No announcement yet.

Raw Files

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Most of the pictures I take now are with my iPhone, but I do have a Nikon DSLR, which I used to use a lot. Usually the JPG and RAW files look pretty similar, but in special circumstances, RAW can give you more detail. The convincing test was when I took a picture in the Johns Brook valley, along the Brook. Very bright and contrasty day. There were highlights on the rocks which were completely overexposed on the JPG copy, but I could reduce the contrast on the RAW file and pull out some detail.
    Back then, I used either Photoshop or, later Lightroom (which I was able to get on a DVD).

    ADK 46r #8003; 6W
    2nd round: 16
    SL6r #596
    Catskill 3500 21/39; 11W


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dave Bourque View Post
      I have another photo related question that I'm curious how other photographers handle; How to do you share your photos? The most common site seams to be Facebook, a site that I am not a member of. Are people using some of the free or pay photo sharing sites?
      Dropbox is actually pretty good for sending photos to family. All my private stuff gets shared on there.
      ADK 46/46W + MacNaughton, Grid 277/552
      Photos & Stuff


      • #18
        A little late to the party like always, but just wanted to chime in as a hobbyist photographer & I have gone back and forth on RAW in the past.

        Nowadays I shoot RAW+HQ JPEG
        I run linux so no photoshop or any of that, but have found The Gimp & Darktable very outstanding and very free!

        For nice nature shots with good lighting and everything, I just use the JPEG. Its much faster to process and usually looks great already. For a shot thats overblown sky or dark shadows, or the color balance is off, etc, it can be fixed better in RAW. For many advanced/technical shots wanting the most amount of detail where I am going to plan on a lot of processing then RAW is the best, like shooting the comet in the night sky, a bald eagle in flight, loon breaching from the water... I know I will want the slight extra detail and control that RAW provides.

        Originally posted by Neil View Post
        Most pictures, when viewed on-line, or via e-mail have been so compressed (a 4G jpg may be reduced to 200k or even less) that most editing, whether in RAW or Jpg, makes little difference. Then there is the quality of the screen the viewer is using. An iPhone? Cheap tablet? High end but poorly calibrated conventional screen? Viewed with a band of harsh sunlight running across half the screen?
        Yep, so many pics I see online are practically trash but so many people give em likes. I for one do most of my viewing on my computer, 4k screen 40". Most pics won't even fill the screen so I really appreciate those who go through the extra trouble of good editing and providing larger images. A well edited pic on large 4k is amazing! I had to go back and re edit so many of my earlier photography because once I viewed them on a good monitor I could tell the editing wasn't as good as it could've been. But even small phones now have amazing screen quality, and many of us do take the time to blow up images full screen, rotate our phones for landscape shots, and even zoom in. Most of course don't look beyond the timeline in Facebook that presents a post with 5 thumbnails all on a 1080 pixel wide screen. Their loss.
        I can't wait until 8k screen come down in price.

        ADK Black River Chapter

        33/46 barefoot ;-)


        • #19
          Originally posted by Adirondackiteer View Post

          I for one do most of my viewing on my computer, 4k screen 40".
          What are the particulars of your screen? (make, model etc.) I am using an old LG Flatron W2043T and am thinking of upgrading.


          • Adirondackiteer
            Adirondackiteer commented
            Editing a comment
            Its a Samsung 6 series from a couple years ago. UN40MU6300F I am sure only newer models available now but their 6 series has always been a good balance for me for price & features. Just make sure it has chroma 4:4:4 and your video card can support 4k. Maybe thats more normal now but my card did not, had to spend a bit on GeForce gaming card to get 4k HDMI output. May be more options now, not sure if they started putting display port on TVs yet (so you could use a workstation graphics card instead of gaming).

            I used to use a nice 27" IPS 1440 panel flanked by two smaller 19"s . I much prefer the single bigger 40".