File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/

Couple of questions for you,

1. Is there any point in shooting raw in Black and white?

2. Is it just me missing my ISOs, or does RAW generally deliver a grainy shot..
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:05:21 21:53:20Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width779Image Height937
>> Anonymous
1. If you want the final version in B&W, having your camera set to produce the preview versions for your chimping screen in B&W is nice.

2. No, it delivers a shot without noise reduction. JPEGs have noise reduction done on them.
>> Anonymous
1. yes, slightly more dynamic range. Never shoot b/w with your cam's settings.

2. That's probly unprocessed with the camera's internal noise reduction.
>> Anonymous
>>186414

>No, it delivers a shot without noise reduction.

Then whats the point of it? do i have to manually noise reduce it?
>> Anonymous
>>186422

The point is, you can apply it yourself and choose how much or little you want instead of letting a computer choose for you.

If you are satifisied with your camera's JPG output, by all means use it.

If you want to process the images yourself, use RAW.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>186422
more control over the finished product.
If you don't know why you're shooting RAW, you don't really need to.

Screw the "don't use your camera's black and white modes", though. I always use a custom set B/W mode when I'm shooting RAW B/W just so I can get a better look towards the finished shot and then I adjust from there on the computer.
>> WetShirt !n21TE7QU8U
1: No. At least not for me. Somehow, the B/W tones straight out of the camera always look shitty. Theres so many options in photoshoop to convert a picture to have the exact B/W look you want, it seems stupid to let your chip decide for you.

2: see>>186414
>> Anonymous
OP: well RAW seems pretty pointless then, you sacrifice a clean picture for being able to adjust everything else..

Photoshops "noise reduction" just kills the detail, as does noise ninja.

I put it to you that the pros of JPEG easily outweigh the pros of RAW.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>186507
Calibrated noise ninja is awesome. Produces images that will be cleaner than jpeg reduction whilst retaining more detail. You really have to do the test chart shots first though (and you have to do them separately for RAW/tiff and jpeg - it's still not hard or time consuming though).

If you think jpegs are better, by all means use them. Myself, I fuck up white balance _way_ too often. Also, exposure adjustment while not as frequently fucked up is much nicer from RAWs.

There is only one time I shoot jpeg: When I need extended bursts. Curse Canon and their puny 128MB buffer that should have been 512MB or at least 256MB...
>> Anonymous
OP: wait... are you people trying to say that you can change RAWS noise reduction level IN camera?

because if THATS the benefit, then i understand... but i can do that with jpeg too.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>186521
Shooting RAW means that no JPEG formatting is applied to the image in-camera. None. Nada.

You can apply noise reduction exactly as you want it applied, you can easily change the white-balance after the fact, etcetera.
>> WetShirt !n21TE7QU8U
>>186521
Again, stay away from RAW if you don't know why you use it.
>> Warren !!JL+uuUHRNlZ
The benefit of shooting raw is that it provides you a MUCH higher level of control in your images. If you really care about the quality of the images you are producing, it is well worth your time to learn how to properly use raw files and proper processing thereof. I suggest the Bruce Fraser book "Real World Camera Raw" (don't quote me on the title, but that's close). I know I always recommend this book, but there's a reason for it. If you internalize the info in this book and apply it properly you will have an incredible amount of control over your images. Granted, it requires you to have Photoshop CS3 and preferably Bridge as well, but since most of /p/ is running pirated copies of their software anyway that shouldn't be a problem.

Other options for raw processing are programs like Aperture, Lightroom, and Capture One. Of those, I like Capture One best.