You guys shoot in .RAW? .JPEG? What's best?
- Thread starter CLE216PS3Pilot
- Start date
I shoot only raw .dng
pros: needs more tweaking but the results are rewarding. I use Adobe Lightroom on OS X.
cons: takes more time and HD space.
P3P .dng seems to have less depth than raw files from DSLR cameras like Canon 6D, however.
I use P3P LOG color profile. Occasionally I grab a frame from 4K 4096/3840 x 2160 footage as .tif and post-process it in Lightroom and the result doesn't much differ from real raw .dng input.
pros: needs more tweaking but the results are rewarding. I use Adobe Lightroom on OS X.
cons: takes more time and HD space.
P3P .dng seems to have less depth than raw files from DSLR cameras like Canon 6D, however.
I use P3P LOG color profile. Occasionally I grab a frame from 4K 4096/3840 x 2160 footage as .tif and post-process it in Lightroom and the result doesn't much differ from real raw .dng input.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
The Phantom can produce quite good jpg files and some prefer shooting Raw to try to squeeze a little more quality out.
But that comes at the price of longer recording times and more effort required in Photoshop to get good results.
I do all my shooting in jpg and get excellent results
But that comes at the price of longer recording times and more effort required in Photoshop to get good results.
I do all my shooting in jpg and get excellent results
Thanks for the responses guys. I just started shooting in RAW and some of the photos are very soft-focus, seem almost out of focus..was just wondering if anyone had any tips etc.
Focus is done entirely with the lens. JPG or RAW will have nothing to do with it.
I think you mean to say the RAW images aren't as sharp. What are you using to view/edit your RAW images?
Yes, the Raw images aren't as sharp. I am using Adobe Photoshop now, before I was using a free editing product IrfanView
Photoshop is a good package to use.. (Adobe created the DNG format).
I'm guessing that you need to apply sharpening to the RAW images that you're editing. This is done automatically when the camera creates JPEG files, but not necessarily when it saves the RAW info from the sensor.
I'm guessing that you need to apply sharpening to the RAW images that you're editing. This is done automatically when the camera creates JPEG files, but not necessarily when it saves the RAW info from the sensor.
Those that want the best results will shoot in RAW. Those who want a decent photo with no after-work will shoot in jpg. It's up to the person and the results they want and the time they want to put into it. For me it depends on what I'm taking a photo of. I mainly shoot video so I usually just shoot jpg (as I'm spending several hours wit video and not using may photos). However, if the light is off, the view is special, or especially low light (night time photos) I'd shoot in RAW as the only way to get them to look good is with editing.
So I tended to shoot in jpg as I don't want to spend the time editing photos but will switch to RAW if I know the scene will demand editing.
So I tended to shoot in jpg as I don't want to spend the time editing photos but will switch to RAW if I know the scene will demand editing.
I tried shooting RAW+JPG the last time I went out. Took around 50 shots.
Maybe I don't understand how it's supposed to work, but the two formats looked completely different from each other. The RAW shots looked dark while the JPG looked bright. Sure I could have edited each of the RAW images but the JPG versions were so much better visually (aside from artifacts due to compression, which wouldn't be seen anyway at the size I needed).
Why would the two look so different color/brightness-wise?
Maybe I don't understand how it's supposed to work, but the two formats looked completely different from each other. The RAW shots looked dark while the JPG looked bright. Sure I could have edited each of the RAW images but the JPG versions were so much better visually (aside from artifacts due to compression, which wouldn't be seen anyway at the size I needed).
Why would the two look so different color/brightness-wise?
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
A Raw image is like an uncooked cake and the jpg is cooked.
It has all the ingredients but they haven't been processed (cooked).
It's the processing that turns the raw data into a finished product
Check the lens to be sure it is clean. Landing in grass or on dirt will cause dirt and debris to accumulate on the lens. If necessary clean gently with micro fiber cloth moistened very lightly in water or alcohol.
Similar threads
