Film1, Film2, Film3

[Marin3r]

Can someone explain to this digital newbie how the Film settings on the R-D1 work?

My main question: if I'm shooting RAW, do they become irrelevant, or do RAW files come out differently depending on the "film" setting?

I can't imagine constantly fiddling with the menu as I go back and forth from portraits to night scenes, e.g. at a gallery opening I shot last night. I did that in JPEG and somehow the pix didn't look as textured as my RAW shots from a previous similar event. Tri-X vs Ilford was so easy compared to this stuff!

Thanks very much,

Sanjay
Cambridge, Mass.

 

[JNewell]

Yes, if you shoot raw, they are irrelevant. I have had great results shooting raw and developing in Lightroom.

 

[emraphoto]

raw, iso 1600 converted to b+w, pump the contrast up about +5 and shazam! you've got tri-x

 

[Marin3r]

Thank you both...

Thank you both...

that's exactly how it seemed, but I wasn't sure. And yes, 1600 in BW + fiddling with the contrast etc. has been making me very happy!

Now I just have to find the gigabytes to store all these images. This camera invites trigger-happiness.

The sensor's sensitivity and color rendition is amazing. Yesterday I shot straight up at night, and got a blue sky, yellow leaves and stars... handheld.

So, can I ask the harder and more controversial part of my question: I keep reading diametrically opposed opinions about whether high-quality JPEG isn't just as good as RAW, so long as you get the white balance and exposure right... True or False?

Sanjay

 

[foto_fool]

How do you save your post-processed RAWs? As a jpeg? Do you up-sample the pixel count? All these (and more) are factors in whether jpeg is "as good as" RAW (or better).

You have hit on the only advantage RAW has IMHO - the ability to handle white balance in post. Other than that, RAW is a HUGE waste of time so far as I am concerned. {I can hear the mob now - "Heretic! Burn him!"}

My preference is to shoot and save jpegs, and take advantage of the trigger-happiness induced by the R-D1 to change the white balance between frames. Do I miss the occasional great shot? Sure do. Though perhaps less often than I do shooting film. And I have time to visit RFF that I would otherwise be spending processing RAW files.

 

[JNewell]

FF, I hope this isn't misunderstood. I'm not trying to pick an argument, just present the other side of the coin.

the ability to handle white balance in post

That's a big one and probably worth shooting raw for all by itself, but doing other processing in Lightroom or equivalent has other advantages. The jpegs aren't as flexible, as far as I can tell. LR and several other programs save the "raw" raw file with an associated instruction file containing the processing edits, so at least as far as disk space goes you only have one raw file saved.

Sure, processing files takes some time - developing and printing film takes some time, but you get better results than handing off the film to a process over which you don't have much control. I wouldn't say the time spent "developing" the raw files is wasted.

 

[emraphoto]

i just can't be made to believe that raw isn't the ONLY way to shoot with the r-d1s. the white balance issue alone makes the decision for me. the ability to pull details out of shadows, rescue highlights...
i also happen to like epson raw for processing raw files. i set-up how i want to process and use it in a "batch processing process". i even on occasion use it's noise reduction.
i then re-save the converted tiffs in the same folder as the original raws, date it and save it to a 400gig hard drive. done like dinner and not really that difficult...
cheers
john

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,
When shooting raw no setting on your camera matters. You'll do all the processing afterwards on the pc.
If you want the trix look. Use trix!

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema

 

[Marin3r]

When divergent opinions exist,

When divergent opinions exist,

each usually has some merit. I'm just trying to understand the ins and outs of each format. Perhaps I'll end up doing it one way in some situations and the other in others...

In December I'm headed to India for a few weeks. If I'll be shooting a lot of raw format, I'll need to expand my storage abilities.

I tried processing a group of raw images today in Lightroom. It was pretty easy to go through a couple of hundred, make 80 or so JPEGs for the client, and put them on a disk. Took about 20 minutes, and didn't seem to make raw seem like a bad idea. It seems like I could just hang onto the raw files myself and ignore the jpeg versions.

I was intrigued with blowing the pix up huge and playing with the various adjustments. I do wish I understood the science behind each adjustment better.

Thanks again for any and all advice.

Sanjay

 

[foto_fool]

JN - not looking to incite a riot here either - just expressing a personal opinion/preference, and a malleable one at that.

Sanjay, your recent experience suggests to me that I could be persuaded to try working with RAWs again.

I'm still halfway of the opinion that If I want a film-like workflow, I will work with film, and that the greatest appeal of digital is its immediacy.

Maybe I need to buy a copy of Lightroom.

- John

 

[JNewell]

JN - not looking to incite a riot here either - just expressing a personal opinion/preference, and a malleable one at that

Then we agree completely...I too am groping along this path. I hear what you're saying about film, but every time I have that thought I think maybe we are at (yet another) one of those turning points in imaging methods and technology. Dauguerre, anyone??? 😉

 

[Marin3r]

Can I add a final related question?

Can I add a final related question?

When I import my raw files is there any harm or loss if I convert them to Adobe's dng format? It seems that for archival purposes it would make more sense to leave .erf files off my computer entirely if possible, since it may be a format only ever made for one camera for a brief period of time, while .dng ought to be longer lasting... ?

Many thanks once more,

Sanjay