Head spinning with all this digital stuff! HELP

[rsl]

rsl: Thanks. I knew about the possibility of converting other RAW files into DNG. My question was about jarski's post about converting scanned TIFFs into DNG. I have never heard about that before, and as far as I can see, the DNG converter doesn't do it. I was just wondering what that was all about..

Actuall,y I can't see any reason to convert a TIFF to a DNG. You can't reverse the process. In a TIFF that comes from a digital camera, all the damage already has been done. The only reason a raw file is a "negative" is that it has all the information that came from the digital camera's sensor, without the camera having made decisions on thigs like demosaicing, gamma, and color balance. A scan doesn't have anything like that kind of information.

 

[rsl]

May be, but I am not part of the "digital photography community." Do you guys have housing and studios together somewhere?

Absolutely: in our co-ed community bar we party a lot: get drunk, get naked, and run around the walls. But you can't join the group unless you shoot raw.

 

[arnulf]

Absolutely: in our co-ed community bar we party a lot: get drunk, get naked, and run around the walls. But you can't join the group unless you shoot raw.

😀😀😀😀😀😀

 

[mfunnell]

RAW is more time consuming at capture. I can't imagine a wedding photographer putting up with the write time for RAW, nor any professional photographer in an action situation.

That must be an M8-specific limitation, as plenty of other digital gear (including my non-pro, not current model dSLR) are fast enough that RAW+JPEG essentially doesn't matter, even shooting sports and the like.

...Mike

 

[rsl]

RAW is more time consuming at capture. I can't imagine a wedding photographer putting up with the write time for RAW, nor any professional photographer in an action situation.

That's certainly strange to hear. My Nikon D3 will do at least 9 frames per second in RAW. I don't know what it'll do in jpeg because I never shoot jpeg, but I can't imagine I'd gain much time by switching.

In fact the sacrifice in image control is offset by the fact that most of the customers for those images are not extremely discriminating on capture for large print or fine image quality. A JPEG on a quality camera that is set right before the event is suitable for most buyers of the images.

I guess if you do sub-prime weddings that's possibly true. Still, you're not taking into account the ability of Photoshop to do batch processing. It's perfectly simple to download a raw shoot from your cards to your computer and then click a button to start a batch process that converts all of them to jpeg, if that's what you want. The first advantage is that you can set up the conversion yourself instead of letting the camera manufacturer make the decisions. The second advantage is that, even if you're doing a sub-prime wedding someone might decide to spring for a 24 x 36 of one of your shots. In that case you can bring the original DNG into CS3 and do a bang-up job -- one that'll get you new clients through word of mouth.

I don't do weddings any more -- at least not unless there's one I can't avoid. But I have a friend down the hall from my office in Colorado Springs who does lots of them. At first he shied away from raw because of the post-processing burden, but about a year and a half ago he switched to straight raw for the reasons I gave in the paragraph above. He's never looked back. In more than one case his decision has paid off big time.

 

[myoptic3]

RAW will usually give you a better image, but it will require a lot more time in PS unless you set up some actions to speed things along. This gets us into the problem w/ digital. Do you remember that it was originally pitched as simplifying your photography? Or how it would speed things up? Well, we all know about that now. I guess this is why I really prefer B&W film, as it comes out of the camera nearly perfect if your meter is right. Plus I just like B&W film images. Of course I spend a lot of time scanning, but it is still faster I would venture. Try using PS's auto-level/auto-color/auto-contrast features and see if that gets you in the ball park w/ your jpeg's. Must admit that the M8 images I have seen on the web look really good for a digital camera. I wouldn't think you would want to use the in-camera B&W processing either, as you are probably losing a lot of file information. Better to do it yourself in PS. I hate to bring reality into this (everyone, including, me wants a quick fix), but there is no substitute for spending hour after hour, day after day, and week after week in front of your monitor making all the mistakes and discoveries yourself.

 

[jaapv]

RAW is more time consuming at capture.

How is that then? Most digital cameras I know including the M8 will be ready for the next shot immediately even when they are wirting previous shots. that is what the buffer is for.

 

[rsl]

This gets us into the problem w/ digital. Do you remember that it was originally pitched as simplifying your photography? Or how it would speed things up? Well, we all know about that now.

Again: ever do any darkroom work? Did you spend less time in the darkroom than you spend on your computer with digital raw? After you're finished on your computer do you have to get everything back into the bottles and wash up the whole area? Seems like a simplification to me.

Try using PS's auto-level/auto-color/auto-contrast features and see if that gets you in the ball park w/ your jpeg's.

Don't even THINK about using auto-levels, auto-color, or auto-contrast to do anything in Photoshop except seeing how bad your sensor dust looks with auto-levels.. Well, maybe auto-color in some cases if you set it up properly (see "Real World Adobe Photoshop CS3"). Using these tools is like trying to cut your fingernails with a meat cleaver.

 

[kuzano]

going from a friends test on his M8

going from a friends test on his M8

How is that then? Most digital cameras I know including the M8 will be ready for the next shot immediately even when they are wirting previous shots. that is what the buffer is for.

The fellow I shoot with most often has an M8. He ran a test of three shots saving to DNG and Jpeg. From the time of the 3rd shutter trip until the camera signalled ready to go took about 30 seconds. Seems a bit long for me on an action event.

Does that seem extraordinary on M8's in the group?

 

[jaapv]

The fellow I shoot with most often has an M8. He ran a test of three shots saving to DNG and Jpeg. From the time of the 3rd shutter trip until the camera signalled ready to go took about 30 seconds. Seems a bit long for me on an action event.

Does that seem extraordinary on M8's in the group?

It does, because it is simply not true. I did the same just now.

It takes ten shots in rapid succession and after that one shot per two seconds until the card is full. Or when there is some space again in the buffer because you took a pause, it goes at speed again to fill the buffer and is back at one shot/ two seconds.
You don't wait for the camera to signal ready; you switch to "C" and keep the shutter depressed., or release as needed. This camera is very responsive in this situation, many revievers have commented on that aspect.

I have no idea what your friend was doing there, but it was certainly not normal.

 

[rsl]

I am not one that believes photoshop can be learned from a book.

I'm not one who believes ANYTHING can be learned from a book, though a book can show you how the tools work.

I would have to read about the RAW experiences of others...

Not quite sure where you'd do that, and even if you could, why would that be different from reading about them in a book? The important thing always is trial and error. And you learn more from the errors than from the successes.

But back to a related subject:

what I have a hard time undersrtanding is why anyone would invest in, say, ten to thirty thousand dollars worth of Leica equipment and then go out to shoot "good enough" photographs. You can always get "good enough" shots with a $500 point and shoot.

Japp made the same point earlier in this thread. It strikes me that if someone's buying an M8 and Leica lenses to get "good enough" photographs, what he's really interested in is the equipment, not the photographs. There's nothing really wrong with that, but it hasn't much to do with photography as an art or as a business.

 

[Ben Z]

Ben, The problem is that the guy you hire to do your processing doesn't know what you saw, and no amount of description is going to tell him.

Actually, it has been proven in tests that our color-memory lasts something like ten minutes, so I am not going to exactly remember what I saw either. But I do remember what I think I saw, and I know what I want to see. I never had any problem getting exactly what I wanted from my printer guy with film, and that was a lot more difficult than digital where changes are click-click-click instead of having to go back to the enlarger and make another print. While he sits in front of his computer and does what he enjoys, I get to do something else I enjoy doing. If photography meant I have to sit and process my own images I would take up a different hobby. I just don't like image processing, and I didn't like darkroom work either. And I never will. Consequently, my own efforts would be substandard to his, because I'd be bored and aggravated all the time I was doing it, and shut the computer off long before the end result was as good as his.

 

[jarski]

My question was about jarski's post about converting scanned TIFFs into DNG. I have never heard about that before, and as far as I can see, the DNG converter doesn't do it.

sorry I had to leave from computer.. why I convert also TIFF's is that I can do that as batch job, so its easy. second reason is that I have also all my NEF's and CR2's converted to DNG. yes, conversion does not bring anything additional to image content, but I believe it as longer term solution, DNG as format does not disappear... its just me.

edit: least the version of Vuescan I have, does not have scan option for DNG. perhaps later.. havent checked for months, to be honest 🙂

 

[rsl]

Actually, it has been proven in tests that our color-memory lasts something like ten minutes, so I am not going to exactly remember what I saw either. But I do remember what I think I saw, and I know what I want to see. I never had any problem getting exactly what I wanted from my printer guy with film, and that was a lot more difficult than digital where changes are click-click-click instead of having to go back to the enlarger and make another print. While he sits in front of his computer and does what he enjoys, I get to do something else I enjoy doing. If photography meant I have to sit and process my own images I would take up a different hobby. I just don't like image processing, and I didn't like darkroom work either. And I never will. Consequently, my own efforts would be substandard to his, because I'd be bored and aggravated all the time I was doing it, and shut the computer off long before the end result was as good as his.

Okay. I can buy that. I used to hand off my darkroom color work too, though I'd never let anyone else touch my grayscale. I simply didn't have the space to build a complete color darkroom as, evidently, Jaap did. But when digital actually became usable I could take the same approach to color I used to take to black and white.

My pro friend down the hall in Colorado Springs who does many weddings takes a middle approach. He does the computer post-processing but hands the printing off to a lab he's come to trust. For him it works very well. In fact, it's the only cost-effective approach he can take with the volume of work he does.

I'm not terribly excited about sitting in front of a computer doing post processing either -- any more than I was excited about all the setup and cleanup associated with darkroom work. But it's the only way I can end up with exactly what I want.

 

[Ben Z]

I'm not terribly excited about sitting in front of a computer doing post processing either -- any more than I was excited about all the setup and cleanup associated with darkroom work. But it's the only way I can end up with exactly what I want.

I agree. However in my case, I can get much closer to the result I want by letting someone else do it to my specification. If I don't like doing something there isn't any way I can force myself to do it well.

BTW it isn't like I don't know zip about image processing, I started with PS 5.0 and in the beginning I got into it but after a few years and by CS2 I had enough. I still run my 20D RAW files through DxO and Miranda's plugins myself because I get what I want and don't have to pay someone else for it, and sometimes I do a few things myself. For example if you look in my gallery, the shot of the young lovers on a bench in Paris, in the original the guy was wearing a brown t-shirt, I thought it'd look better if he was wearing black like her. I used the Magic Lasso to select just his shirt, and desaturated it. (I learned that technique originally to get rid of magenta blacks with my R-D1 before I knew about IR-cut filters). OTOH for the print, my pro guy was able to recover the blown highlights on his hand and her face, which I tried and gave up on.

 

[rsl]

I agree. However in my case, I can get much closer to the result I want by letting someone else do it to my specification. If I don't like doing something there isn't any way I can force myself to do it well.

BTW it isn't like I don't know zip about image processing, I started with PS 5.0 and in the beginning I got into it but after a few years and by CS2 I had enough. I still run my 20D RAW files through DxO and Miranda's plugins myself because I get what I want and don't have to pay someone else for it, and sometimes I do a few things myself. For example if you look in my gallery, the shot of the young lovers on a bench in Paris, in the original the guy was wearing a brown t-shirt, I thought it'd look better if he was wearing black like her. I used the Magic Lasso to select just his shirt, and desaturated it. (I learned that technique originally to get rid of magenta blacks with my R-D1 before I knew about IR-cut filters). OTOH for the print, my pro guy was able to recover the blown highlights on his hand and her face, which I tried and gave up on.

Well, it's a good shot, and it illustrates one of the things I've been saying: I don't know whether or not your processor was working with CS3, but recovering the blown out face and hand is something ACR 4 usually can do almost immediately with the Recovery slider. Between PS 5 and CS2 it would have been very difficult to get the hand and face back, possibly even requiring plastic surgery, but with ACR 4 you can grab an older DNG and do things with it you couldn't do when it was new. In jpeg you're pretty much out of luck.

Very nice. Young lovers. I can remember when I wouldn't have called them "young."

 

[rsl]

Leaving them RAW certainly could orphan some files.

Yes, as I said earlier, unless they're DNGs.

 

[jaapv]

What is there to stop you converting those files to something like Tiff or BMP on a computer that still runs the format?