CC camera enthusiast corner.

[hoopdriver]

So, if someone says "I took this picture with a 50mm lens", are they talking about the focal length? They are not talking about the actual lens diameter, are they? Sorry for the numpty question!

Yup. Focal length

 

[pplpilot]

For me my D700 is fantastic and all the slr ill ever need, my family day out travel light system is my olympus OMD and my 'need to get away from the misses and go camping on a hill' kit is my Ebony 5x4 large format. Nothing ive seen in the digital world can come close to a well exposed slide of velvia 50 5x4, nothing. I can go away on my own for 5 or 6 days and come away with half a dozen or so exposures, nothing like large format to slow you down and make you think, given the cost of 5x4 film and developing....

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam/main.SV45TE.html

 

[PocketFrog]

So, if someone says "I took this picture with a 50mm lens", are they talking about the focal length? They are not talking about the actual lens diameter, are they? Sorry for the numpty question!

Yeah, that's right - so say you have a zoom lens and someone says "I shot this with my 18-55mm at 45mm" They are actually saying "I shot this with my <lens> at <focal length>"

Not a numpty question either, i've only just learned all this myself, happy I can help in any small way!

 

[Crankarm]

For me my D700 is fantastic and all the slr ill ever need, my family day out travel light system is my olympus OMD and my 'need to get away from the misses and go camping on a hill' kit is my Ebony 5x4 large format. Nothing ive seen in the digital world can come close to a well exposed slide of velvia 50 5x4, nothing. I can go away on my own for 5 or 6 days and come away with half a dozen or so exposures, nothing like large format to slow you down and make you think, given the cost of 5x4 film and developing....

http://www.ebonycamera.com/cam/main.SV45TE.html

I beleive the Nikon D800E might be a contender at 36MP? Also once you get digital files the same equivalent size of medium format cameras and detail as the Nikon D800 may be then you have massive files to manipulate/process images and need an extremely fast processor and lots of RAM which many computers just don't have at the moment. Also very fast and large compact flash/SD cards otherwise it will take the camera an age to write the image data to card drastically reducing the number of successive shots that can be taken.

 

[Crankarm]

Actually yes, if time allowed and if I were printing large +600dpi images I would take the time to ensure my final work was the best it could be. But for 99.9% of the photos I and probably many folks take, RAW is not required.

There's no point printing images at more than 300 dpi as the eye cannot discern any more detail.

 

[marzjennings]

Ican assure you it makes a difference regardless of the size of your finished photo.Colour, white balance, contrast etc. But suit yourself. You mention time and so I assume you are not troubling to do much post shooting work anyway so I guess for you it wouldn't matter.

Ok not a great picture (and not mine) to show as an example of RAW v JPEG, but if these are nuances that you think are important then I think your missing the point of photography.

For those looking for the differences, the raw has a better defined crack over the number 22 than the jpeg.

The point is to capture the moment and I see better pictures taken with iphones than many folks take with dslrs.

 

[hoopdriver]

Ok not a great picture (and not mine) to show as an example of RAW v JPEG, but if these are nuances that you think are important then I think your missing the point of photography.

For those looking for the differences, the raw has a better defined crack over the number 22 than the jpeg.

The point is to capture the moment and I see better pictures taken with iphones than many folks take with dslrs.

You really do not get it, do you?

The sharpness, focus and resolution of a photograph is down to the quality lens and the quality of the sensor, not whether or not you shoot in RAW or jpeg.

What shooting in RAW is all about (as opposed to jpeg) is retaining the data your sensor acquires during the exposure. When you capture an image in RAW your camera retains ALL of the data it acquired during the exposure. When you shoot jpeg the camera arbitrarily discards the vast bulk of the data in order to conserve space on your disc. It then uses the rest of what is left to create what is believes is a good competant result. Often it does this very well, especially for things like snapshots which are unlikely to be critically viewed. But by discarding the bulk of the data you limit your ability later to make fine adjustments to the image or even re-expose if necessary, or if artistically desired. Once it is gone, it's gone. That's it.

As for your editing process later, after you have finished editing the photos you shot in RAW you will more than likely export these as jpegs (although there are other formats as well) especially if you are going to upload them to the web or send them in an e-mail, or post them in a forum as you have done with the above paired photos.

I doubt very much that is a RAW image you have uploaded above, but an image that was shot in RAW and then later exported as a jpeg (presumably, since you say it was done as a comparison, with no editing). Posting a full RAW image would not only be too large a file but it would be unlikely to be read by the server, RAW formats being proprietorial and vary from maker to maker, even camera to camera . So what you have posted is a jpeg, drawn from an image shot in RAW, and set it beside a straight jpeg. Since many cameras shoot both RAW and jpeg simultaneously, this is an almost hilariously meaningless example.

To be sure, one can shoot acceptable images as a jpeg, but why, oh why, given the wonderful potential that has been given us with digital photography, would you want to limit your ability to adjust and fine tune your images later by discarding the vast bulk of the data while it is still in the camera? Why let your camera make these creative and artistic choices for you? Especially with things like white balance? Skin tones?

Again, RAW has nothing to do with focus, sharpness or resolution - that's your lens and your sensor

 

[marzjennings]

The sharpness, focus and resolution of a photograph is down to the quality lens and the quality of the sensor, not whether or not you shoot in RAW or jpeg.

Again, RAW has nothing to do with focus, sharpness or resolution - that's your lens and your sensor

..............sometimes it's best not to post anything after a couple glasses of wine.......................

 

[hoopdriver]

Really, who knew. Thanks for the lesson in the bleedin' obvious.

The point I'm making is that RAW for 99.9% of photographers is a waste of time as most people will not be able to or be very hard pressed to see the difference between a processed RAW to JPEG (which is how most photos are viewed) or even RAW to printed media. Either we allow the camera to process the RAW image to save the JPEG or we waste a bunch of time doing it ourselves.

For me 90% of the art of photography is the ability to see and frame a scene. Messing with pixels is for those without artist talent looking to show off their technical skill.

I see.

Well, as for your sarcastic thanks for the lesson in the bleedin obvious, if it was so obvious to you that RAW-jpeg had nothing to do with sharpness and focus why did you say you thought the RAW photo better defined the crack in the clock face?

There is a great gap between geeky pixel-peeping and simple technical proficiency. I find that people who dismiss the technical side of the equation generally lack these abilities or the patience to acquire them and then claim some vague artistic license to excuse the result. To be sure, all the technical proficiency in the world will not redeem a poorly composed photograph but if you want to produce on print or on screen the image you are holding in your mind when you press the shutter button, you need to be able to understand what you are doing and willing to put in the time and effort to get the best result.

Having your camera shed most of the data for you is not the road to fine art.

 

[rich p]

As a disinterested outsider this seems to be a pointless discussion between someone who wants to take their hobby to a higher level and has the time, dedcation and skill to do so and someone who takes holiday snaps.
Live and let live.
I'm just a snapper on autofocus and autocontrast but I like the fact that Hoopdriver and the others are more serious.
I may show you one of my best photos in the RAW later if there is a groundswell of opinion in favour.

 

[vernon]

Hasn't Shaun provided a photography forum for protracted willy waving?

Just saying.

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

Hasn't Shaun provided a photography forum for protracted willy waving?

Just saying.

Why did he limit it to 'photography'?

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I may show you one of my best photos in the RAW later if there is a groundswell of opinion in favour.

Unlike

 

[marzjennings]

I see.

Well, as for your sarcastic thanks for the lesson in the bleedin obvious, if it was so obvious to you that RAW-jpeg had nothing to do with sharpness and focus why did you say you thought the RAW photo better defined the crack in the clock face?

There is a great gap between geeky pixel-peeping and simple technical proficiency. I find that people who dismiss the technical side of the equation generally lack these abilities or the patience to acquire them and then claim some vague artistic license to excuse the result. To be sure, all the technical proficiency in the world will not redeem a poorly composed photograph but if you want to produce on print or on screen the image you are holding in your mind when you press the shutter button, you need to be able to understand what you are doing and willing to put in the time and effort to get the best result.

Having your camera shed most of the data for you is not the road to fine art.

I can be a belligerent tit late in the evening after a couple glasses of wine. My bad.

 

[hoopdriver]

I can be a belligerent tit late in the evening after a couple glasses of wine. My bad.

So can we all!