RAW file format

[MICKEY88]

Personally I think there's a certain snob appeal to saying you got it right "straight out of the camera," whatever that means, and as I said I think that displays some lack of understanding about pp and what photographers did/do in the darkroom. Another disclaimer: I'm not talking about the contest!

wow Now I'm a snob, because I try to get the shot I want straight out of the camera..after 31 years of photography some serious, some not,, I'm not going to get sloppy just because I know I can post process...

it's intersting that just because someone has a different opinion than yours, they lack understanding...LOL

I understand what photographers did/do in the darkroom, and in reality the percentage of pros who spent/spend time in the dark room is very low, more hobbyists spent time in the darkroom than pros, pros are too busy taking pictures...,

now if we talk digital darkroom that's a different story...

just for the record I'm far from against post processing,

when it comes to photojournalism, I firmly believe in the NPPA Code of Ethics ,

other than that, I have no problem with any editing or photo manipulation,
I spend hours each night playing with PAint Shop Pro Photo XI, I have a folder called Altered Reality,

I'm just a firm believer that if you enter a contest you abide by the rules whatever they are

I also tend to disagree with the thought that Photography has not been accepted as art, maybe not among older/purists, but there are several websites I frequent that would definitely show that photography is accepted as art among lot of photographers, as would a lot of print adds...

just visit One Model Place, or Model Mayhem and look at a few portfolios, they go way beyond just capturing what was there..

 

[MICKEY88]

I think what you're saying is true to a point. But it's not as if you can just capture one image and change everything about it. For instance, there's not much you can do about depth of field in pp (well, you can try to blur the background, but that generally doesn't work very well, IMO), so I do make my kids wait while I play with various apertures, etc. But part of the beauty of RAW and pp is certainly the ability to tweak things on the computer after my kids are asleep and not pulling on my arms saying "Mom, would you stop taking pictures and come on?"

when done properly depth of field can be changed with post processing..the key is to make the blurring subtle...

PAint Shop Pro Photo XI has a built in action for depth of field... and it works fairly well..

 

[jann1033]

I wasn't talking about the contest; I don't want ........

Personally I think there's a certain snob appeal to saying you got it right "straight out of the camera," whatever that means, and as I said I think that displays some lack of understanding about pp and what photographers did/do in the darkroom. Another disclaimer: I'm not talking about the contest!

gotta say i agree with this same, as with using manual...fine if that's what you want to do but i guess i am really more concerned with the "artist element" of any photo i take...lets face it, colander brain that i am, i'm probably going to not think to change some aspect i wanted to and i like the fact that with raw i can tweak a shot i spent a while "thinking about" but forgot in the excitement of taking the actual shot, i wanted to raise the iso or something..i'm getting better at not forgetting as much but i still like the composition aspect better than the technical aspect.( as everyone gasps at how lousy my composition
is as well as my technique ) i just don't see the value in having a "flawed" shot if i can fix it pp or in camera which ever i chose to use.and by flawed i mean maybe i like it in B&w better, maybe i want the background a tad more blurred, maybe i want to crop out that person who jumped in the way at the last second, maybe i want to bump up that great sunset a tad or maybe i botched the exposure...whatever reason i have the ability to do so..
while i was laying in bed obsessively thinking about this last night...2 photos came to mind that imo show the diff. in "real" or "tweaked"...the one was a beautiful photo of a flower that was actual done with an xray some how( forget the artist) that was so exquisite you actually gasped looking at it...the "tweaked" and who cares, it was great, heavily processed as it was..the second was a picture i saw yrs ago in a newspaper that also caused me to gasp...a guy committing suicide by jumping off the empire state building, his rear foot just inches away from the ledge..it still haunts me but it was "real"( may have been predigital days) but as awful a photo as it was that shouldn't have been faked or touched up imo... so different situations imo call for different "rules", both imo "great Photos" in that they really caused an emotional impact but one would have broken the " rules "
and as far as software goes every digital camera i know of has some software...freebies let you do as much as photoshop( just not as easily or in one place) so imo that is kind of a crazy limit...is someone has a $40,000 camera i hope they can get a better shot than someone with a $200 camera but i can get a ton of cheap or free software and learn to use it if [i want..

edited for spelling and to add since i read page 2

i'm not saying anyone who wants to use something straight from a camera is crazy to do so, it's just not what i want to do and sometimes i have seen a couple posts( not mickey 88 btw) that make sure and say they are straight from the camera when imo it could use a little adjustment so imo that defeats the purpose....

 

[ukcatfan]

As for the expense, I think it's a red herring. I doubt that PSE or Paintshop are out of reach for many people who are able to buy a digital camera, and if they are there's always Picasa and other freebies out there.

Don't forget about Gimp. It will not do everything that the paid for programs will do, but you cannot beat free. I have been using it off and on for about seven years. Also, when it comes down to RAW processing, the camera with RAW features is going to come with free processing software, so there is no need to spend more there. Sure Lightroom, Bibble, and others are better, but the free stuff does work. I have heard that Nikon's free version is somewhat limited though.

when it comes to photojournalism, I frimly believe in the NPPA Code of Ethics ,

On a complete side note, is that why the editing software sometimes stamps its name in the EXIF information? That way they could kick out anything that has a program listed. I have already heard that no image with missing EXIF will be accepted for journalism and I have personally never seen an EXIF data editing program that allows modification to that field.

Kevin

 

[fitzperry]

wow Now I'm a snob, because I try to get the shot I want straight out of the camera..after 31 years of photography some serious, some no,, I'm not going to get sloppy just because I know I can post process...

I have not nor would I ever suggest that "try[ing]" to get the shot one wants "straight out of the camera" makes one a snob. In fact, I've noted the importance of getting things right in the camera regardless of how much you pp. What I object to is the attitude that decent photographers have no need to pp their pictures. What difference does it make whether you choose to make some adjustments before or after you snap the picture?

I'm just a firm believer that if you enter a contest you abide by the rules whatever they are

Why must you keep bringing up the contest? I thought we were past that discussion.

 

[AZ JazzyJ]

wow Now I'm a snob, because I try to get the shot I want straight out of the camera..after 31 years of photography some serious, some no,, I'm not going to get sloppy just because I know I can post process...

I don't think you were being singled out as being a "snob" but I definitely agree that the mentality is there amongst photographers. Many people believe that if you choose the in-camera route for making adjustments that makes you a photographer but if you choose to adjust an image in post production you are a software engineer or computer geek (neither of which are stigmas to me I might add). A photographer who chooses to utilize post-production still must compose the shot and capture the image with which to work. I am not sure I quite understand why I would be classified as "sloppy" if I elect to make adjustments after the has been released rather than before. If the end result is the same why should it matter what the timing was for making the adjustments?

Jeff

 

[fitzperry]

when done properly depth of field can be changed with post processing..the key is to make the blurring subtle...

PAint Shop Pro Photo XI has a built in action for depth of field... and it works fairly well..

I'd rather do it with the camera.

 

[MICKEY88]

On a complete side note, is that why the editing software sometimes stamps its name in the EXIF information? That way they could kick out anything that has a program listed. I have already heard that no image with missing EXIF will be accepted for journalism and I have personally never seen an EXIF data editing program that allows modification to that field.

Kevin

I think the software just adds it's name as advertisement..

 

[MICKEY88]

I have not nor would I ever suggest that "try[ing]" to get the shot one wants "straight out of the camera" makes one a snob. In fact, I've noted the importance of getting things right in the camera regardless of how much you pp. What I object to is the attitude that decent photographers have no need to pp their pictures. What difference does it make whether you choose to make some adjustments before or after you snap the picture?




Why must you keep bringing up the contest? I thought we were past that discussion.

the more proficient one is with their camera the less need their is to post process for a good picture, that's a fact, now that doesn't mean post processing can't or won't make the picture even better.


I didn't say, THE contest I said a contest, some people keep implying that some of us are against all editing, I was simply pointing out the 2 times I'm against it..

 

[MICKEY88]

I'd rather do it with the camera.

I agree 100%, but some lenses don't do it as well, nor do some lighting conditions allow for it easily, so why not take advantage of the software

 

[MICKEY88]

I am not sure I quite understand why I would be classified as "sloppy" if I elect to make adjustments after the has been released rather than before. If the end result is the same why should it matter what the timing was for making the adjustments?

Jeff

poor choice of words on my part perhaps, was not directing that at anyone other than myself, after many years of developing certain habits, practices etc, I would not feel right if I were to slack on my efforts, just because I could do things with my pc..

25 years of shooting film, and having to get the shot, makes one quite critical of themselves..


perhaps this will better explain the expectations I have for myself, not for other people...

if I'm doing a model shoot, or such as this past Saturday I did a 60th Wedding Anniversary with renewal of vows{approximately 700 shots}.. the more careful I am while shooting, the more pics I get right{the way I want them to look} out of camera, the less time I spend post processing, the quicker I can post the pics to my site for the client to view.

my model shoots average 700 photos, the less post processing the better..

with those numbers I've learned to appreciate a few pics with eyes that are closed, a few throw aays save time...LOL

 

[Anewman]

In regards to my choices and not referring to any other photographers...

My photos, my vision and I would not feel right if I were to slack off and allow the camera OR SOFTWARE to take control of any creative decisions. One of the same reasons I seldom shoot full auto.
I would also consider it slacking if I know my images could be better with a little tweaking(not editing) but instead chose to send out unprocessed JPEGS because of time concerns.
I do not shoot raw because I can not get exposure correct in the camera, I do not shoot RAW to FIX my images. I choose to shoot RAW because I want complete control, even if that means time tweaking(batch processing is great). I shoot RAW because I feel the main goal is to get the best print possible, even if JPEGS might be considered good enough by everyone else.

=======================================

 

[Furgus]

In regards to my choices and not referring to any other photographers...

My photos, my vision and I would not feel right if I were to slack off and allow the camera OR SOFTWARE to take control of any creative decisions. One of the same reasons I seldom shoot full auto.
I would also consider it slacking if I know my images could be better with a little tweaking(not editing) but instead chose to send out unprocessed JPEGS because of time concerns.
I do not shoot raw because I can not get exposure correct in the camera, I do not shoot RAW to FIX my images. I choose to shoot RAW because I want complete control, even if that means time tweaking(batch processing is great). I shoot RAW because I feel the main goal is to get the best print possible, even if JPEGS might be considered good enough by everyone else.

=======================================

I think you hit the nail on the head for me there too.
Kinda stayed away from this topic, as I think it has been discussed many timese bfore...but did enjoy reading some of it

 

[handicap18]

The problem with camera's is that they will NEVER be as good as the human eye. What we see with our eyes, many times is hard to duplicate with taking a picture.

The other day I was talking with someone. They were standing infront of a big window during the day. I could see their face perfectly clear and at the same time I could see things outside perfectly fine. I thought to myself, nope couldn't take that pic. Either their face would be underexposed or the outside stuff through the window would be blown out. With a camera you'd have to take 2 pictures and merge them together.

I don't do a lot of PP mostly because I don't like doing it. Not because it is or isn't right or anything like that, but because it can be tedious. Not always, but it can. I'd rather try to get it as correct (at least correct from my point of view) as I can in camera. It takes long enough to download the pics then convert them. Maybe sometime down the road when I have more time available I'll do more, but for now. yuk. Now that is my opinion. I will do some PP'ing if needed, but I try to avoid it if possible.

Just my take.

 

[MICKEY88]

i'm not saying anyone who wants to use something straight from a camera is crazy to do so, it's just not what i want to do and sometimes i have seen a couple posts( not mickey 88 btw) that make sure and say they are straight from the camera when imo it could use a little adjustment so imo that defeats the purpose....

not sure why I'm in this post,but oh well...



the thing is though, the bottom line is each photographer has their own preference for the end result, perhaps yu think those shots could use some adjustment, but the photographer might not,

when I worked for Ritz camera the lab manager and I had an ongoing debate over who printed better, I always thought his work was too light, he always thought mine was too dark, we had an equal number of customers who would request one of us to do their printing, because they prefered our density choice..

no 2 photographers will agree 100% on the corrections to make for the best print..

I see prints on here all the time that I think could have been improved with different post processing, but they aren't my prints, so my opinion doesn't really matter

 

[orchjoe]

So to make a long story short....

I use windows XP and I shoot with a Canon XTi. I am directly hooking my camera via the cable to my computer but the computer does not recognize as there being anything on the card.... but then I shoot a .jpg shot and it comes right up on the computer.

I did not install the software that came with the camera... but I do use photoshop CS.

Any thoughts???

 

[mabas9395]

I am no expert, but I think that a computer needs some sort of program on it to be able to associate the various file types. For example, if your computer does not have excel on it, it won't know what to do with an xls file.

You mentioned that you did not install the software that came with your camera, I think there might be a raw plugin for CS (I am pretty sure about CS2) do you have that? If not, I doubt that Windows naturally knows that Canon's CR2 file type is a photo because unfortunately there is not one standard RAW file type, each company has their own proprietary format (CR2 for canon, NEF for Nikon, etc).

Is there a reason why you haven't downloaded the canon software? It works pretty well. I think that there is a windows RAW viewer from microsoft that you can install that might make it recognize your files if you really don't want DPP on your machine. You could also check for a CS raw plugin.

 

[ukcatfan]

I would also say to use a memory card reader instead of hooking it up directly. Windows sometimes does strange things when connecting directly.

Kevin

 

[SWDopey]

CS can't read the XTi raw files. XTi support was added in ACR 3.6 which only works with CS2. The XP raw plugin hasn't been updated for the XTi either.

Your easiest solution is to do as Kevin suggested, as buy a cheap memory card reader. The drivers for hooking up the cameras directly are very limited.

Other than that, definitely install Canon's software off the discs that came with your camera. You'll need it to process the raw files anyway, unless you plan on buying other software. Lightroom would be a good choice.

Victoria

 

[Groucho]

Use Windows Explorer instead of Photoshop to look at the photos - move all the files to your PC, then try to load them into Photoshop (or whatever you end up using.) I think Canon DSLRs behave normally when hooked in directly (ie, like a removable drive, unlike Canon PnSs) so you should have no problem just manipulating the files directly.

A memory card reader will work faster and be less of a headache, but isn't mandatory.