lens is the little 18mm F2, an optic much maligned by many.
     
  7. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Yes I gave up raw some time back, but might use it in Patagonia next Jan. Have been with Rex Features for 10 years and they require only Jpegs.
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    I certainly shoot a lot more JPEG than I used to. All my sport gets shot as JPEGs, that's a pretty big number.
    What I shoot for money - events or corporate shoots - is generally both, so I have something immediate to show, but can rework as required.
    Landscapes and travel shots I prefer to shoot RAW, because reviewing them is part of the fun, quite aside from being able to get them just as I want them.
    Suits me, YMMV.
     
  9. RogerMac

    RogerMac Well-Known Member

    I find that on both the Oly and the Canon when I am shooting test charts a little more detail is recoverable in raw but looking at the two side by side I can not tell the difference. As photographing charts is a sad occupation I tend to do it only when testing a new lens at other times I just use JPG. The only exception to this is if I am likely to do a significant amount of document copying in which case I use the Oly and set it to raw plus low res JPG - this gives me a version that I can attach directly to an emaill etc. without the bother of downsizing and the raw is available if I need an archive copy.
     
  10. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Glad to hear it.

    Love reading how people struggle to get their Fuji raw files to look as good as JPEG ex camera.:)

    But I do use raw, not really as a backup, only because I can, with my small cards it gives me about the same as a roll of 35mm film. If anyone wonders why it's that I treat the memory card as film. I only store files ready to print on my hard drive.

    Next Crusade is to persuade people to kick their monitors into touch.
     
  11. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    It's funny how received wisdom for so long was that only RAW was good enough and yet here we are often shooting jpeg now.

    I shoot jpeg with my Fujis but RAW with Canon. Though I haven't used the Canon for about a year and only did it for weddings where I was scared to use jpeg in case I had a bit of covering up to do! I admit Canon jpegs exposed correctly look better than I can easily get from RAW files.

    I remember Ken Rockwell getting blasted and ridiculed for shooting jpeg only and saying lots of pros did it. I also recall David Ziser, one of the highest earning wedding togs I know of used jpegs only.
     
  12. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder


    And me. :):):)
     
  13. LesleySM

    LesleySM Well-Known Member

    Depends on what I am doing with the shots. A while back I was at one of those increasingly rare family get togethers that didn't start at a funeral and on the grounds "You've got a good camera" I was asked to take some shots. Did the whole lot on JPEG with the camera on automatic- everyone was happy after all they were posting them on FB or emailing them to friends and I was happy because I wanted to see people and not spend the day fussing about with the camera.

    When I'm being "serious" I shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time then when I get home I review the JPEG's and mostly keep and edit those but a few that I think could work in RAW I then process in that
     
  14. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I suppose that cameras nowadays have better algorithms to convert the raw data to jpegs. But even so there’s probably more detail to be extracted from the raw file by a program on the computer. Probably only worth the effort if you intend to print really large or want to achieve some special effect.
     
  15. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    I find that the main reason I use Raw on my FZ200 is to recover blown highlights. Anything else can be done in JPEG. My other cameras only take JPEGs anyway.
     
  16. DaveS

    DaveS Well-Known Member

    I usually shoot JPEGs when I cover the school's sports day, when I'm shooting for myself I shoot raw, but I tend to be parsimonious even with digital, shooting as if it were trannies and I was going to have to pay real money. On holiday on La Palma recently with my new fuji X-T1 I shot raw exclusively, though I did do a few movie clips, especially of the clouds spilling over the rim of the caldera.

    ATM, though most of my files are 16 bit FITS from my Starlight Xpress Trius 694.
     
  17. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    There are a lot of parameters that govern the look of a JPEG image - some of them can often be adjusted in the camera, at least to some extent, e.g. saturation, contrast, colour balance etc. However, most raw conversion software, allows for the adjustment of many more parameters - full tone curve, interpolation algorithm etc, and much finer control of others. So using raw, and taking control of the conversion process yourself, gives you a lot more control of the look of the image, rather than leaving it to the decisions made by some Japanese firmware engineer who's probably never seen the scene that you photographed.

    That said, the firmware engineers do seem to be making remarkably good guesses about how to make pictures look good these days, and while Moore's law still seem to allow memory prices to keep falling, Raw files still use more of it than JPEGs, not to mention the time it makes for you to personally tweak all the parameters in the raw converter to get the best result, so JPEGs are often "good enough", in a similar way to how minilab machine prints were often "good enough", and there is often a good case for sticking with JPEGs.

    As with many things in photography, it comes down to having a good understanding of the capabilities and limitations of your equipment, then choosing the options which will best achieve the result you want.
     
  18. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I seem to remember reading somewhere (Wikipedia?) that Fuji and some other manufacturers 'tailor/refine' the parameters that their cameras use to generate Jpeg files, which may well account for Brian's comment about how good the quality of his Fuji's Jpegs are. I have also heard that astronomers have criticised Nikon due to the way it processes dark noise in RAW files. Apparently Nikon at some point produced a version of their cameras for astrophotography, but I don't know what benefits these cameras offered users.

    One thing that does surprise me is how rarely many photography forums suggest people convert their Raw files into Tiffs, before carrying out 'more than usual' levels of editing upon them. I did at one point in the past, consider saving copies of my Raws (which I knew were going to be edited a fair amount) as lossless .jp2 or Jpeg 2000 files, but on seeing how big these 8-bit files are, went over to saving them as 14-16 bit TIFFs, only converting these over to Jpegs, once I am happy with them.
     
  19. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    I use TIFFs, Footloose not least because on one past PC, the copy of Photoshop (Elements back then, before I got CS3) was slightly corrupted and in some situations did not allow me to create JPEGs. Another reason is that in my irregular messing with digital files, I may make a second visit to an image file and the losses arising from a TIFF are much smaller, IIRC, than a JPEG.

    It should be remembered that JPEGs are the most 'lossy' of formats and if shooting only JPEG or regularly only using JPEG, it is a wise idea to keep a master JPEG file that is untouched.

    Another annoying feature of Nikon is that some cameras can be set up to process RAW in camera but it doesn't tell/remind the user as it continues to show NEF files saved to the card. Only on download do you discover that what you thought were NEFs are in fact JPEGs. Aauughhh! And people wonder why I like film?!! :) Cheers, Oly
     
  20. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Indeed, but as I keep the original memory card saving a copy doesn't enter the equation.............not that I revisit many of my snaps, once is usually enough.

    So my usual workflow, Oh how I hate that word. Anyway, my usual method is to load into LR. Have a look, once in a while something seems worth printing so straight into NikPro
    back to LR, print. Then save that image to H/D and file.....throw into drawer the memory card.

    Incidentally have I mentioned that I use JPEG and mono but also have raw file selected mainly to fill the card up, and you never know one day I might want a colour version, though I doubt that will happen unless I decide to sell a car.n:)
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2016

Share This Page