The Official TB Photography thread - f/2.8

[Michael Jewels]

Carlos840, and uOpt, thanks very much for your replies.

UOpt, you're right about the blur from my Lensbaby; most of the unedited images are in the 1.5 to 2.0 mb size. The more blur, the smaller the file usually.

Chuck, I never really understood the benefit of shooting raw. When I first got into digital, I did some tests, but I didn't see that much difference.

As I understand it now, the difference between a raw file and a jpeg file, is that the raw file is larger, because it contains more information. The jpeg file disposes with a lot of the info contained in the raw file, according to how you have your camera set; sharpness, contrast, white balance, et cetera. You're letting the camera decide what information to get rid of before saving it as a permanent file.

Assuming my above statement is correct, what is the real benefit of shooting raw, if one goes through the trouble of trying to get correct exposure in the first place?

I'm starting to get fairly good at post processing, but I try to keep it to a minimum.

Also, my camera came with software to process raw images, but two computer crashes later, this software is gone.

If I do shoot raw, what software should I use to process it?


Any info is appreciated. This should be a good discussion.

Mike

[chuck norriss]

Photoshop. Old versions are fine. My girlfriend edits using Lightroom but there are a lot of things you cannot do on Lightroom. It's mainly for adjusting entire images not for micro-editing.

You can edit a jpg it's just way less information to work with. It's like making photocopies instead of printing from the original.

You may need to convert your raw files to tiff first. Pentax right? There shoukd be pentax software available.

[mpdd]

the viper room, friday, nov. 23rd, Michael Des Barres

it was pretty dark

[chuck norriss]

You may not be able to see the benefit of raw/tiff on a computer screen. You can only fit so many pixels in an inch. The difference comes with editing when you zoom in 500% to repair something (someone) but mainly in printing. You can print a jpg 8" maybe whereas tiff 50" before it starts llooking pixelated or like blocks of lego instead if human features.

The megapixel race to the top phenomenon as far as I understand it mainly applies to printing--how large you're able to print--yet most folks don't print larger than 50" anyway.
Playboy, auto industry, haute couture, fine watches/jewelry may be the exception. Not printing supa- large but still using enormous files. They use med format digital, which is like 20+ megapixels. A lot of people say the common person needs 4-8 megapixels to work with, or 10-20 megabytes.

Medium and large format film are still at the top of the quality list but less malleable than digi

[chuck norriss]

Originally Posted by mpdd

the viper room, friday, nov. 23rd, Michael Des Barres

it was pretty dark

Nice.
I played at viper room many times when it was the central. Then depp bought it and river Phoenix died there. Still a great little spot.

[mpdd]

the 32 x48 inch lightjet prints i make are from either 12 or 16 mp camera raw images

[mpdd]

thanks, i like the vibe of that place and that they get some pretty cool local bands

[carlos840]

Originally Posted by Michael Jewels

Carlos840, and uOpt, thanks very much for your replies.

UOpt, you're right about the blur from my Lensbaby; most of the unedited images are in the 1.5 to 2.0 mb size. The more blur, the smaller the file usually.

Chuck, I never really understood the benefit of shooting raw. When I first got into digital, I did some tests, but I didn't see that much difference.

As I understand it now, the difference between a raw file and a jpeg file, is that the raw file is larger, because it contains more information. The jpeg file disposes with a lot of the info contained in the raw file, according to how you have your camera set; sharpness, contrast, white balance, et cetera. You're letting the camera decide what information to get rid of before saving it as a permanent file.

Assuming my above statement is correct, what is the real benefit of shooting raw, if one goes through the trouble of trying to get correct exposure in the first place?

I'm starting to get fairly good at post processing, but I try to keep it to a minimum.

Also, my camera came with software to process raw images, but two computer crashes later, this software is gone.

If I do shoot raw, what software should I use to process it?


Any info is appreciated. This should be a good discussion.

Mike

IMO it all comes down to what you want to do with your prints!
I now only shoot film, but when i used to shoot digital i only shot JPEG.
I did so for two reasons: I shot B&W and could not deal with seeing my pictures in color before i converted to B&W, and i did not want to have to deal with storing 50mb pictures!

Now people will tell you the difference between RAW and JPEG is so obvious when you do 100% crops and go into bit arguments about the benefits of RAW.

For me all it does is add an unnecessary step to the whole process. But then i don't like to spend time editing pictures, and i rarely print larger than 12"*9.5". All i am after is capturing a moment, an emotion, not trying to create it with editing.
Even in the darkroom my "work" on print is extremely rare and minimal, 95% of my prints are straight prints, i try to get things right when i expose (manual camera), that's just the way i do things. It works for me...


Now, i probably would not say the same thing if i was shooting models digitally, that had to look perfect and be blown in billboard size! I could not get away with doing that with a 5Mb Jpeg!

All that to say that if Jpeg works for you, and you are happy with your workflow, carry on shooting Jpeg, there is nothing wrong with it. Just make sure your camera is set to large Jpeg and high details.

[Michael Jewels]

Originally Posted by chuck norriss

Photoshop. Old versions are fine. My girlfriend edits using Lightroom but there are a lot of things you cannot do on Lightroom. It's mainly for adjusting entire images not for micro-editing.

You can edit a jpg it's just way less information to work with. It's like making photocopies instead of printing from the original.

You may need to convert your raw files to tiff first. Pentax right? There shoukd be pentax software available.

Chuck, you're saying the same thing a graphic artist I used to work with told me: Photoshop is able to do much more than Lightroom. He also told me to buy Lightroom, since I wouldn't need Photoshop for the type of pictures I usually take.

Two differing opinions, but I like hearing both sides of a discussion.

A little photographic background on me: I learned photography on my father's old Konica rangefinder. Auto nothing. It didn't even have a light meter in it, as was common to most cameras of the 1950s. Yes, dad also had a hand-held light meter.

I learned photography the real old school way, which is why I lean towards little or no post processing rather than more.

But, I will give raw shooting another try, since you've gotten me interested in it.

I'm always willing to learn.

Here's the Konica:


By the way, here's someone I completely disagree with on a different subject: tripods. His comment is towards the bottom of the article.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/carry-less.htm

Ken has some good advice on a lot of other photographic subjects, but I'll keep my tripod on the payroll.

Thanks very much for replying; I do appreciate it.

Thanks for your post too, Carlos.

How else can we learn from each other?

Mike
I just thought of another subject to bring up in the near future.

[chuck norriss]

I recommend raw/tiff format & older photoshop even if you don't intend to edit much. it has everything lightroom has but more so why buy lightroom (expensive) when you can get an old photoshop for less. the nwer versions of photoshop just have more automated stuff or tehy change buttons, most of which most people don't care for anyway.
remember, jpg format is for monitors.

people ask what kind of photography do you do/take? i take the kind where i push a button. and by that i mean you never know when you go purist style in one shot & a half second later you might capture something that can be edited into a work of art. im just saying i want to be ready or able to do anything, like nathan east said , i think, you don't want gear to limit you or get in the way. something like that.

like you& carlos I started & continue to shoot film, shoot economically & sparingly w film esp. med format. There's a time & place for everything.

[chuck norriss]

And I love your dad's Konica rangefinder.

[chuck norriss]

And I don't own a tripod but it's good to have. I usually find myself resting my elbow or the camera body on a stationary thing & holding my breath while I shoot. I was told you're supposed to exhale slowly while shooting but I have the bad habit of holding my stinky breath.

[JimB52]

Originally Posted by mpdd

the viper room, friday, nov. 23rd, Michael Des Barres

it was pretty dark

Was Miss Pamela there?

[Goatee220]

I shot a 50th birthday party a few weeks ago in downtown Philly. It was a masquerade party, decorated by a professional designer. Really cool scenery. Here are a couple of shots:

[chuck norriss]

Oddball look on fenders website; they have both.

[Michael Jewels]

Chuck, thanks again for the discussion on raw shooting.

In researching it, I've found very pro and con opinions already.

Pro: http://www.photographyblogger.net/7-...-to-shoot-raw/

Con: http://www.michaelfurtman.com/jpeg_myths.htm

Nice shots, Goatee.

Mike

[chuck norriss]

I'm right everyone else is wrong. About everything. Especially with calculus.

I'm always cognizant that my best fine art work was taken on ****** cameras and lenses on bad film. I llook back on my digital stuff and I think wow thats dumb what was I thinking. But when I find an old print it's more likely to have redeeming qualities not as bad as the digital.

Does everyone shoot differently on digital? I'm far more reckless & shoot way more. Doesn't mean good results.

[mpdd]

didn't see pamela jimb52, been moving not on talkbass as much

[Michael Jewels]

Originally Posted by chuck norriss

Does everyone shoot differently on digital? I'm far more reckless & shoot way more. Doesn't mean good results.

Yes, I shoot differently too, but I'm changing some of the ways that I shoot.

I, too, shoot many more images on digital than I otherwise would have done on film, but I think a lot of digital photographers do this, because there's no film to pay for or to conserve in case you might run out towards the end of an event.

When shooting people pictures, digital, and its ability to show you the image immediately afterwards is invaluable. No more guessing or taking two or three "insurance shots," while photographing a group to make sure that everyone is looking at the camera, and has their eyes open. I can't remember how many times in the past one individual in a group would be looking away from the camera, and then blame me for their inattention when they saw the print.

Another change I'm making is to begin using my light meter again.

I haven't used my light meter since I began shooting digital, mainly because I thought once you see the image on the screen that's all that matters.

This is laziness, and I'm going to start using my light meter again as often as I can.

Another thing I've begun to do lately, is to shoot more in manual. My camera overexposes by about half to a full stop in certain lighting conditions when in aperture priority mode.

If we're not talking about a quick candid shot, shooting in manual with a hand-held meter is the way to go. Better than hot soup on a cold day.

One thing I don't have to change is my habit of writing down the file number, and complete exposure information in a notebook when shooting macro. I began doing this 30 years ago, and never abandoned it. My camera does not record the aperture if I use an old Pentax lens.

I think if there was no such thing as digital photography, there would be many fewer photographers.

A lot of people just don't have the patience and dedication to shoot a roll of film, and wait for it to be developed.

Whether it's a matter of days or even just hours, if the results don't come out to their liking, many become frustrated because they don't understand what they did wrong, and give up.

Mike

[Goatee220]

I took portraits of my buddy's kids over the weekend for their Christmas card. This is one of the candids I took right before we went back in the house. It always seems like the candids turn out the best. The eyes on this girl are amazing. I shot this with a D800 & 50mm f/1.8 lens.