Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Format Should I Shoot In?  
User currently offlineBriceJohnson From Canada, joined Mar 2012, 127 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 8376 times:

hey...

what format should I shoot in?

JPEG or RAW (NEF)

Cheers


Calvin | image120
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinedlowwa From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 7328 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8359 times:

Whichever suits your needs best. You will find advocates for both, so it's not really possible to definitively say one is better than the other, as each has its advantages and disadvantages.

User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BriceJohnson (Thread starter):
what format should I shoot in?

Wow, I don't want to be blunt about this, but hey I usually am.
Your profile states your occupation as photographer!
It is a stretch of my imagination to comprehend someone making that claim in 2012 having to ask that question.

Having said that, one of the reasons I do so little pro work these days is that the clients won't pay for someone that can even spell photographer

Sorry but I just don't believe anyone that understands the basics of photgraphy and post processing would ask that question.

If you are not a photographer by occupation please edit your profile as you demean those that are.

Furthermore if you are the neophyte your question implies, do not be afraid to say so. Everyone started somewhere and there are many here willing to help and share their knowledge(sadly not as many as in the past).

[Edited 2012-10-01 17:51:27]


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineEGCC777LR From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 164 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8343 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting BriceJohnson (Thread starter):
what format should I shoot in

How about "Medium"
      

In all seriousness, I would have to say RAW, gives you more chance to edit an issue if you got it wrong on the camera, the only downside is hard drive space and CPU power but given the price of external HDD's and RAM nowadays, I would say the Pros far outweigh the cons



Flown On B704,722,732/3/4/7/8/9,744,752,762/3/4,772,77W,A319,A320,A321,A330,A388,L1011,F-50,BAE146,CRJ100, Dash-8. Left
User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10331 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8341 times:

Quoting BriceJohnson (Thread starter):

what format should I shoot in?

JPEG or RAW (NEF)

I don't mean offense with this question, so please don't take any:

Do you know the difference?

If not, I'd suggest you read up a bit on it.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8334 times:

Quoting EGCC777LR (Reply 3):
How about "Medium"

LOL

wait, before you shoot RAW you better make sure you have a RAW converter

Brice, your question has been the subject of much debate in the past few years- you have a lot of reading to do- just enter 'raw vs jpeg' in any search engine(or even this site) and start a pot of coffee, cause you're going to need it lol

...and I second the notion that there are many people here who would be willing to lend a hand once you've done some research(and a lot of it really is interesting reading)


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8318 times:

I normally shoot raw. but for normal day time aviation photos raw would be an over kill in IMO.
If there is a large difference between the highlights and shadows in the composition, i would recommend RAW.


User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2648 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8306 times:

Like I've said before. There's advantages and disadvantages to both. If you blindly shoot RAW or blindly shoot JPEG it is IMO not the correct approach. RAW let's you tweak absolutely everything possible in a photo in a non destructive matter. This will lead to a better quality final product especially if a more significant manipulation and editing of the image is required. Remember, RAW has all the information as captured by the camera while JPEG has only some of it. Stuff like wrong exposure, color balance, harsh contrast, etc.... is all easily correctable in RAW and with a much better looking final result. Therefore, if you're shooting on a sunny day with the sun behind you RAW won't really offer any advantages since the photo will likely require almost no significant editing. That's when I simply shoot JPEG. But at night, on a foggy or very overcast day, shooting against the sun, or other tough conditions I shoot RAW.

As far as "disadvantages" of RAW -

1) Space is an issue. Yes you can buy more but you will in general be buying more 3 times as often. Since RAW files are from what I've noticed roughly 3 times as large as JPEG. Secondly you will also need to buy more memory cards, since if you go on a several day trip and have no access to download your images you will fill up the cards quite quickly. It depends on your shooting style of course but I've seen people fire away at 10fps during an entire airshow even when the planes are just a dot in the sky. I always wondered what they do with several thousand RAW files per day....

2) Processing. For me, RAW is more challenging and time consuming to process. RAW converters typically have a bunch of sliders you need to adjust and a whole ton of other options. Then you open it in Photoshop and have yet more to do. I honestly get confused by some of these sliders as well. On the other hand, at least on my computer (fairly powerful) when I am looking at hundreds of images with Picasa, it takes a couple of seconds for the RAW photos to preview and "clear up" every time I zoom in on one. This might seem trivial, but when you are going through hundreds of photos and zooming in often to select which ones to edit, that 2 second delay to preview becomes quite annoying. JPEGs "clear up" instantly, at least on my computer.

3) Speed. If your camera shoots at high fps and has a high megapixel count, you will need a FAST card for the RAW files to be written before your camera runs out of buffer. These cards are NOT cheap. The price becomes double expensive since you need to buy more cards to have more space (see point "1") AND faster cards as well. This is a significant investment if you plan to have several memory cards. I've gotten screwed a couple of times shooting a burst of RAW only to have the buffer fill up at a critical moment in the sequence leading to me getting no shot at all. What's better? Getting a shot in JPEG or getting no shot at all? If you plan to shoot RAW all the time make sure you buy the accessories to support it.

JPEG pretty much doesn't deal with these three main "disadvantages". The best is using the camera feature that does RAW+JPEG. That way you have both formats. But then, you fill up memory cards super fast and effectively have doubles of every photo. Buy lots of storage if you plan on going this route.


User currently offlineJOshu From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8304 times:

RAW all day baby. I like to be in control of everything.

User currently offlineCaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8217 times:

Hi BriceJohnston,

When I started out photographing aircraft back in late 2010, which was winter in the U.K. I took my camera, a Canon 60D with a 17-85mm F4 and a Canon 70-200mm F4 lens, out to Heathrow for the first time, without checking the weather report, so keen was I too use it, and started taking shots in complete ignorance of what settings I should use on the camera. I shot A for auto and as it turns out jpeg at the highest quality setting as that was what it was set at when I bought it (or it may be default setting).

As it turns out I was lucky with the weather, it was fog city to begin with, the sun breaking through occasionally that gave me some dramatic shots in sillouette, eventually the fog burnt off, leaving really nice blue skies. I shot for 2 months in jpeg and was happy with most of the results i.e. blissfully ignorant, but it wasn't till I showed my brother the results that my brother commented on how noisy some of my shots were, I had been taking shots in low light in winter after all that he asked me whether I was shooting in jpeg or RAW. I wasn't sure to be honest, he checked, it was jpeg. He then showed me how to select RAW mode and so I continued to shoot, using both RAW for some shots and jpeg for others depending on the situation I though needed the extra quality of finish.

I used this mixed settings approach for several months, all the while using the basic Canon photo editing software supplied with the camera to improve the photo's that one way or another needed improvement of one kind or another as my shooting technique was not the best to start with and after 2 years I still have issues, but not as much as before as I now shoot Av Priority which helps give me more control and give me consistent results, for me at least.

Now when I look back at the thousands of photo's I have taken I now look back at my earliest efforts and can spot all the imperfections that were present, but never knew any better at the time, but because they were recorded in jpeg, now are virtually impossible to eliminate. So I do regret not having done my research and shot exclusively in RAW mode from the get go, as the powerful editing software now available, such as Elements or Photoshop, can virtually reinvent the photo, if it is shot in RAW and I could have rescued my early efforts.

I will give you an example of one of my many regrets. In the early days I had shot on several occasions Delta's B767-400 in the old livery in jpeg mode in marginal weather, prior to the B767-400 being repainted in the present purple and pink livery, but my camera settings I used were not the best. e.g. shooting at way too high ASA setting, just when I started experimenting with settings. Now that my photo editing techniques are better, I could have gone back to the Delta B767-400 and improve the photo's to the point where they now look acceptable, instead of the noisy, murky, slightly soft images that they will forever be, given the old livery is well and trully history now.

As regards the large data storage issues with RAW mode I just think that if you have spent big bucks on a good quality camera body and an assortment of quality lenses, you could go the extra distance and buy enough cards to shoot in RAW mode to your hearts content, especially if you are trigger mad like me.

My basic advice is one, shoot RAW and never consider jpeg again, because you never know when you are going to have a unique aviation photographic moment that may never be repeated again and you may regret it if you had shot that moment in jpeg and there is an issue with the image, focus, exposure, white balance, colour etc, etc all of which can be resolved to a greater level of acceptance in RAW mode and two your editing skills will hopefully improve as time goes by to the point where you can revisit old photo's and give them a new lease of life.

Cheers Frank

[Edited 2012-10-02 10:04:55]

User currently onlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8095 times:

OK fully agreed, if you want to get the best images you can from your camera shoot RAW. I shoot nothing else, for many of the reasons already stated ...

BUT

I do accept that not everybody wants to spend hours (or even minutes) in front of a computer screen processing images, not everyone needs to wring the last bit of detail out of the image, and not everyone actually wants to learn that much about photography - they just want to take pictures.

The truth of the matter is that in 'normal' conditions, you can stick the camera on P, shoot jpg and get stunning results. And you'll have a lot of fun and little if anything to worry about.

Some need to worry, because they get paid for results, and use every trick possible to keep the client happy.

Some take their photography to the limits of what is possible and need every advantage they can get.

Some are more interested in photography for its own sake, and less about the subject

- if you are one of these, then definitely shoot RAW

Some just like taking pictures and want to have a bit of fun without it becoming an obsession - they should shoot jpg. Doesn't make them any less a photographer. Back in the dark ages of film, a number of the greats never put a foot in a darkroom - they had people for that. These days your people are the little imps inside the camera which most of the time will hand you a lovely jpg.

The best pictures come from people who can see a great image and press a button. No amount of technical skill or equipment can replace or compensate for that. No one is ever going to say to you "I really love that picture, shame its a jpg" (well, no one outside a photography forum   )


Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 8079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 10):
The best pictures come from people who can see a great image and press a button. No amount of technical skill or equipment can replace or compensate for that. No one is ever going to say to you "I really love that picture, shame its a jpg" (well, no one outside a photography forum )

Absolutely agree, I just spent about 40 minutes looking at images by a photographer on another site all shot with a compact digital camera(he has at least one DSLR but these shots were not taken with it) stunning images all, but I know from his back ground and training that he has an "eye" for an image... very much inclined towards the result rather than the means!

Mr BriceJohnson, the message here is pretty clear.. learn the image making skills... the technology questions will answer themselves.

Quoting CaptainKramer (Reply 9):
noisy, murky, slightly soft images that they will forever be,

Forgive me CaptainKramer, maybe I have something to learn here, have never found that RAW post processing was a magic cure for "murky" or "slightly soft"



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineCaptainKramer From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2012, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Hi stealthz,

As stated I started my aviation shooting career during winter in the U.K. The shots I took while in jpeg format could not be salvaged when shooting on days when sky was more grey (my way of saying murky! any takers for pea soup?) than blue. However when I started using RAW and encountered those same "murky" grey skies, not overcast mind you, I'm talking clear skies with sun shining, I still kept shooting as I had paid £8.50 to go on an hour an half journey by tube to get to Heathrow in the hope the weather would improve, like I said I was desperate to shoot planes.

As the months went by I started experimenting with the basic Canon Photo Editing software, one of the techniques I found that worked for me, to make the shot look more pleasing to myself at least, but I imagine would be frowned upon big time by Anet screeners is as follows.

To remove the grey "murky" colour from sky first increase colour saturation, 1 or 2 levels up, so colours appear to be bleeding, then using colour temperature mode click from 5600K back to a point where the aircraft hull looked white again e.g. 4200K, the net effect was that whatever blue tinge was present in the sky, (but not apparent to the eye to begin with) would be accentuated to the point where the sky now appeared more blue and less grey.

This technique is great for sunset shots if you want to accentuate the blue cast in the shadows, provided one side is lit by a red or yellow sunset and the other side falls of into shadow and can be seen in photo, say for a more head on shot where plane is lit from side Chirarusco (real term) or "Caravaggio Style" (my term) please excuse spelling.

As far as "slightly soft" shots, I had issues with my 70-200mm, mainly through my own ignorance to begin with and shooting in AI Focus didn't help, (I now use AI Servo), but I would have some shots crisp and in focus and some soft or obviously out of focus when I zoomed in on a good monitor at home. I had some shots I captured at sunset of a UAE A320-200 Government jet that were all unfortunately all soft. I decided not to erase them because it was a one off encounter and edited them to the point where they looked O.K. Definitely not Anet material mind you.

One day I finally discovered the joy of unsharp mask (having only used sharpen up to this point) and found that if I lowered threshold to 2, finess to 1 and strength to 8, while fully zoomed out (don't zoom in to close up or you wont see the effect as you apply technique) I managed to make the UAE A320-200 shot look as if it was in focus all along. Of course if you had similar problems you should add or subtract the numbers for you own specfic photo these numbers just worked for me on this particular series of photo's. When I batch processed into jpeg format I added a bit more sharpness until image had that crisp Anet feel and hey presto, close enough for Cowboys, as the saying goes.

I just want to say for the record, do not apply this technique if you wan't to submit photo's to Anet or any other reputable Av Photo site using this technique, it is best policy to start with a photo that is in focus to begin with, always!

Chow for now, Frank

P.S. I have a Patent pending on that saturation technique, just kidding. But seriously I'll sue, no I wont, or will I? For the record I'm really just kidding.

[Edited 2012-10-03 14:19:33]

User currently offlineepten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7959 times:

JPEG. If the image is so wrong that requires adjustments that can only be done with RAW, then the image is too wrong to begin with imo.

Correctly exposed image will look just as beautiful in both formats.


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7906 times:

Quoting epten (Reply 13):
Correctly exposed image will look just as beautiful in both formats.

Disagree. if the dynamic range in the scene is large, the jpg cannot handle as much as raw. eg. in raw you could considerably get back the blownout highlights, with the same 'correct' exposure.

[Edited 2012-10-04 10:16:41]

User currently offlinestevemchey From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

Quoting epten (Reply 13):
JPEG. If the image is so wrong that requires adjustments that can only be done with RAW, then the image is too wrong to begin with imo.

Correctly exposed image will look just as beautiful in both formats.

Sorry, but that is a little silly. Of course a perfectly exposed image will look great in both formats.

Your statement is a little like saying "Don't wear a seat belt, because if you are a good driver, there is no difference between wearing it and not wearing it. And if you are crushed between two semi trucks, it doesn't make a difference either." The difference comes between the two extremes.

It's the same thing with RAW vs. JPEG. The advantages of RAW are with the cases where they are NOT perfectly exposed. RAW format gives you a safety net that most pro photographers like. If you only shoot airplanes for fun, you might not care, but if you take pictures for a living, RAW might make the difference between selling a shot or not. Good examples are wedding or sports photography. Things happen fast and you don't always have the time to "correctly expose" your shots.

Note: I am not saying RAW is better than JPEG. As many others in this thread have already pointed out, the answer is more along the lines of "it depends". Any good photographer knows the pros and cons of the two formats and chooses depending on the situation they face.


User currently offlinescopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 6):
I normally shoot raw. but for normal day time aviation photos raw would be an over kill in IMO

It's never an overkill to shoot RAW. Using a good RAW converter such as LR 4, the difference is very noticeable. If you shoot JPG, basically you rely on the camera's interpretation of image quality. Strong contrast, over-sharpening, strong NR, are common with OOC jpgs. Of course it's different from camera to camera...



5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
User currently onlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 767 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 7833 times:

One issue with processing RAW is that it is so easy to get it wrong! In hindsight, I was lucky - I learnt about image processing by scanning slides. This had one very big advantage - I had an original to compare my efforts against.

For someone starting out shooting raw, I can see this presents a bit of a challenge - so many options to play around with. It is quite easy to get a 'good' result (default settings usually work well) - but is this the best? For the inexperienced, it is all too easy to overlook a slight colour cast, excessive shadow noise, missing highlight/shadow detail etc.

Evaluating image quality is not something you are born with - it needs experience.

For this reason, I can see that for someone starting out with RAW, it would be worthwhile to shoot both raw + jpg. Use the jpg as a reference point, and as a start try and process the RAW file to match it. Once you've achieved that it becomes easier to experiment with improving the image.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinesovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2648 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7801 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 16):
If you shoot JPG, basically you rely on the camera's interpretation of image quality. Strong contrast, over-sharpening, strong NR, are common with OOC jpgs.

Yes this is true and worth mentioning. However in my camera at least, I have my JPEG settings so that there is no in-camera noise reduction, sharpening, contrast, etc.... You have to make sure you make your settings like that if you use JPEG


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7791 times:

Quoting scopedude (Reply 16):
It's never an overkill to shoot RAW. Using a good RAW converter such as LR 4, the difference is very noticeable. If you shoot JPG, basically you rely on the camera's interpretation of image quality. Strong contrast, over-sharpening, strong NR, are common with OOC jpgs. Of course it's different from camera to camera...

You missed the biggest point, the WB cannot be properly corrected if you shoot jpg with the wrong temperature.
The points you mentioned can be set in the parameters settings of the camera if you choose jpg. if the scene doesn't stretch the limits of jpg of your camera, raw is not absolutely needed, but raw is more convenient. The jpg you get from the camera is one version of the raw processed by the camera.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10331 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7766 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 19):
You missed the biggest point, the WB cannot be properly corrected if you shoot jpg with the wrong temperature.

That point alone makes me shoot RAW (though I do it for other reasons, too). Probably 50% of the time, I forget to set the white balance prior to taking the first few shots. Got some nice blue images until I properly white-balanced them in post.  



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlinescopedude From Indonesia, joined Oct 2010, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7667 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 19):
You missed the biggest point, the WB cannot be properly corrected if you shoot jpg with the wrong temperature.
The points you mentioned can be set in the parameters settings of the camera if you choose jpg. if the scene doesn't stretch the limits of jpg of your camera, raw is not absolutely needed, but raw is more convenient. The jpg you get from the camera is one version of the raw processed by the camera.

Yes, I missed the WB thing. Why? Because I always shoot raw  

Well, RAW + Medium JPG to be exact. The JPGs just act as thumbnails which make it easier to sort the files.



5D2, 650D, 70-200/4 IS, 70-300 L, 135 L
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7643 times:

Now that's a loaded question if I've ever seen one but I'll take a little bite...

It really depends on your budget, your skills, and how you plan to process the pictures after they're shot.

With today's storage prices being so low, budgetary concerns shouldn't be a big issue anymore. After all, you've likely spent hundreds (or thousands)on camera equipment, why not invest in the extra it takes to get the most out of them? 32 mb class 10 sd cards can be had for between $30-40. Even compact flash are very affordable. 2tb externals can be had for a little over a $100. And with most new computers having USB 3 built-in, transfer speed isn't a problem.

As for skills, well, if you're very experienced and usually expose correctly the first time or bracket a lot, then jpeg would be less of an issue as the amount of editing required will be less. But if you don't want to chance it and want the best shot at recovering a poorly exposed pic after the fact, RAW will be better.

How you plan to process is also important. If you're only into light editing and prefer the camera to do some or most of the processing then jpeg is fine. If on the other hand you're like me who enjoy editing and prefer to have all the tweaking options available with little or no compromise, you'll shoot raw. Or if you simply plan to sharpen your editing skills as you go, IMO, RAW is the better place to start. Since I bought my D7000, I have shot only RAW and have yet to encounter a legitimate reason not to.



Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlineEpten From Macedonia, joined Sep 2007, 185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7454 times:

Quoting trvyyz (Reply 19):
You missed the biggest point, the WB cannot be properly corrected if you shoot jpg with the wrong temperature.

I beg to differ.

First, if the color balance is slightly to moderately wrong, it can be fixed on jpegs

Second, the occasions in which the colors are so wrong that they can be fixed only if the photo is in raw format are very, very rare, especially for aviation photography.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10331 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

Quoting Epten (Reply 23):
First, if the color balance is slightly to moderately wrong, it can be fixed on jpegs

It's much easier to white-balance it in RAW, though. Really only takes a single click. Whereas color balancing in JPEG can take a bit more time, especially if you don't have a great eye for color casts and such.

Quoting Epten (Reply 23):
Second, the occasions in which the colors are so wrong that they can be fixed only if the photo is in raw format are very, very rare, especially for aviation photography.

Why? They happen to me pretty frequently. All it takes is for me to have shot, say, indoors with a flash, or long exposures at night, to have a pretty wrong white balance setting next time I go shoot airplanes. Especially since I tend to shoot airplanes near sunset.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
25 trvyyz : You are debating over nothing. A colour cast can be changed in jpg upto a certain limit, no doubt about that. But the whole point of raw is you can s
26 Post contains images ckw : Exactly - and this is why I prefer shooting RAW. When I'm shooting, I'm looking for images and thinking about composition, DOF etc. The less technica
27 gasman : In a nutshell the answer is RAW - but not by much. The advantages of RAW have been well described above. However the advent of Adobe Lightroom, with i
28 Post contains images vikkyvik : Here's a great example of how I screw up white balances sometimes. This was my first airplane of the day, and I either forgot or didn't have time to
29 epten : I shoot for many years and I have never ever got the white balance this wrong. Just saying...
30 vikkyvik : Hey, whatever, congrats to you! As for me, I tend to forget things like that, and I truly doubt I'm the only one. It's not like I set it wrongly. It
31 ckw : Lucky you! My mantra has always been, anything that can be pre-set can be pre-set incorrectly. I'm pretty sure that I have done all of them ... wrong
32 sovietjet : It is for this reason (maximum chance to avoid unnecessary mistakes) that I always reset my camera to my "default" settings after I am done shooting f
33 ckw : Yes, that is excellent practice ... but sadly another of the things I often forget to do! Cheers, Colin
34 vikkyvik : It's kinda funny. In general, before I leave my apartment to go shoot, I'll dial in approximate shutter speed, aperture, and ISO that I think I'll ne
35 gasman : The reason would be that you know the auto WB gets it right 99% of the time. The 1% of the the time it doesn't, it's usually not by much, easily corr
36 vikkyvik : No, the reason would not be that, since I don't use auto-WB. The actual reason is simply that I haven't drilled it into my head to check WB before I
37 comairguycvg : What I hate doing is after shooting night shots and having the timer set to 10 seconds, then the next day doing a daytime shot, and get all set up an
38 Epten : Try max size max quality jpeg first an see how it goes. If not satisfied try raw.
39 Post contains images vikkyvik : Ugh, me too. Or having shot at night with the camera on manual focus, then forgetting to change it to autofocus, and missing the first airplane of th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What SLR Lenses Should I Invest In? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 12:51:32 by BlazingCessna
What Size Mode Do You Shoot In? posted Tue Oct 12 2004 07:04:40 by Romeokc10fe
What Should Be In The Title Field For This Plane? posted Tue Sep 7 2004 14:02:06 by Eksath
Question About Size To Shoot In/Settings posted Fri Aug 13 2010 16:13:48 by airbusa322
What Are The Circles In This Photo? posted Fri Oct 17 2008 10:17:11 by Mortenbaek
What Do You Say In The Note To Screeners Box? posted Sun Sep 14 2008 21:19:30 by Flyboyseven
What Camera Should I Get? posted Sun Feb 17 2008 20:05:15 by Tsmall
What Camera Should I Buy? (16 Yr Old With Budget) posted Tue Mar 7 2006 00:17:47 by BradWray
What Does 'quality' Mean In This Case? posted Tue Dec 13 2005 23:37:52 by Philthy
Anything To See/shoot In Tulsa posted Wed Aug 31 2005 08:00:20 by Clickhappy