RAW for razor-sharp?
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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.
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.
-
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Fri 08 Apr 2016, 11:15 pm
- Location: Leicester
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
wallace wrote:It's not RAW that determines the sharpness of the images it's the quality of the lens used.
+1
- Brevet Cable
- Posts: 13725
- Joined: Tue 05 Mar 2013, 12:13 pm
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
Amongst other things.
Tôi chỉ đặt cái này ở đây để giữ cho người điều hành bận rộn
아직도 숨어있다
아직도 숨어있다
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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?
- speedbird2639
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Wed 13 Jul 2011, 11:35 am
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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?
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).
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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?
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.)
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Wed 01 Apr 2009, 8:53 pm
- Location: Lincs
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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!
Nikon P900 (Sony DSC-HX400V, Sony DSC-HX300 and DSC-H2 retired)
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
I only shoot JPEG.....Tried RAW once and my old 10D crashed when shooting on High Speed......never did it again....
Tiger Tiger!
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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.
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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?
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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!"
- Mooshie1956
- Posts: 1707
- Joined: Wed 01 Jun 2011, 11:46 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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
Panny G80 12-60 Lens
Panny 100-400 Lens
Olympus 60 Macro Lens
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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
View my flickr here; http://www.flickr.com/photos/65081372@N04/
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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!"
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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
View my flickr here; http://www.flickr.com/photos/65081372@N04/
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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!"
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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).
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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.
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?
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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.
Re: RAW for razor-sharp?
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.
| Erlanger Bergkirchweih | RIAT 2023 | Belgian Airforce Days 2023 | Frysian Flag 2023