Please help me decide if a DSLR is right for me

[Pea-n-Me]

Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw

 

[PythonFan888]

It is actually a strong point of my own.

If your camera does a great job with JPG processing and you're satisfied with the output then that's all that matters.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I understand your point of view and i do respect the fact that some people just don't enjoy PP as much.

I have a different experience with PP altogether. I feel PP not only makes my photos look better, it has also taught me to take better pictures.

There's an important feedback mechanism when you spend time in post. I've gained a better understanding of what works and what doesn't. It has helped me improve my technique and composition. I've become more comfortable with my gear and what settings to use for different situations. PP has also expanded my creativity since you have total control of how the final shot looks like.

When I brought my first DSLR to WDW in 2011 I felt like I was in way over my head. Post processing has made the learning curve that much easier for me.

Absolutely. I was the same. I learned a ton that way. But there came a day that I wasn't changing anything anymore. I liked my photos just as they were. So yes, it helped me learn. But I didn't "need" it anymore, for the most part.

BTW, I think we should point out that by shooting in JPG you let the camera do the post-processing for you. The camera's firmware will apply its own WB adjustments, contrast, saturation, noise reduction and sharpening. By shooting in RAW and spending time in post you take back control of the image. I prefer the latter.

And that's great - for you. I have the level of control over my pictures that I'm comfortable with, and I'm not tearing the hair out of my head in pp the way I used to when I shot only in RAW. That's my choice, and as I said before, it brought back the fun for me. I'm saying this here mainly for people who may feel the way I've felt; to let them know it's OK to shoot in JPEG! (Not to debate it, because obviously, everyone feels differently.) And if you want to shoot in RAW, well that's fine too. It's about knowing yourself as a photographer. "Growing" in your skills doesn't stop at learning to master using RAW files. Hopefully we grow past even that.

If your camera does a great job with JPG processing and you're satisfied with the output then that's all that matters.

I was just about to say the same thing.

 

[mikegood2]

I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably get flamed, but so be it) and say that - as my own observation - men seem to enjoy the techno aspect of pp more than women do. It's not to say women don't enjoy using it as well, cause we all know they do. (I will use it myself if I so choose, too.) It's just that men often seem to take it to another notch.

How dare you, I've never been so insulted in my life Oh wait, actually I have no problem with your observation at all. while its a fairly broad statement or somewhat stereotypical there is definitely some truth to it.

Nobody, either, has said that RAW doesn't have it's time and place. If a particular session is very important and you only get one shot at it, then it makes sense to shoot in RAW. (Some people do RAW and JPEG together). But to shoot in RAW every day can indeed become cumbersome. And when something's cumbersome, people are more likely to give up on it.

Actually with the cost and speed of SD cards now I think RAW / jpeg is the ideal way to shoot most of the time. It's almost like the good (or bad) old days of film where you can treat the RAW file more like the negative. I also agree shooting RAW can be cumbersome, and easier to get a sunburn or kicked out of WDW . Personally while I like and shoot everything in RAW, I just don't like processing it anymore and probably shoot considerably less because of it. On our trip in 2011 I shot mostly with a p&s in jpeg format and actually found it redressing and liberating. That said, because they are such rare vacations for me I do like having RAW files.

 

[photo_chick]

Correct me if I'm wrong but with this method don't you put the settings in even before you take the picture? I guess some situations may call for this especially if the shooter needs to capture a lot of JPG's and has no time for post.

If so then I think it's like using one of the Scene Modes on your camera but with finer adjustments. In the end it's still the camera's firmware that does the PP. I know some cameras let you process RAW files in-camera but I find this feature underwhelming and difficult to get right. I don't think I can post process correctly on a camera's 3 inch screen.

It is putting the adjustments in before you take the picture. The difference between doing this and using a pre-set scene mode is like the difference between shooting manual and auto. One chooses everything for you. One you choose everything yourself. And the photographers I know who shoot like this know exactly what they want the final image to look like. They're familiar enough with their gear that they can dial in what they want done in processing before they ever fire the shutter and get a jpeg that is exactly what they want.

When you use the computer it's still the software that actually makes the adjustments. You just tell it the settings. This is no different, it's just doing it before you even take a shot.

Personally I'm far too lazy to think that far ahead so I shoot RAW.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

To the OP, I had a fairly long thread here called The Learning Curve several years back. It chronicled my experiences as a complete newb and using a system not many used. There were times I felt like I was on a desert island by myself. But the good news was that it got better with time and experience. (Just like we tell our kids!) To other people reading, remember what your own goals and likes/dislikes are, and keep them in mind as you're learning. You don't have to have the latest and greatest all the time, and you don't necessarily have to do what everyone else is doing. (Of course, you can if you want to!) Just be yourself and strive to get good pictures. That's what it's all about.

Thanks Pea-n-Me. Good advice.
I enjoyed reading your post and it has bought up some really interesting points.

I'm a bit like you in that the first thing I have strived to get right is composition. By not worrying about camera settings or pp, I feel like I have come quite a long way with the way I compose my photos. Generally I can't even be bothered cropping my photos, so I have learnt how to use my camera without needing to.
In saying that, I now feel like I'm ready to learn the next step in photography and pp interests me as much as learning how to use a camera properly. I'm just in the very beginner stages, but I am having fun playing around with lightroom. If nothing else it's taught me the limitations of my camera and just how noisy my low-light pics are coming out. However, if using Lightroom ever becomes burdensome and feels like a chore, then I will go back to leaving all of my pics as is. Similarly, if I feel like I am holding my family up all the way around WDW while I struggle with manual camera settings, then I will go back to using auto for a while.

 

[PythonFan888]

When you use the computer it's still the software that actually makes the adjustments. You just tell it the settings. This is no different, it's just doing it before you even take a shot.

I think you're missing a very big difference.

When they put in the JPG processing settings before taking the shot, they're basing their decisions on what they "think" they'll shoot. They're making an educated guess and I think this requires experience and a certain level of skill. Once they put in the settings they have no further control and all they can do is hope that the camera gets it right. Like you, not everyone has the inclination to do this even if their camera allows it.

When you enter the settings during post you have the captured image right there and you have total control. You can make subtle or minimal changes OR you can opt to go overboard with the settings. You can even apply selective adjustments only to certain parts of the image and leave the rest of the image alone. You use your eyes and your own judgement as to the amount of post processing you want to apply. It's all up to you.

The difference in the degree of control is significant.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

Exactly.

I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably get flamed, but so be it) and say that - as my own observation - men seem to enjoy the techno aspect of pp more than women do. It's not to say women don't enjoy using it as well, cause we all know they do. (I will use it myself if I so choose, too.) It's just that men often seem to take it to another notch.

Which is fine and good. More power to you. Just let it be known (all you users out there who are trying to figure this all out) that you don't HAVE to. OR, you can use it minimally.

I seriously hope Zackiedawg chimes in here so he can explain his reasoning for shooting primarily JPEG (as he has many times before on various threads). We all know his pictures are seriously amazing.

Nobody, either, has said that RAW doesn't have it's time and place. If a particular session is very important and you only get one shot at it, then it makes sense to shoot in RAW. (Some people do RAW and JPEG together). But to shoot in RAW every day can indeed become cumbersome. And when something's cumbersome, people are more likely to give up on it.

I have noticed that a lot of the heavily edited pics I've been looking at were taken by men. I wasn't sure if that was a coincidence or not.

Also, I'd really be interested in looking at Zackiedawgs pics. Do you know if she has a website? Similarly, I'd love to take a look at yours if you have a link. I can't see people's signatures on my iPad, so apologies if it's there.

I might not be an expert in taking photos, but I have looked at enough in my life to appreciate them. Just my opinion on the pp vs. jpeg discussion. I am loving the processed pics I'm seeing of WDW. I've been researching this trip to WDW for years, I've seen heaps of non-processed pics, and too be honest very few of them excited me. As someone who loves pics of beautiful landscapes and iconic buildings, I felt like WDW didn't present many photo opportunities that would excite me. Just lot's of busy scenes and too many people dressed in costume. (p.s. I know Cinderellas castle is iconic, but I have dozens of pics of Neuchwanstein and it just doesn't seem the same to me). But then I came across a few TRs and blogs where people had processed their photos, and I became instantly excited. The colours suddenly popped, the details were rich, even mundane buildings became interesting, and suddenly WDW presented more photo options than I could ever imagine (and no, character pics still don't really interest me).

But with regards to the landscape pics I love, I still prefer photos where the details have been left mostly untouched. I think there is so much beauty in nature that what you can see with the naked eye doesn't need any changing.

Anyway, that's just my opinion (I know some will disagree), but I guess in the same way that all cameras have a time and a place, so does pp.

 

[PythonFan888]

I might not be an expert in taking photos, but I have looked at enough in my life to appreciate them. Just my opinion on the pp vs. jpeg discussion. I am loving the processed pics I'm seeing of WDW. I've been researching this trip to WDW for years, I've seen heaps of non-processed pics, and too be honest very few of them excited me. As someone who loves pics of beautiful landscapes and iconic buildings, I felt like WDW didn't present many photo opportunities that would excite me. Just lot's of busy scenes and too many people dressed in costume. (p.s. I know Cinderellas castle is iconic, but I have dozens of pics of Neuchwanstein and it just doesn't seem the same to me). But then I came across a few TRs and blogs where people had processed their photos, and I became instantly excited. The colours suddenly popped, the details were rich, even mundane buildings became interesting, and suddenly WDW presented more photo options than I could ever imagine ...

My sentiments exactly. It was a group of very talented Disney photographers on flickr (both male and female) that actually opened my eyes to this. I think adding some post processing helps capture some of the "Magic" that's in the parks. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Also, I'd really be interested in looking at Zackiedawgs pics. Do you know if she has a website? Similarly, I'd love to take a look at yours if you have a link. I can't see people's signatures on my iPad, so apologies if it's there.

OK. Well, a few thoughts about that. First of all, my pictures aren't in the same league as Zackiedawg's. (Come to think of it, not many people's are! ) I noted him because we share the same thought processes on "getting it right in camera". Second, I'm sure my pictures are full of imperfections, because, well, I don't strive for "perfection". I strive for good pictures. If highlights are clipped, or there's noise or other mistakes, well, oh well; I'm ok with that, as long as the basics of what I was trying to get across are there. I also haven't published many pictures in the last year or two because, truthfully, most of the pics I take with my dSLR are of my kids and baseball, and I don't post those online. But I have plenty of older pictures on various threads here, including the Photo Contests (some winners if you click on those links); the Photographing Pets thread (which is actually my thread, but the OP name was changed when the moderator combined it with a small, older thread); I've already mentioned (I think) my 4:3/m4:3, Mirrorless and Olympus threads; the Scavenger Hunt threads; the Assignment threads; the iPhone thread, etc.

I might not be an expert in taking photos, but I have looked at enough in my life to appreciate them. Just my opinion on the pp vs. jpeg discussion. I am loving the processed pics I'm seeing of WDW. I've been researching this trip to WDW for years, I've seen heaps of non-processed pics, and too be honest very few of them excited me. As someone who loves pics of beautiful landscapes and iconic buildings, I felt like WDW didn't present many photo opportunities that would excite me. Just lot's of busy scenes and too many people dressed in costume. (p.s. I know Cinderellas castle is iconic, but I have dozens of pics of Neuchwanstein and it just doesn't seem the same to me). But then I came across a few TRs and blogs where people had processed their photos, and I became instantly excited. The colours suddenly popped, the details were rich, even mundane buildings became interesting, and suddenly WDW presented more photo options than I could ever imagine (and no, character pics still don't really interest me).

But with regards to the landscape pics I love, I still prefer photos where the details have been left mostly untouched. I think there is so much beauty in nature that what you can see with the naked eye doesn't need any changing.

Anyway, that's just my opinion (I know some will disagree), but I guess in the same way that all cameras have a time and a place, so does pp.

I'm posting a Trip Report from my last trip to WDW, which was in 2011. Obviously, that was 2 years ago, and if I were going today, I imagine my photos, once again, would be different, since I've grown since then and also added some other cameras to my gear list. I doubt they'll wow you at any rate. (Nor would that be my intention.) But maybe you'll like them nonetheless, keeping in mind what you now know about me, and what I say in the TR. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2665820&referrerid=70088

 

[PrincessInOz]

Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw

Thanks pea-n-me.


I've been shooting in jpeg to date. My reasons for doing so? There was functionality in my camera that I wanted to learn how to use and I didn't really want to be tied to a PP program for the bazillion shots that I take. It is a personal choice and I'm glad I've take the time to do so.

I went to a talk given by Ken Duncan earlier this year. He's an Australian photographer. He was effectively saying the same thing. He does shoot in RAW but he was advocating that as photographers, we should be aiming for getting the best shot we can using the camera and not relying too heavily on post production. Yes, he agreed that everyone should be using PP to touch up their pictures; but it is more about developing your craft with your equipment and extending your photography skills; rather than your desktop skills. Having said that, he also pointed out that he does use the programs and that there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

[photo_chick]

I think you're missing a very big difference.

When they put in the JPG processing settings before taking the shot, they're basing their decisions on what they "think" they'll shoot. They're making an educated guess and I think this requires experience and a certain level of skill. Once they put in the settings they have no further control and all they can do is hope that the camera gets it right. Like you, not everyone has the inclination to do this even if their camera allows it.

When you enter the settings during post you have the captured image right there and you have total control. You can make subtle or minimal changes OR you can opt to go overboard with the settings. You can even apply selective adjustments only to certain parts of the image and leave the rest of the image alone. You use your eyes and your own judgement as to the amount of post processing you want to apply. It's all up to you.

The difference in the degree of control is significant.

No, I'm not missing anything. The difference in the degree of control.... the guys who know what they want and can see the finished print before they even fire the shutter, then program the camera to give them exactly that, have far more control over the process than most of us. It's not what they think they'll shoot. It's what they know they will end up with. There is no hope involved. They KNOW what will happen.

I'm not saying everyone would shoot that way. But just because your or I don't doesn't mean someone else can't have the same degree of control in camera. We're just so used to thinking of RAW as a shoot now process later idea that we never think that we could make all of those decisions before hand if we knew exactly what we wanted. I personally don't quite have that kind of vision, but some people do.

 

[PythonFan888]

No, I'm not missing anything. The difference in the degree of control.... the guys who know what they want and can see the finished print before they even fire the shutter, then program the camera to give them exactly that, have far more control over the process than most of us. It's not what they think they'll shoot. It's what they know they will end up with. There is no hope involved. They KNOW what will happen.

I still think there's some uncertainty involved when they don't have total control of the shooting environment.

I still think they're two different paths since the processing power of the camera cannot be compared to the processing power of a computer.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I still think there's some uncertainty involved when they don't have total control of the shooting environment.

That's the beauty of digital cameras and LCD screens. You can get a very good idea of whether you're on target or not, and if you're not, you just shoot some more. After a while, it becomes somewhat instinctual.

 

[PythonFan888]

That's the beauty of digital cameras and LCD screens. You can get a very good idea of whether you're on target or not, and if you're not, you just shoot some more. After a while, it becomes somewhat instinctual.

My point exactly. When your JPG looks off on your LCD you have no choice but to retake the shot because the settings were put in before you pressed the shutter.

 

[mikegood2]

That's the beauty of digital cameras and LCD screens. You can get a very good idea of whether you're on target or not, and if you're not, you just shoot some more. After a while, it becomes somewhat instinctual.

Very valid point, but at the same time it's easier to become lazy or complacent. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the ability to shoot, adjust, chance angles and shoot, shoot, shoot. Back in the film days you had 24 - 36 shots on a roll, so a shooter tended to spend more time setting up or visualizing a shoot. That said and no point have I missed the film days.

 

[nbaresejr]

I am with Allen on this. IMO every shot needs some sort of pp. shooting in RAW just allows you the freedom to make more adjustments if necessary. I don't go super heavy on most of my shots but I think it's almost a must to do lens correction, adjust WB and a few other things. Shooting in JPEG would greatly limit my options and that has nothing at all to do with not getting it correct in camera. I don't get that argument.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It's not an argument; it's a choice. Or not. Whatever works for you.

Back in the film days you had 24 - 36 shots on a roll, so a shooter tended to spend more time setting up or visualizing a shoot.

And yes, it's something like that, but you're not limited. It's choosing where to put your energy.

My point exactly. When your JPG looks off on your LCD you have no choice but to retake the shot because the settings were put in before you pressed the shutter.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you necessarily have to. As I said, it becomes instinctual. I might have one, possibly two shots to correct what I want, then I'm good. I shot several hundred sports pictures last week. I had two shots to verify the correct shutter speed, and just a handful of throwaways. The rest of my shots I was able to work with in JPEG - all I did was crop a few, everything else was to my liking. It really doesn't have to be overy complicated.

 

[havoc315]

That's the beauty of digital cameras and LCD screens. You can get a very good idea of whether you're on target or not, and if you're not, you just shoot some more. After a while, it becomes somewhat instinctual.

Funny enough, a same argument can be made in favor of jpeg, and in favor of RAW --
"just shoot some more" is great when you have a static scene, and plenty of time.
If you have kids who can only sit still for a portrait for 3 seconds, you're not going to get extra chances to get the shot.
If you're rushing through Disney World towards your fastpass window, but see a worthy shot as you're running, you may not have time to check the LCD screen, re-take the shot several times.
You and I both shoot our kids baseball, you get 1 chance to get that great action shot. No do-overs.

Of course, "being in a rush" can also be used to argue in favor of jpeg shooting -- Get the shot and be done. No post processing, ready to go.
Or "being in a rush".... is a great way to save immediate time when taking the shot in raw, and put off some of the other work till later.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

You and I both shoot our kids baseball, you get 1 chance to get that great action shot. No do-overs.

I said earlier it's probably wise to shoot RAW if it's a one time event.

But really, we have thousands of pictures of our kids, don't we? I've sat through hundreds of baseball games and gotten dozens of great action shots - at every age. I've got tons of pictures of my kids at Disney, etc. I don't need to shoot every outing in RAW to not miss out on great images.

But as I said, if others want to, then go right ahead! If that works for you, then great! I am saying this not to convince anyone who enjoys shooting RAW of anything. I'm saying this primarily for people who may want the freedom to shoot in JPEG to know that it's ok to do - if that's what works for them.

Why are people getting so defensive about this? It's just a discussion!