RAW for razor-sharp?

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby harkins on Tue 29 May 2018, 10:34 am

I decided to use raw mainly because of the reasons of trying to make the best of my often not brilliantly shot photos - especially as the weather is rarely on-side when I'm photographing aircraft. In addition to the original reason, I discovered that post-processing is an extension of the hobby that I enjoy. I only get to one or two airshows and maybe one day at a fence in a year if I'm lucky, so it's not like I get overwhelmed by going through them in Lightroom.
User avatar
harkins

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby wallace on Thu 31 May 2018, 4:58 pm

It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.
User avatar
wallace

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby nighthawk999 on Thu 31 May 2018, 8:55 pm

wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.

+1
nighthawk999

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby Brevet Cable on Thu 31 May 2018, 9:09 pm

Amongst other things.
Brevet.. Meh !!
Not an enthusiast or a spotter
trollpikken fforwm swyddogol
User avatar
Brevet Cable

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby jingernut on Fri 01 Jun 2018, 7:47 am

wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.


Camera settings and photographers technique count for nothing then? :biggrin:
User avatar
jingernut

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby speedbird2639 on Fri 01 Jun 2018, 8:17 am

jingernut wrote:
wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.


Camera settings and photographers technique count for nothing then? :biggrin:


Hence Brevet's comment "Amongst other things".

I think the point wallace was making was if the lens isn't any good once the light has passed through a sub optimal (as Ron Dennis would've referred to it) lens then the resulting image is going to degraded to the point that arguing over whether RAW or jpeg is better/ more suitable is moot anyway. If your lens results in a fuzzy image at the sensor then post production fettling is only going to make it slightly less degraded and it will never be a great photo (though depending on the subject it may still be of interest, obviously).
User avatar
speedbird2639

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby wallace on Sun 03 Jun 2018, 12:46 pm

jingernut wrote:
wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.


Camera settings and photographers technique count for nothing then? :biggrin:


Still RAW has nothing to do with sharpness, it is just the data from the sensor, sharpness primarily originates from the quality of the lens. Without that, then everything else is wasted, and to quote a well known saying "you can't polish a t*rd!"
(No matter which post processing technique you use.)
User avatar
wallace

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby reheat module on Sun 03 Jun 2018, 2:09 pm

wallace wrote:
jingernut wrote:
wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.


...and to quote a well known saying "you can't polish a t*rd!"

...No, but you can roll it in glitter...!
Canon systems
reheat module

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby effects on Sun 03 Jun 2018, 6:00 pm

reheat module wrote:
wallace wrote:
jingernut wrote:
wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.


...and to quote a well known saying "you can't polish a t*rd!"

...No, but you can roll it in glitter...!

And pop a cherry on the top!
Sony DSC-HX400V (Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)
User avatar
effects

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby POD on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 12:00 am

I only shoot JPEG.....Tried RAW once and my old 10D crashed when shooting on High Speed......never did it again.... :dunno:
Tiger Tiger!
User avatar
POD

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby vulcan558 on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 12:26 pm

Andover wrote:Does it go without saying that everyone here shoots in RAW mode? Is that the way to get razor sharp images? I'm using a Nikon D50 with a AF Nikkor 70-300 zoom (bought in 2006) - maybe I need a bigger/newer lens. Some shots a reasonable, most are not anywhere near as sharp as is posted on this forum.

And if I need to go RAW, can you suggest a (fairly) easy-to-use RAW software download, thanks.

But you will have to still have to post a jpeg on here at the end of the day.

The quality of the lens will have the greatest effect on sharpness, so would suggest a upgrade in that area.
vulcan558

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby 58Hustler on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 2:53 pm

Also worth mentioning that a RAW file can be 'dug out' from you hard drive months or years after you took the image and re-edited as your PP skills will presumably have evolved.......
If a man speaks when he is alone in a forest and there are no women around to hear him, is he still wrong?
User avatar
58Hustler

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 3:02 pm

58Hustler wrote:Also worth mentioning that a RAW file can be 'dug out' from you hard drive months or years after you took the image and re-edited as your PP skills will presumably have evolved.......

So can a JPEG if you keep the original.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby Mooshie1956 on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 3:09 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
58Hustler wrote:Also worth mentioning that a RAW file can be 'dug out' from you hard drive months or years after you took the image and re-edited as your PP skills will presumably have evolved.......

So can a JPEG if you keep the original.


Do people actually edit a JPEG and not keep a copy of the original. Even when I started out with auto settings I would save as and change the name. You always need to keep a copy of the original so you can go back and rectify any mistakes you might make.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mooshie1956/
Panny G80 12-60 Lens
Panny 100-400 Lens
Olympus 60 Macro Lens
User avatar
Mooshie1956

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby BMrider on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 3:12 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
58Hustler wrote:Also worth mentioning that a RAW file can be 'dug out' from you hard drive months or years after you took the image and re-edited as your PP skills will presumably have evolved.......

So can a JPEG if you keep the original.


Every time you open a JPEG it degrades a bit, RAW doesn't
User avatar
BMrider

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 3:16 pm

BMrider wrote:
LN Strike Eagle wrote:
58Hustler wrote:Also worth mentioning that a RAW file can be 'dug out' from you hard drive months or years after you took the image and re-edited as your PP skills will presumably have evolved.......

So can a JPEG if you keep the original.


Every time you open a JPEG it degrades a bit, RAW doesn't

How does it degrade if you don't save any changes?
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby BMrider on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 3:49 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:
BMrider wrote:
LN Strike Eagle wrote:
58Hustler wrote:Also worth mentioning that a RAW file can be 'dug out' from you hard drive months or years after you took the image and re-edited as your PP skills will presumably have evolved.......

So can a JPEG if you keep the original.


Every time you open a JPEG it degrades a bit, RAW doesn't

How does it degrade if you don't save any changes?


To clarify, opening to edit and closing (Saving) degrades quality if done multiple times. worth reading; https://photo.stackexchange.com/questio ... ge-quality
User avatar
BMrider

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Tue 05 Jun 2018, 4:13 pm

BMrider wrote:To clarify, opening to edit and closing (Saving) degrades quality if done multiple times. worth reading; https://photo.stackexchange.com/questio ... ge-quality

Only if you overwrite the original. Saving and closing are two different things.

I can do what I like to the photos without harming the original as long as I don't overwrite it - I've been editing shots from Old Warden at the weekend. Once I'm done and I've completed my workflow, I save it to a new location, close the original file and do not save changes. The original file is unharmed.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby trebleone on Wed 06 Jun 2018, 11:11 pm

LN Strike Eagle wrote:........... Once I'm done and I've completed my workflow, I save it to a new location, close the original file and do not save changes. The original file is unharmed.


If you've got into the habit of working that way and it suits you, then fine, however for anyone else considering this, bear in mind that depending on the software used, there's a risk of accidentally hitting 'save', when your intention was to 'save as' - for this reason, I would suggest making a copy of the original beforehand and then editing the copy; thus eliminating the risk.

On the other hand, if Lightroom is used for post-process, then on completing edits, whether the original is a RAW or a jpeg, 'export' or 'publish' will create a new, edited version of the image, leaving the original untouched (however all the edits will be saved in a sidecar file and listed so they can be re-visited at any time).
User avatar
trebleone
UKAR Supporter

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby 58Hustler on Thu 07 Jun 2018, 10:26 pm

JPEG is a lossy file,RAW is not and gives you far more control over the editing i.e levels and curves etc. Hence my point about reverting back to the original at a later date.
Very few if any Pro photographers use JPEG.
I stand by my original statement.
If a man speaks when he is alone in a forest and there are no women around to hear him, is he still wrong?
User avatar
58Hustler

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby trebleone on Thu 07 Jun 2018, 11:06 pm

58Hustler wrote:Very few if any Pro photographers use JPEG.


I wouldn't be too sure about that - I believe that most professional photographers who have to work to tight publication deadlines (e.g. journalism), use jpeg for speed - they simply don't have the time to post-process raw images.

I do however, fully agree with the first line of your post.
User avatar
trebleone
UKAR Supporter

Re: RAW for razor-sharp?

Postby henk99 on Wed 13 Jun 2018, 7:40 pm

trebleone wrote:
58Hustler wrote:Very few if any Pro photographers use JPEG.


I wouldn't be too sure about that - I believe that most professional photographers who have to work to tight publication deadlines (e.g. journalism), use jpeg for speed - they simply don't have the time to post-process raw images.

I do however, fully agree with the first line of your post.


I know some (pro) sports photographers and they all shoot raw. However, they all have a high skill and efficiency level when it comes to editing. They use their own presets, which are camera specific and apply right away, which is 80% of the work. They start of with a small selection (some are already marked in camera during shooting) and quickly apply a preset, do a little tweaking and cropping and off they go. It's a matter of minutes if deadlines are tight.
Frysian Flag 2018 | | Meeting de l'Air Nancy-Ochey | RIAT 2018 | Belgian Airforce Days
User avatar
henk99

Previous

Return to Photography Hints, Tips & Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nacl1, trebleone and 10 guests