RAW file format

[J3nn78]

The G10 has just been announced and will be available soon. 14.7 Mp as opposed to G9's 12, 28-140mm zoom as oppoed to G9's 35-210mm. .75x & 2x conversion lenses availible for either camera.

I would guess the price of the G9 is about to fall...

... and just after I took delivery of my G9.

I am still learning to use my G9, so no comments yet, other than I am pleased so far.

Andrew

yeah I saw that. Stupid increase in resolution and same size sensor. great. more noise on a camera that puts out junk files at 800 ISO already. Canon definatly has their marketing priorities on top of their image quality priorities. They should have dropped it to 6mp to 8mp, made the sensor the same size, and had a decent 800 and a usable 1600 ISO.

12mp up to 14.7mp IS NOT AN UPGRADE. But the wider lens certainly is.
who out there is buying P&S cameras to make 30x40" and larger prints that they need 12mp and 14mp resolution.

 

[MHolleman]

I believe the newest Sony H50 shots in Raw. The macro on this one is also pretty amazing, from the shots I have seen on flikr.

 

[webshark3]

yeah I saw that. Stupid increase in resolution and same size sensor. great. more noise on a camera that puts out junk files at 800 ISO already. Canon definatly has their marketing priorities on top of their image quality priorities. They should have dropped it to 6mp to 8mp, made the sensor the same size, and had a decent 800 and a usable 1600 ISO.

12mp up to 14.7mp IS NOT AN UPGRADE. But the wider lens certainly is.
who out there is buying P&S cameras to make 30x40" and larger prints that they need 12mp and 14mp resolution.

I'm not a fan either, but Canon does have a good track record. People were furious at the MP increase when the G9 was announced, and got quiet after it was released. It turned out to be a good P&S. Canon does seem to handle the MP increase better than most.

 

[Andrew Bichard]

But the wider lens certainly is.

Which is why I'm not getting rid of my T90 + 17mm and 24mm lenses right yet. (or my Nikon film scanner)

Andrew

 

[pixie dust 112]

turns out many Canon P&S can shoot in RAW mode with the "CHDK" program
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief

Cool. Mine is on the list too. I didn;t know about this! Thanks for posting!

 

[Golf4food]

Now that we have a Mac I can finally open and edit RAW images easily on my computer in iPhoto so I'm no longer trapped by the restraints of my camera's JPEG conversion quality. Looking forward to being able to shoot RAW at Disney next month.

Here are a few shots of the results from the zoo - any suggestions or comments welcome. (So I can be better prepared for Disney.)

Squirrel Monkey baby

Blue Macaw

Some sort of iguana or other such lizard that can swim (but this one just sitting on a branch). The lighting in here is horrible for cameras - dark, kind of yellow (it's styled like the interior of a lost Mayan temple):

Cheetah (never gotten a decent shot of this guy before):

Otters just chillin', laid on out their little dock sunning themselves (mostly in shadow here, though):

 

[Hibino]

The Panasonic FZ18 (recently replaced by the FZ28). I'm thinking quite seriously about the newer model for my Disney foray in June '09

regards,
/alan

I own an FZ18. Great camera!!!

I suggest OP buy one.

 

[annnewjerz]

So, I'm taking another trip this weekend to play around with the new D60. I'll be going to some local flea markets, another walk around town (since I only made it two blocks last time) and down to the boardwalks in Ocean and Atlantic City.

I've been hesitant to try it, but I would like to get some practice shooting in RAW this time around. Anything particular to make note of, remember while shooting, etc.???

 

[J3nn78]

Nothing to worry about, shooting RAW is easier than shooting JPG.

you gain:
not needing to set white balance at all
not needing to set color saturation or contrast at all
not needing to set sharpness at all

Those things don't matter to a raw file since the camera is not going to do any processing to the image, it will put out direct sensor info. you choose those settings within the raw converter software on the computer.


more latitude in highlights..raw files don't clip as fast and contain more highlight information than a jpg file.

you can get the color more accurate with a raw conversion white balance than you would normally get using the auto or "pre set" settings. The actual color temp that is ideal rarely falls exactly the same as "tungsten" or "daylight" or any predefined setting.

you also usually get a better image file processing your own raw files because you can tailor the contrast exactly to your image.

But as for "while your shooting", raw is easier because you an ignore those camera settings and deal with them later when you have more time.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not 100% familiar what software Nikon includes with their camera (I know they want you to buy their "nicer" raw processing software), but as long as it includes a program that can process your raws, there's little reason not to. Even if you don't do any real raw processing yet, you will have the ability to go back later and tweak your photos when you are ready to work with RAWs.

 

[J3nn78]

I'm not 100% familiar what software Nikon includes with their camera (I know they want you to buy their "nicer" raw processing software), but as long as it includes a program that can process your raws, there's little reason not to. Even if you don't do any real raw processing yet, you will have the ability to go back later and tweak your photos when you are ready to work with RAWs.

Right, and Lightroom, if you choose to use it and download the right profiles, can "mimic" the color/contrast/sharpness settings that you would normally set in camera.

On my D3, I can take a raw + fine JPG shot and run the raw file through lightroom with Lightroom's ACR profile set to "Vivid" and process to JPG.

the files look really really close.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I've been shooting in RAW and trying to edit, basically just playing around with the settings until I like the way the pictures look. (I'm still unfamiliar with tone curve and gamma if anyone wants to take a stab at explaining what to do with those and posting examples if possible).

I have a few questions - like are all the brighteners the same? (There are a couple under different settings.) Any secrets or "rules" to using contrast? What if one area of your picture is shady, and the other bright (like #4)? I am using Olympus Master software if that matters.

These were taken in mid-day. For some of the ones in bright daylight, I used a filter, and then had to brighten (like #9). Is that preferable to getting a shot that's overexposed and just fixing it later? Is it true that you don't really need to pay too much attention to WB settings when you're shooting since you can "fix" them later? I'm still kind of unsure of what I'm doing at this point, just sort of experimenting. (Still learning about lenses and such, too, and used three different ones with these - maybe one would have been better than another?)

Feedback/constructive criticism would be appreciated. Feel free to comment on composition - or anything else I should know about - as well. Thanks a lot!

All are @ ISO 100 unless otherwise listed.

1) f/18,1/125, 40mm

2) f/8,1/500, 119mm

3) f/5.6, 1/200, 150mm, ISO400

4) f/4.0, 1/80, 40mm

5) f/4.6, 1/250, 73mm

6) f/5.6, 1/125, 150mm

7) f/4.8, 1/1000, 26mm

8) f/10, 1/250, 42mm

9) f/11, 1/50, 18mm

10) f/2.8, 1/2500, 25mm

11) f/11, 1/100, 42mm

12) f/2.8, 1/1600, 25mm

13) f/2.8, 1/2500, 25mm

 

[Pugrpooh]

You've got some beautiful shots! Can't comment on your RAW editing though, since I'm just starting to learn, and I'm not even going to THINK about using RAW until I get a bunch of other things figured out!

You've got a bit more color there than we do here. Fall is my favorite season, so I'm looking forward to getting outside more in the next week or two.

Lynn

 

[Quicklabs]

My favorite is the birdhouse picture. The exposure there looks perfect. I like the bokeh, too. Just right. In my limited experience, I think it is better to overexpose than to underexpose--seems easier to fix without creating a lot of noise. To my taste, I might brighten up some of the other pix, but that's just me. What processing program are you using? It would be nice to have something that could selectively brighten while leaving other parts alone. I think NX Capture V2 will do that; I'm going to load mine after I return from Disney in December.
I have also found that a CP is helpful. It's hard to get some of the green grass, blue sky shots without washing out the sky a little. RAW doesn't fix that perfectly.
Of course, I'm no genius! LOL. I just started shooting RAW as well about a month ago. I'm shooting RAW exclusively now (the turning point was being able to process RAW files in PSE5). I really love the flexibility it affords. I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I'm especially happy with this one. I don't think I could have gotten something like this with fixing up a JPEG. I've learned soooooo much here at this board.

 

[boBQuincy]

You've got some beautiful shots! Can't comment on your RAW editing though, since I'm just starting to learn, and I'm not even going to THINK about using RAW until I get a bunch of other things figured out!

Actually, less experienced photographers might get a lot of benefit from RAW, with it's greater tolerance for adjustment than JPG. I wish I had started with RAW and could work on some of my early images with the newer RAW converters. At least try RAW + JPG so you have the RAW files for later.

 

[Groucho]

It is hard to say much about how the raw processing in specific is, but the shots look quite good overall. There is just a bit of blown highlights in the leaves/tree roots photo. If you're using LR, you can try using "recover" to bring those areas back.

It would be nice to have something that could selectively brighten while leaving other parts alone.

LR2 has the ability to dodge and burn (ie, lighten and darken) specific parts of your photos. You can also adjust individual colors individually, which I find more useful... especially if you have an outdoor photo with no blue objects in it, you can they fiddle with the blue luminosity and saturation to get a nice deep blue sky.

 

[AbsolutLaney]

beautiful shots!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Thanks for the feedback. Some of them are a little dark. I'm not sure how to lighten them without making them seem washed out. Maybe I need to try Lightroom.

 

[InsertWittyNameHere]

I recently switched from Olympus Master to Raw Therapee for my raw processing. I found Master to be very limited in what it can do. Raw Therapee is a freeware program so it won't cost you any thing to try it out. I may eventually switch over to Lightroom but for now RT seems to work fine.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks for the feedback. Some of them are a little dark. I'm not sure how to lighten them without making them seem washed out. Maybe I need to try Lightroom.

they look good to me..the light room 2 has a nd filter ( not that i have figured out how to use it yet ) that i think will come in handy ( like for yesterday when husband drove down the road with my bag in the car while i was out of the car taking photos and hadn't taken my nd filter and needed it.... )
i like the root one and you probably would fix the little over exposed few areas with the brush feature.