 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Of course, but that's assuming you actually want to remove those things (or not even have them in the first place). For a lot of what I do I want them there.
Yes, I managed to miss a word in my last post. What I ment to say was:
It's easy to remove dynamic range and [b]add[/b] compression artifacts when you start with a raw.
You don't have to rely on luck, making a photo worse in post is easy. Add noise, add crappy compression artifacts, screw up your dynamic range any way you like all in the comfort of your favourite chair.
Jared Polin is intensely irritating. His ego is bigger than his talent. Ken Rockwell is far less irritating, but still very self-absorbed:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
😆
I thought the smaller file size and much larger buffer on the D4S was capable of fast RAW shooting, even for extended periods?
[url= http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d4s/nikon-d4sA6.HTM ]A quick look suggests it's marginal.[/url] 50 shots with either high quality jpeg or raws, but the buffer clear time is 6s in jpeg and 9s in raw. Jpeg and raw is 43 shots and 19s to clear.
for sports one may
also
consider time lost changing cards
and
sending shots to a newspaper
sending shots to a newspaper
Can you still buy those?
I remember reading somewhere that for newspapers the photographers need to get the pictures in as quickly as possible.. so perhaps JPEG would help with that...
theauthorities - Member
do you
want
exactly and precisely
the
amount of dr and artefacts
you get
or
do you just want random results?
5thElefant - Member
Yes, I managed to miss a word in my last post. What I ment to say was:
It's easy to remove dynamic range and add compression artifacts when you start with a raw.
You don't have to rely on luck, making a photo worse in post is easy. Add noise, add crappy compression artifacts, screw up your dynamic range any way you like all in the comfort of your favourite chair.
Accepted. As I say I'm obviously a far from typical STW photographer. The luck and randomness is part of what makes it interesting for me (to get all arty farty, it mirrors the accidental processes you work with when painting). Conceptually (arty farty time again) there's a difference between artifacts you knowingly introduce and those that exist because of the tools you choose to use and the work process you choose to follow.
I shoot raw. I've found that over the years, it's just better at being able save an image by recording detail that a jpeg may have removed ( such as near blown out whites) . The use of my pics is for myself so the full post processing and editing can take a while till I get it the way I want, and I would rather start with the most amount of detail in the first place.
I do understand why sports photographers use jpg though, for some sports, your environment is fairly stable in terms of lighting and once you have a setting you know is getting good results, then you can freely click away. Then after, the post processing is quicker as for news print (as I understand it ) your meant to only have basic adjustments applied such as brightness contrast crop etc, so when post processing your doing quick edits and exporting out to the media as a jpeg.
for sports one may
also
consider time lost changing cards
and
sending shots to a newspaper
Will people please
stop writing everything
in f****** haiku?
Jared Polin is intensely irritating. His ego is bigger than his talent. Ken Rockwell is far less irritating, but still very self-absorbed:
Whilst true, he does get his points across very well, much easier to spend an evening with a few of his tutorials and a camera than following a book.
Ken on the other hand probably isn't actually that different, but always comes across as "you're doing it wrong and here is a long list of reasons why", rather than a friend leaning over your shoulder and just telling you what to do to get the result you wanted.
I always imagine if they were running a course, Ken probably likes Powerpoint.
Jared Polin is intensely irritating.
Very true but I did find this recent one he did good.
Serge Ramelli FTW.
Processing old RAW files with Lightroom;
The point is made at 59:34
Returned with over a thousand RAW pics to process and reading a bit moe on the subject have found some conflicting advice to the above, below:
[i]I have been post-processing many of my files lately. I haven't had time to PP much this summer, but I have taken a gazillion shots that I can work with during the fall and winter.
I have previously said that while I am not satisfied with the way LR deals with the X-Trans raw files, I said it was good enough for me in regards convenience to so that I can use LR which I am so used to.
This is not the case any more, after I stumbled upon some seriously problematic shots which are so bad in LR. If you pixel peep you can notice flaws on any image with LR, but, when I view for example the attached images on my monitor (BenQ G2400W, 24", 1920x1200, calibrated - not the best monitor by far!) in full view (not 100%) it is EASY to see a huge difference. I mean, the Lightroom image looks like a Lo-Fi/low resolution version of the Silkypix image. It looks like the Facebook uploader has crunched it and wrecked total havoc on all the details.
And you don't have to zoom in at all to see it!
I used Silkypix 5.0.20 and believe it or not I spent less time in Silkypix to develop the final result than I spent in Lightroom to develop the file. And no matter what I did in Lightroom I could never achieve anything that replicated the Silkypix file at all, especially in regards to sharpness and pure detail that is visible at regular full view.
I am attaching the JPEG's here, which were exported from Silkypix at it's default JPEG export setting and at quality 92 in Lightroom (with Output Sharpening set to "Screen" and "Default"). Both images are in full resolution. I am also attaching the RAF so that you can have a go for yourself.
The pictures are zipped because of convenience (easier to download the files rather to open them in a browser) and are shared on my public Dropbox folder.
Hint: Keep your eyes on the trees in the left of the picture and switch between the files. It'll look like you are watching a full resolution image and a poorly downscaled image.
Silkypix JPEG:
Lightroom JPEG:
Original RAF: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3886105/DSCF3282.zip
Develop settings for Lightroom:
-------------------------------
WB Temp 5860
Exposure -0,60
Highlights -38
Shadows +14
Blacks -9
Sharpening 53
Radius 1,3
Color NR 0
Remove Chromatic Abberation
Settings that are not mentioned are at their default
Develop settings for Silkypix:
------------------------------
WB Temp 5860
Exposure -1,75
Dodging 100
Contrast 1,65
Contrast Center 0,30
Gamma 1,20
Saturation 1,08
Film color K
Sharpness Natural Fine
Demosaic Sharpening 100
NR 0 on all sliders
Settings that are not mentioned are at their default
The huge difference even at normal view on my crappy / cheap monitor basically forces me to use Silkypix from now on.
I just can't use Lightroom any more. The Lightroom picture looks like it was taken with a small point and shoot/compact compared to the Silkypix picture which looks like it was taken with a fullframe camera. The difference is, to my eyes, that big. There's so much more resolution in the Silkypix image... It's just insane.
This is the first time that I tried to process a file in Silkypix by the way. And I followed this step-by-step guide and easily achieved this result: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=41941743&page=1
-- hide signature --
Photo blog: http://www.bophotography.net
Portfolio: http://www.inpx.net
500px: http://500px.com/borge
Flickr: http://flickr.com/borgei [/i]