Vlad

Yeah, RAW is the only way to go. Get yourself RawShooter Essentials software to work with RAW. It's free and very good. It's good for previewing and for adjustin WB, exposure and contrast before PS. Ideally, for good shots you only need PS to crop pictures.

Don't even install Canon's crap software

yobri

iTrader: (2)

I really want a flash that reflects light off walls/ceiling so that my pictures are bright but without the glares of regular/flash lighting. I took some pics (that I'll post up later in a new thread some time...) of my new Tag watch that I got from my g/f for my graduation, and I was really displeased with how I couldn't get the right light for a shot without some sort of lighting spot on the crystal face. Made me think all the more of a good quality flash.

I've looked on B&H for the 50mm and it was rather well-priced (better than Dell with a percentage off deal). That one will probably be my next lens simply b/c of its affordabilty, plus I was turned onto it from a site called photosig.com. The shots taken with the 50mm and the XT were amazing, especially b/c of the price of the lens itself! I knew that it was one that I needed to add to my collection... but then again, I really need a lot of practice with taking SLR pictures b/c it isn't as easy as it sounds (for this newbie)

Right now, I have to learn about using WB b/c some recents pictures on a daytime outing came out less than stellar... I was advised on another board that I need to work with the custom WB in order to get some more clarity. That in addition to a few other settings for sharpness.

Thanks Vlad

imntcrzy

iTrader: (4)

Yobri,

If you want you can send me one of your raw files and I can show you what photoshop and raw files can do. If you do send one send one that not well exposed, but not overexposed (blown out too bright)

bravetiger@charter.net

yobri

iTrader: (2)

That's exactly one thing I did NOT do... that is, not install Canon's software. I've decided to use PS as my default editor for my pics. I have yet to shoot in RAW (instead using JPEG b/c of its relative familiarity to me), but can RAW shots be seen in the cameras preview viewer? I heard that RAW only has picture data with the JPG file in it...

Luckily I got a 1gb 80x CF card from one of the Z members on this board... looks like I'll need that space if I'm going to shoot RAW

yobri

iTrader: (2)

Thanks for the offer man. I'll definitely take you up on it. First I have to take my first shots in RAW (I was heavily advised to shoot RAW rather recently from another photog forum), so that'll most likely be some time this weekend. I'll send one over to you, much appreciated

imntcrzy

iTrader: (4)

If you are using adobe photoshop cs, it has something called ACR (adobe camera raw) which you can use to process the raw files.

Jpeg is fine, but if you are looking for optimal quality shoot raw, almost all professional commercial shooters shoot raw.

The advantages of raw are very numberous.

Jpegs are compressed files and contain noise, Raw files are uncompressed and have much less noise if any.

Raw files are 16bit and jpegs are 8bit, the 16bit file obviously has much more information.

Here are the real big advantages of raw:

You can set white balance and iso in the photoshop session after the picture is taken. Basically this means if you shot something and it was too dark because the film speed was only 100 or 200. With raw you can bump the speed to 400 and now your exposure will be fine. With jpegs you can brighten up the picture using many different methods but it is not even close to using raw files. Also same thing with white balance. If you shoot with tungsten white balance or any other white balance mode and it turns out to be the wrong one, you can change the white balance after the fact.

the disadvantages of raw are: files are larger, so less on the card. Files are larger so a burst of multiple shots may lag your camera a bit.

and yes raw image can be seen in the rear lcd.

yobri

iTrader: (2)

I'm only running version 7.0 right now... I'll have to see about getting an upgrade.

Now that is interesting! So it looks like you can manipulate WB at the camera end or during PP. So it looks like if I mess up the WB settings in RAW, I can use PS to fix it once again. Now that is a GREAT feature!

Thanks, was a little concerned about that, but not now Thanks!

Vlad

Sure RAWs can be previewed in camera. It's kind of unusual to not use jpegs.... But after investing so much in your equipment it's really time to grow. RAW is especially great for WB, since you don't have to warry about it at shooting time.

Just go to menu, switch format to RAW, set WB to "custom", and set custom temperature to around 5800 (average daylight is 5000 to 6000. I personaly like 5800). Vuala. After downloading pictures just go to RawShooter and adjust WB as seems right. Unlike jpeg manipulation you won't have data loss with RAW.

BTW, it's about time to get yourself a good monitor to work with graphics. Surprise, surprise - LCDs are crap and can't be calibrated. You need pro CRT and need to harry, because they'll probably stop making them this year. LaCie is the best choise:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4864-3175_7-...12&ctype=msgid

19" can be ordered direct from manufacturer for about $350.

Then it's good to have calibration hardware for the monitor. Monaco Optics XR is the had the best prece/quality ratio. About $300.

Only after having those two things you can really see what you doing (i.e true colors).

imntcrzy

iTrader: (4)

yup!!

Vlad

You don't care about WB settings in camera. Keep it custom 5800K all the time. And don't use PS to adjust. Use dedicated RAW software. Like RawShooter.

Vlad

I don't think so. It all depends what works faster: in camera processor to convert to jpeg, or writing mechanism to dump raw on card. If it's fast card and slow processor, then shooting RAW is actually faster. And most good cameras has a buffer for fast shooting, so it goes to buffer before going to card. So if no jpeg-convertion necessary it'll be faster.

imntcrzy

iTrader: (4)

True true, I've had the same headaches with LCD calibration too. I used to use the lacie elctron 22b and now I use Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070. Both were great and much easier to calibrate than LCD. WHen my mitsu dies I may save for sony artisan.

Yobri, most of this stuff is if exact color is imperitive... like if you are making money off your images... while it is good to invest in good monitor and calibration tools. Adobe gamma is a good free way to get your monitor within working paramaters. Don't get me wrong its not even close to a proper calibration system but it helps. If you get a photo printer than the calibration tools will be even more usefull.

imntcrzy

iTrader: (4)

not really, off the bat the images will be better if I shoot 5800 but to me it makes no difference since my workflow always assumes I'll be editing in PS. I've never used raw shooter, it does sound like a good quick program to use, but my PS sessions involve some masking and other more indepth steps. Hey if raw shooter allows you to do those things it sound great. I should look into it.

md1400cs

I recently purchased a CASIO Z750. Awesome camera. I have had several digitals. This one is spectacular. Also 7.2 mp all for under $400.00 Highly recommended.
see the review at;
http://steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/ex-z750.html

Got mine through Amazon, though better pricing is available.
MJD

imntcrzy

iTrader: (4)

hmmm I'm not to sure of that, most good cameras do have large buffers yes... I've seen 1ds mark II's shoot a burst of 20 frames JPeg high with no problem and shoot about 5 or 6 raw files and start to lag. This all has to do with cf card speed, buffer sizee and processor speed... like you said, but in my experience cameras seem to lag sooner with the larger raw files. I guess the best way to find this out in the XT is to shoot a burst with raw and shoot a burst with jpg high and see what happens. I would just shoot slower anyways.

yobri

iTrader: (2)

I'll try that, thanks Might save me some time having to experiment... LOL

Wow! That's new to me... are there any LCDs that can be calibrated?

Dang, that a pretty hefty piece of software there... 300 bucks... Thanks for the reco, I'll have to research the CRT avenue now it looks like...

yobri

iTrader: (2)

Curious... how come not PS? I'd really like to avoid buying new software if at all possible, unless the it is pretty imperative.

yobri

iTrader: (2)

Adobe Gamma, huh? Nothing beats free... at least in my amateur SLR shooting stage

Vlad

Generally no. There are some in $3K to $5K price range that can be very close, but $350 CRT LaCie beat them easily. And I'd say for $350 it worth having it even if you are not making money on pictures. The wieving difference is dramatic.

It's a hardware+software package. You put a colorimeter on your screen and then software do the rest. Yeah, I know it cost crazy. Actually it might cost $215 on ebay, I don't remember. But there is no good cheaper alternative last time I checked. Well, except AdobeGamma, which isn't really true calibration (as it uses your eyes instead of real measurements) but better than nothing, of course...

Vlad

RawShooter is free also. I mentioned it couple of times. Along with tweaking WB and things, it also very convenient for picture previews and filtering them (when you need to pick 3 out of 300). It has priorities, so you can assign 1,2,3 and then see only 1, 2 or 3 instead of all. Never used heard of Adobe RAW processing stuff so can't tell. But I know RawShooter is like betwen #1 and #2 on photo forums.

I don't know why PS can't do it better. I just accept it. I'm having troubles remembering stuff I know to warry about inner works. As you can see, photo workflow can be pretty extensive and complex...

And I bet you didn't hear about color profiles yet... like sRGB versus AdobeRGB... BTW,as attractive as "Adobe..." might sound, make sure to set it to sRGB both in your camera and in PS. Google it for more.