RAW image?

[M. Gustave]

What do you think a dark room was?

Kodachrome wasn't darkroom processed. It was done at Kodak, on automated systems. I guess you're too young to even know what I'm talking about.

I'm not a spokesman. It's just common knowledge in the world photography for anyone who is semi serious about it.

It's not at all 'common knowledge'. In fact, jpeg-vs-raw is a heated religious debate that regularly flares up on every photography forum. There isn't a consensus about it, and you don't get to decide who is 'serious' about photography and who isn't, just because they choose other methods than you. It's really insecure, and insulting.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

There are an endless number of examples of memorable, "serious" photographs that were not post processed. How about 50 years worth of Kodachrome for starters?

And when did 'anyone' elect you to be their spokesman?

basically, both can have their use.

Jpeg use can work well if you have gear with that does its jpeg conversions in body to your liking. And you nail the basics of shooting on the frame. Some of my PP can be resize and resharpen if the shot is nailed right SOOC. A process that works on jpegs as well as a .raw. Since tbh...this process is usually carried out on a conversion anyway (.tiff by default for most plugins I have seen like nik tools and such).


WB good on body, exposure is good (histograms can be your best friend here...test shots, see graphs, see clipping of channels, fix and shoot till good and off you go), etc.


I have in the past done film as well. Film is great for testing your basic skills. This barring scanning in film to PP....gets you no PP whatsoever beyond the settings the developer has where you take the film. Or you can be motivated to learn and setup a film developer setup in your house.

As yes, even Ansel Adams was known to have tweaked his images the old fashioned way in his own film develop processes. Want to play with that process that much, have at it lol.

With my d750 I follow both paths tbh. Split card setup, one .nef, one jpeg. If jpegs coming out nice...I run them out to save time.

 

[lagwagon]

Kodachrome wasn't darkroom processed. It was done at Kodak, on automated systems. I guess you're too young to even know what I'm talking about.



It's not at all 'common knowledge'. In fact, jpeg-vs-raw is a heated religious debate that regularly flares up on every photography forum. There isn't a consensus about it, and you don't get to decide who is 'serious' about photography and who isn't, just because they choose other methods than you. It's really insecure, and insulting.

I wasn't talking about Kodachrome. Age has nothing to do with anything (and I'm not all that young either)

The only area of serious photography I know of that never uses RAW or does any post are journalists for newspapers. (It's simply just not allowed. RAW technically is but for speed purposes they shoot JPEG, post processing is not.)

The majority of all professional photographers shoot RAW and post process. Most people who are serious in photography as a hobby or maybe some extra cash on the side here and there go by what most "Pro's" do, because typically "Pro's are working with the best solutions. I'm not deciding who is serious or not. Not sure why you're getting so bent. I didn't say your 8000 photos taken on one camera body to not be serious enough.

JPEG vs RAW depends on your intention for the photo. If you're just posting some quick family day at the park kinda stuff to Facebook, then of course you wouldn't need to go all out with RAW and post. Its snapshot vs photo. There is a big difference.

 

[M. Gustave]

The only area of serious photography I know of that never uses RAW or does any post are journalists for newspapers.

This directly contradicts your last two posts.

The majority of all professional photographers shoot RAW and post process.

Source? You conducted a study?
Even if true, an amateur artist can have very different methods than a paid professional.

Not sure why you're getting so bent. I didn't say your 8000 photos taken on one camera body to not be serious enough.

Dude, please reread your previous posts carefully, I'm not going to quote them back to you. You absolutely did say that. You don't know me, or my photography, and my choosing 'post processing' or not says nothing whatsoever about my seriousness or commitment to it.

 

[lagwagon]

This directly contradicts your last two posts.



Source? You conducted a study?
Even if true, an amateur artist can have very different methods than a paid professional.



Dude, please reread your previous posts carefully, I'm not going to quote them back to you. You absolutely did say that. You don't know me, or my photography, and my choosing 'post processing' or not says nothing whatsoever about my seriousness or commitment to it.

This is obviously just going to go around in circles.

And for the record, I never once commented about your photography. I commented on your funny claim that shooting RAW has ruined more images than shooting JPEG. Due to "lousy RAW processing". And that RAW is only professional use. But you took that as an attack on your photos and got all butthurt.

With anything there are casual people and very serious hobbiest, and everything inbetween. That's fact. I really don't care where you sit in the spectrum. I never said your images are crap if you don't shoot RAW. I said post processing is a very major part of photography and RAW gives the best results because you are working with all the info and not something compressed, with sharpness, contrast and such already applied.

Like I said, this is just going to go in circles.

 

[GtheC]

Hi M. Gustave,

With all due respect your reply is so nonsensical as to be quite humorous. It obviously shows that you've never learned how to process an image let alone a raw image. Lagwagon is quite correct in his assessment in all comments. For those who think that for years photographers only took photos and did no post processing did not understand photography in "the golden years" or never did it.

If you think that Ansel Adams just went out there and snapped photos, you are very mistaken. Please read up on what he did and how, there is a lot of material out there to explain his process.

You owe it to your self to learn more about this. But one reality that might give you a place to start: a JPEG image is an 8-bit image: 256 shades (or tones) of red, blue and green. That's it. If any part of the image is blown out (over or under exposed), too bad. If there is light from another room leaking into your image, too bad. If you want to make changes overall exposure in parts of an image beyond a single stop, again, too bad. There are many many other dynamics that can be fixed when raw that are out of reach if the image is cooked (jpg).

The composition of your images may be fine, they might even be fantastic, but why you willingly wish to tie yourself down to end up with poorly processed image because you do not want to use the full set of tools is beyond me. If you think your images are good, try adding to your level of expertise and learn how to process raw images properly. If quantity is quality, I've got you beet as I've taken over 20,000 photos since the mid-70's and once I got a camera that could do raw, I've never taken a jpg since. I value what I can do in the darkroom or the computer.

Most of today's camera have 14-bit sensors so that means over 16,000 shades (or tones) per channel. Admittedly, most screens cannot display anything near that and most of the printers we are likely to purchase cannot print anything near that but consider when you've done some image manipulation that now starts to display posterization. You WILL NOT get that from a raw image but you are sure to get that from a jpg.

To provide some help on this, let me point you at a friend of mine's website, Laura Shoe, who provides some extra insight on this. See <http://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/>.

To reiterate, you really do not know what you are talking about and you seem to have no clue about what you do not know and are providing some very wrong information.

 

[Eau Rouge]

From this reddit thread. A developer has provided the DNG output from a 6s along with the rendered JPGs.

 

[WaruiKoohii]

ProCamera can take TIFF and edit them, I'm not sure about Camera+ as I haven't used it in a long time.

One thing that I have noticed is that on iOS 9.3.2 if I took a TIFF in ProCamera, saved it to my camera roll (unedited) and tried to edit it in the iOS Photos app the picture would turn black.

On iOS 10 beta 1 if I edit a TIFF image the changes save and the edited image displays as it should with the changes in place. That tells me that RAW editing is indeed in place and working in beta 1.

No that means nothing for RAW editing. TIFFs are not RAW, it just means Apple fixed some issues relating to TIFF files.

Being able to shoot in RAW should finally get rid of all that aggressive noise reduction it applies to current photos taken (because they are jpeg and jpeg applies all sorts of things like sharpening and noise reduction, where RAW does not)

This will improve photo quality by quite a bit.

Well to be technical, JPEG has nothing to do with sharpening and noise reduction, it is merely an image compression format.

RAW is just the raw data from the image sensor so nothing is applied to it. You will probably find, however, that you'll want to apply some noise reduction and sharpening to your RAWs when you process them though. It won't make the camera less noisy.

RAW shooting is interesting because it gives more flexibility with editing photos, primarily with doing things like exposure adjustments.

 

[T1ck_T0ck]

No that means nothing for RAW editing. TIFFs are not RAW, it just means Apple fixed some issues relating to TIFF files.

Thanks for the info.

 

[lagwagon]

Well to be technical, JPEG has nothing to do with sharpening and noise reduction, it is merely an image compression format.

Technically no, you're right on that. But just about every camera has "picture styles" which include presets or custom user set values for sharpness, contrast, saturation and colour tone settings. These are what's applied to all JPEG's taken by that camera. EAW of course ignores these and applies nothing.

It's pretty safe to assume that Apple applies their own custom "picture style" to images taken on their phone/iPad.

Once allowed to shoot in RAW it should bypass all of that. (And hopefully drastically reduce the amount of noise reduction Apple places on its current JPEG's.)

 

[LERsince1991]

Does iOS 10 allow editing of just DNG or will it edit camera manufacturers raw files too? I.e. Canon raw CR2