A Couple Woodies (pics...again)

[mcary]

I'll finish the evening's picture barrage with a couple of wood ducks I was able to photograph a few weeks back (when the weather was cooperating). Here's hoping for sunnier skies.

[The_Duckslayer]

My favorite duck! Thanks for posting... Great shots. Take care and N Joy the Hunt././Jimbo

[fishingmike0770]

awesome pictures in all the new posts. These are some amazing looking birds and im hoping for sunny skies as well. Im gonna have to do a little pond sitting where i know some woodies gather. I havent been able to get any decent pictures of these birds yet, really spooky birds.

[Steve Foss]

Great woodies. Like that flight shot the best. Your angle makes me wonder if you weren't pretty close to the duck, like you snuck up and are looking down over the edge of the water.

[mcary]

Steve,

Your right I was pretty close. I happened to be passing by and noticed the bird and decided to take a quick shot of it. I generally don't like getting that close to the birds (I try not to stress them), but in this case I was already more or less on top of the bird. I generally try to sit still and let the birds come to me.

[lawdog]

very good pics of the prettiest ducks out there!

The kids are enjoying the pair that have been calling our yard home. Haven't seen that they are nested there yet, but they sure are there a lot...

[Tom Wilson]

Really nice job there Michael. Did you shoot these raw or jpeg? If you shot them raw, you should send me an e-mail. Tom@imagesofcreation dot net.

Tom W

[mcary]

Tom,

Both images were shot in JPEG format. I don't tend to shoot in RAW due to the large file size. I've heard argument that JPEGs are no less resolute and saleable than RAW. I'm by no means an expert on the topic. If you know of some compelling reasons to shoot in RAW I would love to hear them! I could be persuaded to switch. I've always just shot JPEG because it proved to be more pragmatic due to the higher number of exposures per CF card and the images always seemed to come out crisp and fairly color accurate to my eye. Any insight would be great!

[buzzsaw]

Quote:

---

I've heard argument that JPEGs are no less resolute and saleable than RAW. I'm by no means an expert on the topic. If you know of some compelling reasons to shoot in RAW I would love to hear them!

---

DITTO DITTO DITTO

P.S. Mcary, very nice pics, keep posting them.

[Dbl]

I shoot JPEG for all my sports shooting just for the shear volume of PP involved with 300-500 shots per day. When it comes to outdoor or wildlife shots RAW is the choice of most.

Short but non-technical reasons why you may be better shooting RAW;

1. RAW captures the data from your sensor with greater tonal and color information (we can get technical, but won't). You will be able to extract details from both lights and darks in your photo that JPEG won't even record. You have a greater flexibility in changing colors and tones through software, not through the limitations of your camera.

2. You have many more details available in your RAW image, ability to print larger sizes. Not an issue if you just post to the web.

3. White Balance and exposure errors are much easier to correct in RAW than the errors the camera (IE the photographer) uses.

4. Degradation of JPEG, re-compression loss when editing and re-saving JPEG images which includes cropping and rotating.

I shot JPEG for the first year I had my camera. When I started experimenting with RAW the results were nothing short of outstanding. I think it depends on how much quality you "need" to squeeze out of your photos, how many will make it to your walls or be published? Also, how much time and effort you have to convert each picture you take? How good is good enough? Comfort level with computers, software and editing process. In the end do what makes you comfortable.

[mcary]

DBL,

Thanks for the outline on RAW. But as with any good explanation, it brings out a couple more questions. I've heard all of the points you laid out, but I have never seen a side by side comparison of the two (RAW vs. JPEG). I could go out and run a couple of tests myself, but do you have any examples that could be used to illustrate? I understand the exposure control differences, but on well exposed images would a person notice a difference? Final question, with my camera (Canon Rebel XT) a 48" x 32" image is considered to be full size (blown up to 100%). I can consistently (on a sharp image) maintain a crisp looking image up to 24" x 16" and much of the time up to 30" x 20". Would you notice an appreciable difference above 30" x 20" in largest acceptable print size? It seems to me that a typical magazine wouldn't ever require an image larger than 11" x 17" (two page spread), but if for print purposes a RAW image could allow a larger acceptable print I would see the utility in it. Thanks again DBL, if you (or anyone else out there) could help with these question I'd appreciate it.

[Tom Wilson]

Michael,

The reason I originally asked was, because I noticed a couple of things with the photos that are easily fixable had they been shot in raw, and almost impossible to fix at all in jpeg. Therein, lies the problem with jpeg. Digital photos, just like print film, is never perfect, and to an even greater degree with digital. Digital is the equivalent of shooting slides. There just isn't a whole lot of exposure latitude. When shooting in raw, one can make those slight adjustments that cannot be made to a jpeg. For your last questions, print size and sharpness have nothing to do with raw versus jpeg, unless you are shooting jpegs at smaller than the camera's maximum. Everything DBL said above is absolutely correct, and once a person figures out how to use his computer and his photo software correctly, then it makes no sense at all to limit yourself to the jpeg format. Probably the worst thing that most people new to photography (being that they started with digital) do on a regular basis, is leave too much up to the camera to decide. They have no idea how to obtain correct exposure, how contrast and saturation levels affect the image, what in camera sharpness does to the image, etc, etc... Add this to the fact that they are shooting with a format that literally discards the information that the camera recorded at the time of the shot. Now you download it to your computer, and every single time you make a change, any adjustments whatsoever, and save it, you throw away even more information. In real quick order you have pushed the photo past the point of recovery. Shot in raw it doesn't matter. This is also where you would see the difference in quality relative to print size. Take yourself a raw image, and make a copy as a large jpeg file. Take a photo on purpose that isn't perfect. Fix it as a raw image and resave it as a tiff for printing. Now take your jpeg copy and try to make those same adjustments. I'll bet you can't make the same adjustments and make it look just like the raw image. now take it and save it. Print them both at 16x20 and you will absolutely see the differences. There are ways around this such as shooting in jpeg, and then saving the out of camera image as a tiff to make adjustments, but that's really dumb too. Why go to all that work, and you are still limited to the adjustments that you'll be able to make. There is this backasswards train of thought also that exists out there in internet lalaland that says if your a good photographer, then you can just shoot all of your images in jpeg--well apparently these people never shot with film, never used filters, never heard of exposure compensation, and never spent a minute in a dark room. They've got six months of shooting with a high quality , basically point and shoot, digital camera under their belt, craploads of (some good, some bad) internet reading, and all of a sudden they're experts. That is not directed towards anyone on this site either, I'm just saying that there are too many people out there and too much information available out there, that is being supplied by people who have no idea how their camera actually works, and how they got the picture in the first place. I'm not trying to argue raw vs jpeg from a personal preference standpoint, but from a quality and useability standpoint. I promise you, if you start shooting raw and learn to manipulate your images properly on your computer, you will surprise yourself at what you can accomplish from a photographic standpoint. And by the way, I like both of your images, so please don't think I was picking on them, or you. I gotta tell you Michael, some of your photos so far have been really good, and I think you have a lot of potential. My advice to you, even though it sounds like I'm preaching, which I don't mean it that way, is to get yourself started in the right direction, and learn digital from the start correctly. If you really want to understand digital, you need a good book on how to shoot slides. Well, I've been up now for over 30 hours, so I gotta go, but I'd be happy to actually try and answer any specific questions you have, but my advice to you is to try it for a while, learn, and see, how much different and better it is, then you decide which format you like best, and be happy shooting it.

Tom W

[buzzsaw]

WOW, that is a very detailed response!! Thanks Tom for that great insight, I will be giving RAW more of an opportunity myself.

[mcary]

Thanks Tom!!! I plan on going out to shoot a couple of different locations on Saturday. I'll be sure to shoot them all in RAW and give it a go. I appreciate everybody's willingness to share information. It's a large part of what makes this forum fun for me. Anyone ever thought of organizing a group shoot weekend somewhere. Considering all the great info everyone has to offer and the nice images individuals are posting, I think it would be cool if everyone got to meet each other in person and compare images, techniques, etc. Just a thought. Thanks again guys!

[Steve Foss]

Excellent advice and insight from Tom and DBL. Thank you, gentlemen. Mike, I believe Tom and Buzz and hobbydog and maybe a few others around the Cities have had small informal shooting gatherings already, with more probably to come.

Here are my experiences with making large prints in RAW vs jpeg.

I have made side-by-side comparisons of both formats for large prints. Using the 6.3 Mp original Rebel, RAW allows quite a bit more. I've made prints off that camera to 20x30 inches, and the RAWs look significantly better at that size than jpegs. I'd be comfortable taking RAW up to 24x36 for sure, and I know there are programs out there that the experts use (they employ a mathematical system using "fractals" to enlarge images beyond what we'd normally think possible).

With my 20D, which has nearly the same sensor as your Rebel XT, I've also made side-by-side prints of 20x30 in both formats. The RAW is just barely better, hard to notice, really, unless you're looking closely for differences. I'd be very comfortable making a RAW image off the 20D to 24x36 and beyond, though I haven't had the need yet.

When using Photoshop CS or CS2 and a RAW image, you can open it at 300 dpi to about 14x20. If you do the math, you realize that's a lot more pixels than an 8.2 Mp sensor can produce, so you know that Photoshop is interpolating (adding pixels) to get that image. In 16 bit color (well, it's really 12, but they call it 16), which RAW allows (jpeg is only 8), the image the size I mentioned opens into a 144 Mb file, quite large by regular standards. I've made prints of the 13x19s and they are exquisite. Sixteen bit color is much better than 8 bit when making larger prints because it offers more depth and subtlety. Also, sometimes when the background or the subject is a fairly solid wash of color, you get significantly lower quality prints with 8 bit than 16. I read the explanation for that in a photog magazine, but can't remember enough detail to be authoritative about it.

The larger you make a print, the lower the resolution has to be. This requires experimentation, but someone viewing a 36x48 inch print is going to stand a lot farther away from it than someone looking at a 5x7, and that means the resolution of the bigger ones can drop. A billboard, while I don't know the specs, has a tremendously lower resolution than a 36x48 would need, even.

If you plan on making prints that large, it's important to find a photo print business and contact them directly to find out what format they want the image in. Each may do things a bit differently than the other, and the ones I've dealt with, when they're making really big enlargements, want the original, completely undoctored image, so they can alter it in the way their equipment demands for best results. As you go along over time you'll develop a rewarding relationship with the business, if it's one of the good ones. The majority of them are highly attuned to meeting your exact needs, since that's how they make their profit.

In Ely, we have an excellent photo store, and the owner has recently upgraded to digital equipment, which allows him to make prints up to 20x96, and he's done great work for me.

A note: For some reason, many photo editors of glossy mags don't want to accept digital images to be used for two-page layouts (layouts that measure 11x17 for one photo) from cameras less than 12 Mp. A 12 Mp image can be sized at 300 dpi to those dimensions with some cropping and absolutely no interpolation, regardless of whether it's a RAW or jpeg, while a 6 or 8 Mp image requires interpolation, which is best accomplished on RAW images. I've queried photo editors about this, explaining that with very little effort using CS and interpolating 6.3 and 8.2 Mp images, I've made prints to 20x30 with great sharpness and subtlety, easily up to the standards of the 300 dpi glossy mags, and have never gotten a good answer on why some don't accept those lower Mp images.

I good friend of mine who's been a pro shooter for 20 years says photo editors are no different from anyone else. If they have a stable of shooters who give them what they need, they don't go searching for more shooters, which just adds work for the editors, nor do they want images that might take more work to make perfect, because time is money. As a newspaper designer and photo editor, that all makes sense to me. As a photographer, I just wish there was a little more flexibility there. I expect that will change over time as more and more mags accept digital images (the number grows every day), and their tech people become ever more adept at manipulating digital.

As a side note, Jim Brandenburg's business manager recently told me that they've had experiences with photo editors and digital images that show not all glossy mags really know how to handle digital yet. Others are quite good.

[mcary]

Thanks for the additional input Steve! Like I said earlier in the post, make a convincing argument and I'll switch. I guess I'd have to say thus far that you've all been very convincing. I'll shoot RAW this weekend and begin the learning curve. All of the input is really invaluable. I can't thank you all enough.

[fishingmike0770]

I agree, a small get together that is somewhat organized at a good spot would be a ton of fun. Maybe it could happen this spring or summer or sometime. . .

[Dbl]

Michael,

I will be in Duluth all weekend shooting baseball games. You will have to let me in on some of your hot photo spots. I did shoot a number of photos last trip up of the harbor area, what a photographers heaven! Looks like the weather will cooperate for the weekend. Here's a photo from "your" playground. Unfortunately it was shot in JPEG so I lost some nice details in the shadows of the ship.

[Tom Wilson]

DBL--that's a great shot. Every time I've ever been up there, I miss the boats. Heck, I've only seen the bridge up once and that was just for a little sailboat. No kidding about the weather, I can't believe I'm gonna have great light for the first horse show of the year. It's gonna be a beautiful weekend.

Tom W

[mcary]

DBL,

If you want give me a call when your up this weekend. I'll be happy to let you in on the areas I know about. I'm still searching to try and find the best spots. My number is 728-2104. Look forward to hearing from you.