jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 7:06:45 GMT -5
Shot these in RAW mode. No idea what it is other than the file size is way larger. Am intimate with old worn out Nikon D70 6 megapixel w/mold and broken auto focus. Manual focusing grrrr. Always shot JPEG. Wanted to compare RAW. Noticed Mac was slow to focus on images in photo shop mode, waiting 10 seconds for image to stabilize for lack of better term. Image size was almost double to triple as opposed to JPEG. Photo master Garage Rocker - what is RAW ? why was temperature slider pegged to cold side ? curious mind. The bunch
|
|
|
Post by MrMike on Nov 2, 2017 7:24:36 GMT -5
Them some beauties jamesp, liking #1 the best. Well done. Haven’t seen any Rio pics from captbob in a long time. Think he forgot about them in his tumblers? May all be pea sized by now.
|
|
dakotabirder
noticing nice landscape pebbles
Member since July 2017
Posts: 77
|
Post by dakotabirder on Nov 2, 2017 7:48:35 GMT -5
Always shoot in RAW, then process into TIFF or JPEG. You can lose so much by just shooting JPEG. Exposure is a big part. If you shoot JPEG and see a part of your image is overexposed or underexposed, nothing can be done to bring the detail in those areas back. If you shoot RAW, you have all the original image information, and have a lot more latitude to show detail in those areas. Other advantages as well.
GORGEOUS images...love #1 and #3.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 7:52:22 GMT -5
Them some beauties jamesp, liking #1 the best. Well done. Haven’t seen any Rio pics from captbob in a long time. Think he forgot about them in his tumblers? May all be pea sized by now. I'm not touching that one. Too early in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by fantastic5 on Nov 2, 2017 7:56:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 8:08:45 GMT -5
Hey James, I was typing while dakotabirder was replying to you, but I'll add my take. Everyone has their own preference here, there is no 'right' way. It's correct that the RAW file produces a much better image, but I'm also for convenience with some compromise. Anyway, here was my response:
jamesp , think of JPEG as the CliffsNotes and RAW as the full novel. The file is so much larger because all of the data is saved in the file, instead of a 'summary'. JPEG will give you an image with the settings that were chosen on the camera at the time you took the picture in a smaller file that the camera can process faster, your computer can handle faster and photo editing programs can handle easier. You get an image that can be tweaked in minor ways in an editor. RAW files save all the information, so that in post processing you can alter the color balance, exposure, temperature, and more. It also allows for larger reproductions (prints) once converted to a usable format. Depending on the program used to process the image, there's a lot you can do with an image that was not properly exposed, or the wrong light source was selected on the camera, and so on. Once the image has been tweaked, you would then convert that RAW file to either a JPEG or a TIFF file, depending on your use. When I shoot portraits, I always shoot in RAW, process to get best image and then convert to TIFF for enlargements. When posting photos on the computer, JPEG has plenty of data for the resolution you see on the screen. I never use RAW unless I'm doing portraits or I've got the camera out for a serious outdoor photo session. It just takes up way too much space on a storage device, fills a memory card quickly, slows the camera burst rate and I don't need the precision for everyday photos, especially rock pics. It also adds a step in the processing of the photo that I don't need. Just set the camera accordingly (light source, exposure, aperture) and focus, focus, focus, because there isn't anything that will fix that, and JPEG will do you well. Modern cameras do a great job in auto mode and take a lot of the guessing out of the picture if you aren't a "photography person". Pun intended.
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 8:10:07 GMT -5
Those look like Jeremy's San Jacintos, at least some of them.
This one
And this one
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 8:11:48 GMT -5
Always shoot in RAW, then process into TIFF or JPEG. You can lose so much by just shooting JPEG. Exposure is a big part. If you shoot JPEG and see a part of your image is overexposed or underexposed, nothing can be done to bring the detail in those areas back. If you shoot RAW, you have all the original image information, and have a lot more latitude to show detail in those areas. Other advantages as well. GORGEOUS images...love #1 and #3. Thanks for the info Dakota. So the slower load and processing times must be due to added image info. Can you help me here. I did all manual adjustments. Lighting is desk lamp so nothing fancy. I see iPhoto has designated the photo as RAW. Uploaded to flickr, is it still RAW ? Am I going to increase distortion by setting ISO high with film speed set at ISO 800 ?(I think so) Perhaps ISO 200 is better with slower shutter for richer color perhaps ?(old film person here) iPhoto photo specifications of first photo: Any tips appreciated. I did maintain 1/60 so I could dodge using the tripod. Certain that smaller aperture and longer shutter would help depth. Garage Rocker, just saw your post. Getting ready to read you blob. Decipher thru it and thanks. Did see the Cliff note mention, get that analogy.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,456
|
Post by Sabre52 on Nov 2, 2017 8:16:58 GMT -5
Nice pics! Whatever you did with the camera, they came out swell. Gotta love them Rios. I have a really big cobble of that puddingstone I got recently at my buddies decorative rock yard. Really solid pretty stuff....Mel
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 8:18:37 GMT -5
Always shoot in RAW, then process into TIFF or JPEG. You can lose so much by just shooting JPEG. Exposure is a big part. If you shoot JPEG and see a part of your image is overexposed or underexposed, nothing can be done to bring the detail in those areas back. If you shoot RAW, you have all the original image information, and have a lot more latitude to show detail in those areas. Other advantages as well. GORGEOUS images...love #1 and #3. Thanks for the info Dakota. So the slower load and processing times must be due to added image info. Can you help me here. I did all manual adjustments. Lighting is desk lamp so nothing fancy. I see iPhoto has designated the photo as RAW. Uploaded to flickr, is it still RAW ? Am I going to increase distortion by setting ISO high with film speed set at ISO 800 ?(I think so) Perhaps ISO 200 is better with slower shutter for richer color perhaps ?(old film person here) iPhoto photo specifications of first photo: Any tips appreciated. I did maintain 1/60 so I could dodge using the tripod. Certain that smaller aperture and longer shutter would help depth. Garage Rocker , just saw your post. Getting ready to read you blob. Decipher thru it and thanks. Did see the Cliff note mention, get that analogy. We are saying the same thing, I just don't use RAW like I could, or should. Maybe lazy, maybe that I have my lighting source figured out and don't have exposure or color temp. issues to correct. I don't need large files of rock pics cluttering everything up. Maybe for your multiple light sources it would be a good thing.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 8:36:47 GMT -5
Nice pics! Whatever you did with the camera, they came out swell. Gotta love them Rios. I have a really big cobble of that puddingstone I got recently at my buddies decorative rock yard. Really solid pretty stuff....Mel That puddingstone is common. Difficult to find deeply healed. Have had trouble tumbling it without the binding agent under cutting. Or porosity throughout.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 8:42:12 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Dakota. So the slower load and processing times must be due to added image info. Can you help me here. I did all manual adjustments. Lighting is desk lamp so nothing fancy. I see iPhoto has designated the photo as RAW. Uploaded to flickr, is it still RAW ? Am I going to increase distortion by setting ISO high with film speed set at ISO 800 ?(I think so) Perhaps ISO 200 is better with slower shutter for richer color perhaps ?(old film person here) iPhoto photo specifications of first photo: Any tips appreciated. I did maintain 1/60 so I could dodge using the tripod. Certain that smaller aperture and longer shutter would help depth. Garage Rocker , just saw your post. Getting ready to read you blob. Decipher thru it and thanks. Did see the Cliff note mention, get that analogy. We are saying the same thing, I just don't use RAW like I could, or should. Maybe lazy, maybe that I have my lighting source figured out and don't have exposure or color temp. issues to correct. I don't need large files of rock pics cluttering everything up. Maybe for your multiple light sources it would be a good thing. yes you guys are saying the same thing. Mirrors. How about the ISO 800 setting, am I not loosing quality ? Would ISO 200 and slower shutter for same aperture be better ? Is ISO 800 @ 1/60 about the same as ISO 200 @ 1/15 for a given aperture ? Aren't they directly proportional ? Remember rich ASA 100 film verses grainy ASA 400 film ? I do run short on file size in JPEG on heavy magnification crops. Appears I can get more cropping magnification using RAW for my 6M dinosaur.
|
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,681
|
Post by Fossilman on Nov 2, 2017 8:44:11 GMT -5
Those are knock your socks off cool!!!
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 8:50:39 GMT -5
Those are knock your socks off cool!!! Thanks Michael. Who knows, maybe them rocks washed down from your Oregon. stolen by Georgia cracker. Carried back east and molested.
|
|
|
Post by captbob on Nov 2, 2017 8:54:14 GMT -5
Stunning rocks!
If I could learn myself how to take such pictures I would post them every day. I'm more the level of a PHD camera operator - Press Here Dummy.
I usually have to take 20 to 30 pictures to get one worth posting. So I don't bother. It frustrates me. Need to take the time to learn. Keep threatening to do so, never find the time. Camera slacker.
|
|
tkvancil
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since September 2011
Posts: 1,546
|
Post by tkvancil on Nov 2, 2017 9:02:00 GMT -5
Nice pics. Lots of detail.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 9:08:46 GMT -5
Those are knock your socks off cool!!! Thanks Michael. Who knows, maybe them rocks washed down from your Oregon. stolen by Georgia cracker. Carried back east and molested.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,154
|
Post by jamesp on Nov 2, 2017 9:11:10 GMT -5
Feed her to the Sandinista's while we run. Sorry Melissa
|
|
|
Post by woodman on Nov 2, 2017 9:19:34 GMT -5
I shoot a lot of picture using raw, tripod, low iso and long exposure. with a 5.6 f stop . Light are overhead fluorescent match camera white balance to the light source. I don't do any color changing but do use the sharpen functions. when I get what i want i convert them to JPG and if I remember, delete the original raw to save space. this photo was shoot in raw and then converted to jpg. the raw was 19.4MB and the jpg is 5.3 MB. was some cropping done also. Your photos are great the way you shot them, they only thing I don't like is the reflections.
|
|
|
Post by Garage Rocker on Nov 2, 2017 9:29:14 GMT -5
We are saying the same thing, I just don't use RAW like I could, or should. Maybe lazy, maybe that I have my lighting source figured out and don't have exposure or color temp. issues to correct. I don't need large files of rock pics cluttering everything up. Maybe for your multiple light sources it would be a good thing. yes you guys are saying the same thing. Mirrors. How about the ISO 800 setting, am I not loosing quality ? Would ISO 200 and slower shutter for same aperture be better ? Is ISO 800 @ 1/60 about the same as ISO 200 @ 1/15 for a given aperture ? Aren't they directly proportional ? Remember rich ASA 100 film verses grainy ASA 400 film ? I do run short on file size in JPEG on heavy magnification crops. Appears I can get more cropping magnification using RAW for my 6M dinosaur. Sorry, got busy with work. You are correct, though, if you double the ISO, you can double your shutter speed. At the same aperture, ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/60 will be the same exposure as ISO 200 and 1/120. Double the ISO and you the sensor will be twice as sensitive to light. ISO 400 and 1/250 is same as ISO 800 and 1/500. I'm sure you get it.
Your D70 isn't as good as the newer cameras at keeping noise down at higher ISOs, but still pretty good. In pics of rocks on a computer screen, you will hardly notice the difference at probably ISO 640 and maybe higher. More important to keep that shutter speed up if you aren't going to use a tripod. The photos you posted above are good, whatever you did.
|
|