RAW file format

[ukcatfan]

I always shoot fine/large jpeg but sometimes I find a shot I'd like to crop a bunch but lose too much quality when I do. Just wondering if shooting RAW would allow for more cropping or do I need more mp's for that.
Thanks

RAW will not help with that. It helps with bringing out more dynamic range, fixing exposure, etc. You might want to consider a longer tele lens if that is the reason for the cropping. If not, you could practice taking multiple shots at varying focal lengths. There is no shame in deleting a shot that just did not work.

Kevin

 

[jann1033]

it seems to me the sharper the lens the more you can crop...i can crop my 70-200 f4 to probably 1/3 the size but not my 28-135( maybe 2/3) so if you think you might want to crop a lot( ie if you are taking a bird or something far away) use your sharpest longest lens...the only thing i can think that raw might help in that respect is you could adjust the exposure more which might help you some with details you might not notice from far away. but raw helps with so much else, why not use it anyway?

 

[My2Girls66]

Thanks for the info. The next time I have $$ to spend I may get a D80 for more mp's and a sharper lens Then I can give my D50 to my DD. Thats dreaming for ya
My zoom lenses are older Nikon lenses from the 80's. Probably not the sharpest but I really hate to buy new ones since they seem to work pretty well and I don't the $$ to spend. One is a 70-210 f4 and the other is a 75-300f3.5-5.6. I'll give some thought to shooting RAW. Its just that I do so little adjusting it doesn't seem worth it. I occasionally crop and blemish/redeye remove- thats pretty much the extent of my Photoshopping skills. Sad, I know!
I'm trying to shoot birds in my yard and this is what I get. This is just cropped- no other adjustments- looks ok on screen. The thing is when I upload to have them printed it says the resolution is a little on the low side. I use Ritzpix and they have 3 green bars when its good for 8x10+, 2 is ok for up to 8x10, 1 is not good to print over 4x6. This one says no good to print over 4x6. I should add that I've been shooting thru an open window on cloudy days since we haven't seen the sun in awhile.

 

[jann1033]

i don't know nothing about nikons but with the canon raw conversion it is literally move a slider till you like the photo, no skills needed. like the one you posted you could have probably lightened up the eye area just a tad although those chickadee eyes are a pain with so much black...if you don't need to adjust anything you just hit open image and it converts to what ever file you want to keep. weird about only being able to print that large though...how many mps is your camera?...i don't think the printing has to do with the sharpness of the lens, and if it's not cropped , don't get why you can't print larger.

 

[DueyDooDah]

It is my understanding that although older lenses may be compatible with dSLRs, they will not give the best results. This could be adding to your cropping issues.

 

[handicap18]

It is my understanding that although older lenses may be compatible with dSLRs, they will not give the best results. This could be adding to your cropping issues.

This is the first time I've heard this. Glass is glass. If the glass is good then the results shouldn't change.

To the OP.

I found that when I switched from JPEG/Fine to RAW on my D50 I liked the overall results better. Cropping is a little better. The file size after cropping is a bit bigger, not a lot, but a little bit.

Unfortunately once you get past the 300mm range for zooms, they get a lot more expensive. If you think you may upgrade to the D80 for more MP's would it be more cost effective instead to buy a longer lens like a Sigma 135-400 or Sigma 170-500 or Sigma 50-500 or Tamron 200-500. They're a little less money or about the same and will hold their value better too.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

This is the first time I've heard this. Glass is glass. If the glass is good then the results shouldn't change.

Glass doesn't get worse over time, but standards change. What was once considered good is not considered good these days. Lens designs have improved.

 

[Abby's Dad]

My zoom lenses are older Nikon lenses from the 80's. Probably not the sharpest but I really hate to buy new ones since they seem to work pretty well and I don't the $$ to spend.

I don't use Nikon, but there has never been any question as to the quality of their lenses, and a lens from the 80s should reflect much of the current technology. And this is one of the advantages of the Nikon system, the ability to use older lenses.

Anyway, other than an obviously low-contrast day, the pic seems OK when I take it up to 400% on my browser. I am guessing that the lens was pretty wide open to get enough shutter speed. Looks like you had enough speed to "catch" the bird seed in mid-air. I am only starting to learn about RAW myself, so take it FWIW, I am wondering if the sharpening would help in RAW, or not?, but it seems to me that there is pretty good detail in the feathers.

 

[My2Girls66]

My camera is a 6mp- the original photo was 3008x2000, the cropped version is only 916x1378. I think that would only be equivilent to a 1.5mp or so photo? That must be too small to print larger than 4x6.

 

[ukcatfan]

My camera is a 6mp- the original photo was 3008x2000, the cropped version is only 916x1378. I think that would only be equivilent to a 1.5mp or so photo? That must be too small to print larger than 4x6.

I made this a while back to show a friend the differences in MPs. Unfortunately, there is a diminishing returns effect when increasing them. For example, going from 6MP to 12MP doubles the pixels, but does not double the length and width. Instead of cropping a lot, you should try to get the shot properly framed so cropping is minimal no matter how many MPs you have.

Kevin

 

[DueyDooDah]

This is the first time I've heard this. Glass is glass. If the glass is good then the results shouldn't change.

I too thought glass was glass. This info came from the photo institute I am attending. As Mark stated, changes in technology has improved the glass capabilities. Also note that the school does recommend students look for used equipment, so they aren't saying it's bad glass, just not as well done as new glass.

 

[jann1033]

It is my understanding that although older lenses may be compatible with dSLRs, they will not give the best results. This could be adding to your cropping issues.

do you think they are dealing with issues like IS here or maybe the actually technology( which i would understand) or just generally older lenses being less sharp period for all reason above and less picky people( ) in the old days..i 'm wondering cause i recall reading something about an older canon L that they said with the newer larger mp of cameras was getting( in the reviewers opinion) "near the end of it's usefulness"...and i didn't get why

 

[My2Girls66]

I really like the D50 so maybe a longer lens maybe what I need for wildlife and using RAW more(and get more memory!). My dad bought the lenses with an N8008 body, a 35-75mm lens, and an SB-24 flash, all used, in 1990 for me. They have gotten MUCH use over the years. I started with the 8008 then got an N80 now the D50 and really haven't bought much else besides the new bodies. I did buy an 18-125mm(Quantaray) lens for the D50 because I found the 35-75 not wide enough.
What amazes me is that with the crop factor-my 300mmm lens is like 450mm and I still can't get cloe enough to birds in my small backyard.
This is the original- taken from my kitchen window- maybe 25' from the feeder.

This is cropped to 1978x1318

Thanks for all the input. I'm learning a lot
edited to add- this was taken with the 70-210f4 not the 300mm.

 

[handicap18]

I have a similar route as yours. I started with the N6006, then went to the N70 before getting my D50.

Typically for birding and other wildlife, the long zooms are the way to go. I really like the Sigma 50-500, but thats upwards of $900+. So maybe one of the other ones might work. Not as expensive. I plan on at least renting a 50-500 next summer for the SailBoston 2009 Event. I want to get some good shots of the ships entering the Harbor. The enterance to Boston Harbor is pretty long. To long for my 70-300.

 

[ukcatfan]

This is the original- taken from my kitchen window- maybe 25' from the feeder.

Was the window open? If you shot through the glass, it would degrade the quality and affect how large you could print it out at.

Kevin

 

[My2Girls66]

Yep- The window was open. Crazy since I live in NH.

 

[My2Girls66]

I have a similar route as yours. I started with the N6006, then went to the N70 before getting my D50.

Typically for birding and other wildlife, the long zooms are the way to go. I really like the Sigma 50-500, but thats upwards of $900+. So maybe one of the other ones might work. Not as expensive. I plan on at least renting a 50-500 next summer for the SailBoston 2009 Event. I want to get some good shots of the ships entering the Harbor. The enterance to Boston Harbor is pretty long. To long for my 70-300.

I checked out Amazon for prices and reviews. The 170-500 Sigma got some good reviews(there weren't many) and it goes for $712. The Tamron 200- 500 also got good reviews but was $170 more. The Sigma 50-500 was around $1000. The 50-500 would be great. Having that 50mm rather than 170mm, so there wouldn't be as much need to switch lenses but its almost $300 more. The $700 I might be able to swing one of these days if its a decent lens. It weighs 4lbs so hiking with it might be a chore.

 

[jann1033]

are you lenses sharp taking other things? if so i was thinking you can get a teleconverter and add 1.4x to you length..if you are using a tripod already. my tamron was about $200( canon but i think nikon is close) so between the crop and the 1.4 you should be getting plenty for you back yard shots...or move the feeder closer if possible..i did that last year. it does make you lose 1 stop of light but since you are taking out of doors that shouldn't be much of a problem. but it your lenses aren't sharp period it 'll just make it worse

 

[SharonLowe]

One option you could consider is uprezing your images, preferably in Adobe Camera Raw if you have PS. Essentially what you would do is increase the file size, which ACR does quite well without degrading your image. Then, you have a larger file to crop to the size you like so it will print larger than 4x6. If you have CS3, you can process jpegs, tifs and raw images with ACR (RAW is still best though).

As an aside, your image could be brightened a bit. If you notice, the snow on the top of the feeder isn't white but it should be. Also, the sky behind is a bit blown out. Both of these are pretty easy fixes - the sky in ACR by recovering the highlights (or with shadows/highlights in PS) and the snow by setting a white point in curves or levels. If all of this is greek to you, pm me and I'll give you my email address so you can send the original file and I'll fix it for you - both the size issue and the brightness ones too.

 

[My2Girls66]

are you lenses sharp taking other things? if so i was thinking you can get a teleconverter and add 1.4x to you length..if you are using a tripod already. my tamron was about $200( canon but i think nikon is close) so between the crop and the 1.4 you should be getting plenty for you back yard shots...or move the feeder closer if possible..i did that last year. it does make you lose 1 stop of light but since you are taking out of doors that shouldn't be much of a problem. but it your lenses aren't sharp period it 'll just make it worse

They are pretty sharp, I think. I'm not really picky, tho. I might just not be seeing things. I had thought about getting a teleconverter but I read that under f4 they don't always autofocus. My 75-300 is f/4.5-5.6- so I could lose autofocus. I'm not great at manual focusing. That def. would be my 1st choice of my options. I figure if I were to use it on the 70-210f/4 it wouldn't make it much better than the 300mm lens I already have. A tripod is something I also should get in the habit of using. I tend to hand hold for convenience.