Help
Camera and lens plus travel bag and 8GB SD card.
All the various bits and pieces unboxed.
The lens. Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5. 6G IF-ED
The camera has 12.3-megapixel image quality and a cinematic 24fps D-Movie Mode with HDMI output.
RAW or JPG?
#1
Genshin 
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,398
- Joined: 27-August 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan
Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:45 AM
I was given a new camera yesterday, a Nikon D90 digital SLR. A really great camera which includes Mac software and uses Quicktime. I'm reasonably new to digital photography and while I understand basically the difference between RAW and JPG images, is there a preference among photographers? My understanding is that image quality is the same in JPG and RAW only that JPG has already been compressed in-camera. So it's better to just shoot JPG anyhow?
Camera and lens plus travel bag and 8GB SD card.
All the various bits and pieces unboxed.
The lens. Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5. 6G IF-ED
The camera has 12.3-megapixel image quality and a cinematic 24fps D-Movie Mode with HDMI output.
Camera and lens plus travel bag and 8GB SD card.
All the various bits and pieces unboxed.
The lens. Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5. 6G IF-ED
The camera has 12.3-megapixel image quality and a cinematic 24fps D-Movie Mode with HDMI output.
卍 Genshin 卍
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
#2
Administrator
- Administrator
-
- Group: Root Admin
- Posts: 97
- Joined: 12-November 07
Posted 27 May 2009 - 10:51 AM
The differences are more complex than that. I'll include this question in our photography roundtable for the July edition.
#3
David Braue
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,076
- Joined: 29-August 08
- Gender:Male
Posted 27 May 2009 - 03:05 PM
QUOTE (Genshin @ May 27 2009, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I was given a new camera yesterday, a Nikon D90 digital SLR. A really great camera which includes Mac software and uses Quicktime. I'm reasonably new to digital photography and while I understand basically the difference between RAW and JPG images, is there a preference among photographers? My understanding is that image quality is the same in JPG and RAW only that JPG has already been compressed in-camera. So it's better to just shoot JPG anyhow?
Genshin, as intimated above, the differences are more complex than that. Basically:
A RAW file is usually uncompressed and contains all the data, every last bit, captured by the camera's image sensor. This not only makes it a higher-quality image (it is recorded at the full native resolution of the sensor eg the camera's highest resolution) but means that the file you get is totally unprocessed. This means RAW files tend to be flatter (less contrasty) and appear a bit grey onscreen; this is easily remedied using the magic wand tool in iPhoto or other automatic settings.
When you shoot straight to JPEG, the camera analyses the image and does retouching as soon as the image is captured. This makes for a smaller (compressed) image but JPEG is lossy -- eg the camera throws out minute details that you might not normally miss. Once these are thrown out in-camera, you cannot get them back. Ever. This is fine for the majority of shots but you when you compare a RAW and JPEG image of, say, a detailed landscape with coloured textures etc, you will see the difference.
The beauty of RAW is that in difficult lighting, eg shadows, you have more control over your image and can pull out features with much better quality than if you're using a JPEG. This may not matter for casual snapshots but if you take your images seriously at the retouching stage, you'll want to shoot RAW for the really good shots.
The main consideration is that RAW images are much larger files than JPEGs (8MB per RAW image vs 2-3MB JPEG on my 8MP Canon). This quickly creates some very real storage issues if you take as many photos as I do. Personally, I shoot RAW for posed family shots and portraits; gorgeous landscapes; images I fully intend to enlarge and/or crop; images with difficult lighting; and pictures where I want fine detail (eg closeups of flowers). JPEG for everything else just to make life easier, and I normally shoot at 4MP (half-resolution mode), which is more than enough for casual everyday shots.
Hope this helps. Good luck with your new toy!
#4
skyhawkmatthew
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,374
- Joined: 26-January 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Sydney
- Interests:Technology, Photography, Aviation
Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:22 PM
Congratulations on the new camera - I've heard the D90 is a great camera, and I use the 18-200 VR on my D300 and it's a great general-purpose lens 
I always shoot JPEG, because the file sizes are so much smaller, and in 99% of cases the JPEG has enough extra information to recover blown highlights/shadows. (If you get it right at the time, you don't need to fix it later!). In comparison to the RAW files coming off the camera, I can't pick the difference. Slightly following what David said, I will shoot RAW in situations where I will need to pull a lot of detail from dark or light areas of the image, but for the vast majority of the time JPEG is perfectly sufficient. I'd highly recommend sticking with the full 12MP, JPEG Fine.
Here are a few of my shots from Japan this January, taken on the D300 (same sensor as your D90) with the 18-200 VR lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyhawkmatthe...57618558905385/ The shot of the pirate ship has been fairly heavily edited in Aperture and Color Efex Pro, from a JPEG, so you can see you can still do a lot with a JPEG.
The other thing you should consider is the white balance. Compare this photo below with the similar one in the Flickr photoset... this one has auto white balance, and the flickr one is set to 'cloudy', for the prevailing conditions.
I always shoot JPEG, because the file sizes are so much smaller, and in 99% of cases the JPEG has enough extra information to recover blown highlights/shadows. (If you get it right at the time, you don't need to fix it later!). In comparison to the RAW files coming off the camera, I can't pick the difference. Slightly following what David said, I will shoot RAW in situations where I will need to pull a lot of detail from dark or light areas of the image, but for the vast majority of the time JPEG is perfectly sufficient. I'd highly recommend sticking with the full 12MP, JPEG Fine.
Here are a few of my shots from Japan this January, taken on the D300 (same sensor as your D90) with the 18-200 VR lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skyhawkmatthe...57618558905385/ The shot of the pirate ship has been fairly heavily edited in Aperture and Color Efex Pro, from a JPEG, so you can see you can still do a lot with a JPEG.
The other thing you should consider is the white balance. Compare this photo below with the similar one in the Flickr photoset... this one has auto white balance, and the flickr one is set to 'cloudy', for the prevailing conditions.
Never owned a PC...
#5 Guest_coaten_*
Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:03 AM
I think the word David is looking for is latitude. A RAW file simply gives you more latitude for enhancement at the post stage. It's like the difference between T-MAX 400 and Ilford FP4, if you can cast your mind back that far. The latter was simply the better choice for photographers who work hard in the darkroom to maximise the texture off the neg, while the former was a better choice for press photographers who simply have to get the shot, even at the expense of shadow detail.
The picture of the black pine offers a very good example of where shooting RAW would provide a benefit in post. Even after accounting for the compression required for a reasonably sized upload, the image is flat. If I were working that pic in post, I'd be looking to give the green of the leaves a boost in saturation while enhancing the mid-tones of the background dormant foliage to improve the sense of depth in the image. The composition is fine. The light is dull.
Of course, that's just me, and the next guy might treat it differently, and the author may think it's fine just how it is, and all of those opinions are valid.
Anway, the problem with trying to do what I described with a JPEG is that the in-camera compression of the image reduces the dynamic range of every band of the colour spectrum and, in some cameras, is especially harsh on greens, so that if you try to boost the saturation levels of the green in the image, you just end up with a big swathe of green without much texture or nuance, and it looks unnatural when you try to lift it. In real life, even in the flat lighting in this scene, the leaves of the black pine are many shades of green, as is much foliage, which would not be lost in a RAW image, and when a colour is selectively boosted (Aperture has a terrific tool for doing this) it can add a touch of sparkle to an image.
So what we're talking about is latitude.
Ah... but I hear you saying that if you get it right the first time, you don't need to enhance it.
Baloney.
And I'll let the legendary landscape photographer Ansel Adams explain why:
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
Cool, huh?
And how about this one?
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
Adams was so cool, and a pioneering conservationist, who worked hard to quantify the relationship between camera, film, processing and darkroom practise. In his mind, each were inextricably intertwined. He developed a system for exposure that made the connection between film, processing and darkroom directly relational, rational, and controllable.
The same holds true in the digital age. A photographer who understands the creative possibilities in post with a RAW image frees his visual palette to fully exploit and marry the capabilities of camera, computer and image enhancement software.
Latitude.
Just my 2c.
The picture of the black pine offers a very good example of where shooting RAW would provide a benefit in post. Even after accounting for the compression required for a reasonably sized upload, the image is flat. If I were working that pic in post, I'd be looking to give the green of the leaves a boost in saturation while enhancing the mid-tones of the background dormant foliage to improve the sense of depth in the image. The composition is fine. The light is dull.
Of course, that's just me, and the next guy might treat it differently, and the author may think it's fine just how it is, and all of those opinions are valid.
Anway, the problem with trying to do what I described with a JPEG is that the in-camera compression of the image reduces the dynamic range of every band of the colour spectrum and, in some cameras, is especially harsh on greens, so that if you try to boost the saturation levels of the green in the image, you just end up with a big swathe of green without much texture or nuance, and it looks unnatural when you try to lift it. In real life, even in the flat lighting in this scene, the leaves of the black pine are many shades of green, as is much foliage, which would not be lost in a RAW image, and when a colour is selectively boosted (Aperture has a terrific tool for doing this) it can add a touch of sparkle to an image.
So what we're talking about is latitude.
Ah... but I hear you saying that if you get it right the first time, you don't need to enhance it.
Baloney.
And I'll let the legendary landscape photographer Ansel Adams explain why:
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
Cool, huh?
And how about this one?
"The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways."
Adams was so cool, and a pioneering conservationist, who worked hard to quantify the relationship between camera, film, processing and darkroom practise. In his mind, each were inextricably intertwined. He developed a system for exposure that made the connection between film, processing and darkroom directly relational, rational, and controllable.
The same holds true in the digital age. A photographer who understands the creative possibilities in post with a RAW image frees his visual palette to fully exploit and marry the capabilities of camera, computer and image enhancement software.
Latitude.
Just my 2c.
#6 Guest_coaten_*
Posted 28 May 2009 - 12:11 AM
Oh, and one more from Mr Adams...
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
Sends shivers down my spine.
"You don't take a photograph, you make it."
Sends shivers down my spine.
#7
Some Random Bloke
- Voice of Reason
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,373
- Joined: 02-April 12
- Gender:Male
Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:22 AM
I shoot entirely in RAW. The great thing with a Mac (and iPhoto), is that RAW works seamlessly. On a PC you have to convert and fiddle with it in a RAW converter before importing a usable image, in iPhoto it's just there ready for you to work on. Very nice.
"I don't believe there's a power in the 'verse that can stop Kaylee from being cheerful...
...Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month."
...Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month."
#8
Some Random Bloke
- Voice of Reason
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4,373
- Joined: 02-April 12
- Gender:Male
Posted 29 May 2009 - 01:23 AM
Oh, and a D90! You are one lucky bloke!
"I don't believe there's a power in the 'verse that can stop Kaylee from being cheerful...
...Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month."
...Sometimes you just wanna duct tape her mouth and dump her in the hold for a month."
#9
KAPhoto
- Power user
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 58
- Joined: 20-February 08
- Location:Preston, Melbourne
Posted 10 October 2009 - 07:05 AM
There is a main reason you shoot RAW over Jpeg and it hasn't been mentioned in this discussion so I'll explain it.
A Jpeg as we all know is a compressed file, if we shoot jpeg we are allowing the camera manufacturer to process the raw file into a jpeg for us. This jpeg file is converted from our 12-14bit raw file to a 8 bit jpeg file. You do not lose detail in a conversion you lose colour tone. A 8 bit file is only capable of displaying 256 colour tones, no more no less. A 12 Bit RAW file is capable of displaying 4096 colour tones. If we shoot jpeg we have thrown away over 3800 colour tones in our file. As Photoshop can work in 16 bits we now see cameras that shoot 14bit and can display over 260,000 colour tones. I'm a landscape/wildlife photographer and I will never shoot a jpeg and let a little piece of software in a camera decide to hack into my colour tones. I shoot everything RAW, save as Tiff. Another thing about jpeg is everytime you open and close a jpeg file you are again degrading the image.... ever seen banding in a sky, direct result of to much compression and colour tone loss
A Jpeg as we all know is a compressed file, if we shoot jpeg we are allowing the camera manufacturer to process the raw file into a jpeg for us. This jpeg file is converted from our 12-14bit raw file to a 8 bit jpeg file. You do not lose detail in a conversion you lose colour tone. A 8 bit file is only capable of displaying 256 colour tones, no more no less. A 12 Bit RAW file is capable of displaying 4096 colour tones. If we shoot jpeg we have thrown away over 3800 colour tones in our file. As Photoshop can work in 16 bits we now see cameras that shoot 14bit and can display over 260,000 colour tones. I'm a landscape/wildlife photographer and I will never shoot a jpeg and let a little piece of software in a camera decide to hack into my colour tones. I shoot everything RAW, save as Tiff. Another thing about jpeg is everytime you open and close a jpeg file you are again degrading the image.... ever seen banding in a sky, direct result of to much compression and colour tone loss
#10
Genshin
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,398
- Joined: 27-August 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan
Posted 10 October 2009 - 07:17 PM
Yes, thanks for that. I have only been shooting RAW. 
卍 Genshin 卍
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
#11
clinton1550
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,173
- Joined: 22-September 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Adelaide
Posted 10 October 2009 - 09:24 PM
QUOTE (KAPhoto @ Oct 10 2009, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is a main reason you shoot RAW over Jpeg and it hasn't been mentioned in this discussion so I'll explain it.
A Jpeg as we all know is a compressed file, if we shoot jpeg we are allowing the camera manufacturer to process the raw file into a jpeg for us. This jpeg file is converted from our 12-14bit raw file to a 8 bit jpeg file. You do not lose detail in a conversion you lose colour tone. A 8 bit file is only capable of displaying 256 colour tones, no more no less. A 12 Bit RAW file is capable of displaying 4096 colour tones. If we shoot jpeg we have thrown away over 3800 colour tones in our file. As Photoshop can work in 16 bits we now see cameras that shoot 14bit and can display over 260,000 colour tones. I'm a landscape/wildlife photographer and I will never shoot a jpeg and let a little piece of software in a camera decide to hack into my colour tones. I shoot everything RAW, save as Tiff. Another thing about jpeg is everytime you open and close a jpeg file you are again degrading the image.... ever seen banding in a sky, direct result of to much compression and colour tone loss
A Jpeg as we all know is a compressed file, if we shoot jpeg we are allowing the camera manufacturer to process the raw file into a jpeg for us. This jpeg file is converted from our 12-14bit raw file to a 8 bit jpeg file. You do not lose detail in a conversion you lose colour tone. A 8 bit file is only capable of displaying 256 colour tones, no more no less. A 12 Bit RAW file is capable of displaying 4096 colour tones. If we shoot jpeg we have thrown away over 3800 colour tones in our file. As Photoshop can work in 16 bits we now see cameras that shoot 14bit and can display over 260,000 colour tones. I'm a landscape/wildlife photographer and I will never shoot a jpeg and let a little piece of software in a camera decide to hack into my colour tones. I shoot everything RAW, save as Tiff. Another thing about jpeg is everytime you open and close a jpeg file you are again degrading the image.... ever seen banding in a sky, direct result of to much compression and colour tone loss
Only 256 colours? Why are cameras still using 256 colours? Is it just to keep the filesize down?
Steve Jobs is not dead, he's driving around in the desert with Elvis and Jesus in a gold plated Cadillac.
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
#12 Guest_coaten_*
Posted 11 October 2009 - 07:57 AM
We're about to enter the murky world of colour theory here, so if I stray too far in over-simplifying for the sake of brevity, could someone please stop me. 
Not 256 colours. Such a palette would equate to a GIF. 256 colour tones. Or 256 tonal variations of one colour. So there's yellow, which can be a very, very dark yellow (almost black) or a very, very light yellow (almost white).
However, a greater bit depth extends the levels considerably, out to 4096 tonal values of yellow in the case of 12-bit colour. You begin now to understand why RAW files are so large.
With that range of tonal values in an image, you have a much greater capacity for reproducing colour as it appeared naturally. Whether your output - a printer, a projector, or an LCD display - can accurately display all those colours is a different matter, but if that tonal range is there in the first place, you stand a much greater chance of seeing it in the output. The example of a banding sky in a landscape is a good example of a limited tonal range.
Landscape photographers, for whom maximum recordable detail is paramount, know and understand this and choose to use RAW. But I would suggest there are many more instances where RAW's extended tonal range is useful.
This week, my daughter has been shooting a tennis tournament. Exposure is a real challenge. On the one hand, the player will often be dressed in white. They will also be wearing a cap or sun visor, which throws a dark shadow over their face. On top of this, you are always shooting at a fast shutter speed - 1/1000 or faster, and if the light fades you may need to crank the ISO to attain fast shutter speeds.
We've proven to ourselves that shooting RAW in this situation gives us the greatest measure of control in post, where we can recover details in highlights (white shirts) and shadows (player's faces) much better than when using JPEG. It also means we can "push process" the photo (to use an old-school term) while not losing colour detail. That is, she can deliberately under-expose up to two stops for a required shutter speed and we can satisfactorily fix the exposure in post. If you try this with a JPEG, you just end up with a very coarse image. Any of you who have used iPhoto's Shadows slider to fix an under-exposed image may know what I mean.
The only way to really understand the pros and cons of RAW v JPEG is to test it for yourself. Shoot a well-lit, high-contrast scene with plenty of fine detail and vibrant colours. A botanical garden on a fine spring day is the perfect subject. Be sure to include people for skin tones. Shoot it at the highest quality JPEG setting, then shoot it in RAW. Then import the images and experiment with changing image parameters. Shift exposure, shadow detail, colour balance, punch the contrast, go wild. What you should notice is that there is a much greater latitude for making adjustments in the RAW than the JPEG, and this comes down to having an extended tonal range through which digital colour values can be shifted. A caveat. The quality of your camera's sensor, lens quality, your display, the software you use to interpret RAW files, and the accuracy of your eyesight all play a part in this exercise, so YMMV.
Not 256 colours. Such a palette would equate to a GIF. 256 colour tones. Or 256 tonal variations of one colour. So there's yellow, which can be a very, very dark yellow (almost black) or a very, very light yellow (almost white).
However, a greater bit depth extends the levels considerably, out to 4096 tonal values of yellow in the case of 12-bit colour. You begin now to understand why RAW files are so large.
With that range of tonal values in an image, you have a much greater capacity for reproducing colour as it appeared naturally. Whether your output - a printer, a projector, or an LCD display - can accurately display all those colours is a different matter, but if that tonal range is there in the first place, you stand a much greater chance of seeing it in the output. The example of a banding sky in a landscape is a good example of a limited tonal range.
Landscape photographers, for whom maximum recordable detail is paramount, know and understand this and choose to use RAW. But I would suggest there are many more instances where RAW's extended tonal range is useful.
This week, my daughter has been shooting a tennis tournament. Exposure is a real challenge. On the one hand, the player will often be dressed in white. They will also be wearing a cap or sun visor, which throws a dark shadow over their face. On top of this, you are always shooting at a fast shutter speed - 1/1000 or faster, and if the light fades you may need to crank the ISO to attain fast shutter speeds.
We've proven to ourselves that shooting RAW in this situation gives us the greatest measure of control in post, where we can recover details in highlights (white shirts) and shadows (player's faces) much better than when using JPEG. It also means we can "push process" the photo (to use an old-school term) while not losing colour detail. That is, she can deliberately under-expose up to two stops for a required shutter speed and we can satisfactorily fix the exposure in post. If you try this with a JPEG, you just end up with a very coarse image. Any of you who have used iPhoto's Shadows slider to fix an under-exposed image may know what I mean.
The only way to really understand the pros and cons of RAW v JPEG is to test it for yourself. Shoot a well-lit, high-contrast scene with plenty of fine detail and vibrant colours. A botanical garden on a fine spring day is the perfect subject. Be sure to include people for skin tones. Shoot it at the highest quality JPEG setting, then shoot it in RAW. Then import the images and experiment with changing image parameters. Shift exposure, shadow detail, colour balance, punch the contrast, go wild. What you should notice is that there is a much greater latitude for making adjustments in the RAW than the JPEG, and this comes down to having an extended tonal range through which digital colour values can be shifted. A caveat. The quality of your camera's sensor, lens quality, your display, the software you use to interpret RAW files, and the accuracy of your eyesight all play a part in this exercise, so YMMV.
#13 Guest_coaten_*
Posted 11 October 2009 - 08:08 AM
Oh, and sorry Clinton... to answer your question: Yes, to keep the file size down. This was what the Joint Picture Experts Group was aiming for when defining the file format. A way to reproduce a photograph on screen that had more detail and tonal values than a GIF but was still bandwidth-efficient for the internet. The JPEG was born.
I'm going entirely from memory on that. If the genesis of the JPEG was any different, please correct me.
I'm going entirely from memory on that. If the genesis of the JPEG was any different, please correct me.
#14
clinton1550
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,173
- Joined: 22-September 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Adelaide
Posted 11 October 2009 - 12:07 PM
Thanks Chris, both your answers were very interesting.
Steve Jobs is not dead, he's driving around in the desert with Elvis and Jesus in a gold plated Cadillac.
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
#15 Guest_coaten_*
Posted 11 October 2009 - 07:29 PM
Oops. Joint Photographic Experts Group. I do it every time. Sorry.
#16
media sorcerer
- Mentor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 06-May 09
- Gender:Male
- Location:rye,vic
Posted 19 October 2009 - 09:44 AM
just shoot raw,hey this is off topic,but what is the name of the program that you can use to connect digital cameras with to avoid your iphone opening iphoto,it was in the mag a while ago but ive forgotten,can anyone remember what it was called?
mbpro 15,2.66uni ,iphone8g,airport express
#17
Genshin
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,398
- Joined: 27-August 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan
Posted 19 October 2009 - 09:44 AM
QUOTE (media sorcerer @ Oct 19 2009, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
just shoot raw,hey this is off topic,but what is the name of the program that you can use to connect digital cameras with to avoid your iphone opening iphoto,it was in the mag a while ago but ive forgotten,can anyone remember what it was called?
It's called "Cameras."
卍 Genshin 卍
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
#18
clinton1550
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,173
- Joined: 22-September 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Adelaide
Posted 19 October 2009 - 02:45 PM
QUOTE (Genshin @ Oct 19 2009, 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It's called "Cameras."
Link Genshin, link.
http://www.flexibits.com/
Steve Jobs is not dead, he's driving around in the desert with Elvis and Jesus in a gold plated Cadillac.
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
Unsanely Great | The Exastential Podcast | Twitter | Flickr | Google+
#19
media sorcerer
- Mentor
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 06-May 09
- Gender:Male
- Location:rye,vic
Posted 19 October 2009 - 06:04 PM
thank you both for that,its a real bugger connecting my iphone only to have iphoto open ,good one ,regs david,p.s.i find raw has better colour qualities ,so id recommend if you value what you do and want the best result[ie,you are somewhat serious about photography ]then use raw,switch bak for anything not important like happy snaps etc,to get more shots on the mem card,
mbpro 15,2.66uni ,iphone8g,airport express
#20
Genshin
- Guru
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,398
- Joined: 27-August 08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, Japan
Posted 19 October 2009 - 06:31 PM
QUOTE (clinton1550 @ Oct 19 2009, 01:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ooops!
I've found that if one wants to make some money from any photos they've taken, RAW is the only accepted format. Also don't be put off by lack of skill or experience - I've sold a number of photos recently for a considerable sum, and I've only been at this for five months now!
卍 Genshin 卍
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
Must Love Japan See Japan in motion
YouTube channel See what I'm up to in Japan
Genshin on Facebook
Genshin on Twitter
Crusade Watch, anti-evangelsim, anti-religious conversion
BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BELIEVE - JUST DON'T EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE IT AND DON'T TRY PUSHING IT ON OTHERS.
