File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
what do you think of this picture?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern982Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:20 20:56:48White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/25 secF-Numberf/22.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2716Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
It rocks.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Looks a little fuzzy. Not surprising, given that you shot at ISO800, f/22, so you've got Nikon's smearing noise reduction combined with the softening effects of diffraction on a lens (seriously? 18-55 kit on a D200?) that's not all that sharp to begin with.

If you want to shoot at such high apertures, at least get a tripod so you can do it at low ISO. Shooting at 800 is just absolutely killing you here.

Also: The filename suggests that this is a crop (100%?) of a larger image. So I'm guessing some of the ugliness is that you're throwing away most of the resolution and giving us a pixel-peeping crop. Lrn2frame properly.
>> Anonymous
how do i frame properly?
>> Anonymous
also it's 18-200mm VR lens but I just want better photos and advice is appreciated. I went all out on a really good camera because I got a good discount price directly through nikon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116063
Look at what you see through the viewfinder. Make what you see through the viewfinder equal to what you want to see in the final picture. ~fin~
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>116063

By studying photos. Lots and lots of photos.
>> Anonymous
>>116063

by being flamboyantly gay
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>116063
If you have a more academic bent, learn some art theory relating to composition of shapes and colors.
Google things like "photographic composition", this stuff's pretty easy to find.
>> Anonymous
>>116068
for what style of photography?
>> Anonymous
ok cool. I did crop this photo, but I had my ISO set to auto and no tripod. Is croping a bad thing? What if it was a RAW .NEF file and I cropped it, would that be better? Also what was wrong with this crop? Thanks
>> Anonymous
i can post original if someone could show me how to crop it better.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116076

Auto ISO is bad. See>>115917
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116076
>Is croping a bad thing
Depends on how much you crop. Assuming you just cropped and didn't resize, then you threw away half of the pixels available to you in the shot. Did you resize this before posting, or did you just crop it?

Keep your ISO as low as possible. You should only be going over 400 for special cases. E.g., if you're photographing an event in low light and can't use a flash. Starting from the RAW would have helped a little bit (no double JPEG compression), but not really enough to make a difference.

The shot itself is fine. The only complaint I have about the crop is that cropping it instead of just taking the photo with this framing raeped your image quality.
>> Anonymous
ok thanks i appreciate it.
>> Anonymous
Can I turn off this muddy noise-reduction effect on a D80? It is worse than noise as it looks like a watercolor with inks running.
>> Anonymous
>>116087
If you shoot raw, the only noise reduction will be what you explictly tell it to put on.
>> Anonymous
>>116088

No way to do it with jpgs then?
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116089

On my D50, it's called "Long Exp. NR" and can be turned on/off. I'm sure it's available on the D80, too.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116092
Long exposure noise reduction is different from high-ISO noise reduction.
>> Anonymous
>>116089
Who cares? One shouldn't shoot JPEG. It throws away both data immediately visible (detail) and information one can use to process the photograph better (color, detail in the shadows and highlights), and control over the end result. JPEG is subjecting your photography to the aesthetic whims of random Nikon engineers and what the Nikon marketing department thinks the average consumer wants.

Shoot raw, OP. And sell the 18-200; it's not a good lens. Buy a prime somewhere between 28-35mm and learn to compose with that. Also, since it's cheap, a 50/1.8, and maybe also some wide angle prime if you use wide angles alot for landscapes.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116097

Oh, yeah, it is. I guess I took the comment out of context as it seemed to be a different Anon (D200 v. D80).
>> Anonymous
OP, don't listen to the RAW fanatics. Lots of pros shoot jpgs. It works well if you are not incompetent and can expose a scene properly.

Shooting RAW while you are trying to learn all the basics is only adding pointless complication and making it harder to get immediate results, which is the best benefit of learning with digital.
>> Anonymous
>>116106
The only pros who would shoot raw are something like sports photographers who need to get their images raped-printed on newsprint ASAP. Everyone else shoots raw.

A raw file, if you don't do anything special to it, only takes a minute or two to deal with.

You get immediate feedback on the back of the camera shooting either raw or JPEG.

And learning to process a raw file is like learning basic darkroom work, which, AFAIK, was taught in pretty much every Photography 101 course from the dawn of time.
>> Anonymous
>>116107

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. "Everyone else" does not shoot RAW and have managed with jpgs for years.

You have a strange fantasy about jpgs and RAW files that has little connection to the real world.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116106
>>116111
There was a time when I agreed with these comments. Then I tried actually shooting RAW and postprocessing my pictures. It's seriously like night and day. If you're not shooting RAW, you're Doing It Wrong.

I will agree that shooting JPEG as a teaching aid is a good idea (i.e., forcing yourself to learn how to expose properly so that it looks good even in a straight in-camera JPEG conversion, and obviating the need to spend time postprocessing), but if you really want to get the best quality out of your digital SLR, shoot RAW.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>116101
This would be true if there weren't all kinds of customizable image settings.
Yes, raw is more versatile, but your statement is misleading enough to be a lie.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Most importantly: Remember that if you're not having fun then it's a shitty hobby. It's your money and your time it's costing. Take that into consideration when I or others tear into your work, gear or whatever, but also remember that if you're posting it up here it's our time, right (and hobby) to praise or criticise too. ;)
>> Vincent
>>116114
Meh, I've done both, I shoot Sports in JPG, I shoot Weddings in Jpg (Yes Paid weddings) I shoot 99% of my pics on both my D200 and D50 in JPG.
Only exceptions are Infrared, Long Exposure Night shots, AND Panoramics.
Those are all I ever shoot RAW. It like quadruples my post processing time, and its not worth it to me, OR the people who get prints / digital copies of my work. To take that much time.
I don't even find I get better quality pictures in RAW, In fact it can be problematic if I want some uniformity between my pics and the RAW settings are tough to keep even.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
When I was looking for my second camera, one of the things that I was looking for was raw capability.

Then I used it.

Once.

Then I went back to jpegs.
>> Anonymous
>>116124It like quadruples my post processing time, and its not worth it to me, OR the people who get prints / digital copies of my work. To take that much time.
I don't even find I get better quality pictures in RAW, In fact it can be problematic if I want some uniformity between my pics and the RAW settings are tough to keep even.

It sounds to me like you have a RAW workflow issue. Lightroom really helps to streamline things, to the point that RAW doesn't take significantly longer to process than JPEGS for me. And I do see difference in image quality, mostly when I adjust curves to try to pull up shadow or highlight detail. That extra info gets clipped in JPEG and there's nothing to pull out.
>> Anonymous
>>116111
Every professional, at any level, I know about shoots raw, except that one Magnum photojournalist (I can't remember which one) who uses an Olympus point and shoot, which presumably doesn't do raw.

Have you ever talked to any professionals about raw versus JPEG? One I know started shooting JPEG, had a “night and day” thing like ac was saying, and switched to raw, except for one time when he had to shoot something like a hundred individual dogs in exactly controlled lighting.

And either way in this discussion, it doesn't really matter what professionals do to non-professionals. Someone making a living at doing something, and even people making a living in different ways doing something, have entirely different restrictions, challenges, resources, budgets, and considerations than someone doing it for enjoyment or art. Saying "the professionals do something" on /p/ is like saying over on the automotive board that what NASCAR drivers drive makes any difference to anything.

>>116119
Adjusting contrast up or down, for instance, is nothing like working with curves or levels.
>> Anonymous
>>116142
How many photographs are you trying to process? "Quadrupling" your processing time for four or five good shots isn't much. If one doesn't play around indecisively with the sliders, a file in ACR takes maybe a minute or two.
>> Anonymous
>>116143Every professional, at any level, I know about shoots raw, except that one Magnum photojournalist

Is Vincent that one?
>> Anonymous
>>116144
This was meant to go at Vincent, not the post indicated.
>> Anonymous
>>116145
I looked it up. It's Alex Majoli.
>> Anonymous
>>116143

So if it really doesn't matter what pros do then why would someone be so dismissive and unhelpful when someone asked about turning off the noise-reduction with jpgs (which still hasn't been answered thanks to the thread being ruined with more arguments)? That's just annoying and leads to the crappy arguments that take up too much of /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>116147

Vincent must be Alex Majoli then because apparently EVERY one uses it apart from him. So it must be Vincent.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116144
>"Quadrupling" your processing time for four or five good shots isn't much.
QFT. I shoot RAW+JPEG. Use the JPEG as basically a preview so I know which to bother postprocessing.
>> Anonymous
>>116148
In that post I said nothing about professionals, and didn't bring them up until someone else did to refute it.

Telling someone to shoot raw is, in the long run, much more helpful than telling them how to change a JPEG setting that is probably listed in their manual.

The reasons to shoot raw I outlined in that post. A professional will usually shoot raw for those same reasons, but anyone doing anything "because the pros do it" is an idiot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116148
A quick google suggests there's a way to do it. If you own a D80, you probably own the manual for a D80.

This post brought to you by the letters R, T, F, and M.
>> Anonymous
>>116152

you didn't refute it though. you simply lied.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>116149

All the pros I personally know use jpegs.

Photojournalists.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
ive shot raw for the ~4 years ive been shooting for a hobby and will prob always shoot it.

sure i dont use its capabilities in all of my shots but for the ones that it has saved its def worth it.

and for the guys saying it takes fuckloads longer, pfft, clearly you havent developed a proper workflow. do you use recipes? they save a shitload of time for me.

though i will say, a portrait photographer my g/f took us/me too not long ago said she used jpgs for all her portraits on the 5D but mostly shot raws on the 1d something for super sized prints.

it comes down to personal choice, for me its the only option to shoot raw.
>> Anonymous
>>116154
What did I lie about, exactly?
>> Anonymous
>Every professional, at any level, I know about shoots raw, except that one Magnum photojournalist

Despite several professions being known for using it and people here saying they use jpgs. You are a liar.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
To sum it all up, Raw is both a personal choice and dependent on the shooting situation. You have tricky lighting issues? Shoot raw. You're shooting street? Shoot jpgs because you wouldn't want to go "whoops, missed that, writing raw on card, lol". You think raw is better than jpg and vice versa? Eh, ok, What works for you.
>> Vincent
>>116142
Yes thats mostly my Issue, Capture NX sucks ass, And the Photoshop plugin I use is good for doing Batch stuff, But after I've Output JPG's from the RAW files I feel I need to edit them AGAIN, to match my printer profiles (if printing) Or for web use.
Never tried Lightroom, Might have to download that when my shitty Capture NX trial runs out. My Photoshop Raw Plugin can't match the WB settings I need for Infrared pictures.

>>116149
Nope Can't say I am Alex Majoli

>>116144
Weddings = roughly 1000 pics to look at (Last wedding I actually edited about 400 of those, lots of keepers (Hot Bride))
Motocross = 500ish
Baseball = 500ish
So basically a lot
>> Anonymous
>>116167You're shooting street? Shoot jpgs because you wouldn't want to go "whoops, missed that, writing raw on card, lol".

What?

Any decent camera can buffer like 10 RAW files on normal speed memory cards.

What the fuck?
>> Anonymous
>>116174Weddings = roughly 1000 pics to look at (Last wedding I actually edited about 400 of those, lots of keepers (Hot Bride))

My keeper rate is usually 10%. But I spray a lot. 3 shot burst FTW.
>> Vincent
     File :-(, x)
>>116176
Ya I'm more like 15-20%, I was suprised when I had almost 400 shots in the end!
Photogenic guests and bride!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern822Focal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:21 22:07:37Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return DetectedFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1420Image Height959RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>116174Might have to download that when my shitty Capture NX trial runs out.

It's definitely worth downloading the Lightroom trial. I used to use Capture (4, then NX when it was released) and I liked some of the raw processing tools, but overall it was pretty crappy software to use. It was slow and buggy and terrible for batch processing. Photoshop is powerful but again not suited to batch processing many RAW files. Lightroom is really where it's at for that sort of thing. I even use it to organize, keyword, and occasionally edit JPEGs when don't feel like shooting in RAW.
>> Anonymous
>>116179Photoshop is powerful but again not suited to batch processing many RAW files.

What kind of processing are we talking about here? Exposure, WB, HSL, brightness/contrast, noise, sharpness, and all that can be batched through Bridge.

I've just downloaded Lightroom yesterday and I think it's just a glorified image viewer/cataloger with RAW support.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116178
/r/ moar hot wedding guests, please.
>> Anonymous
>>116163
That's not a lie. Every professional photographer of any sort who I've read in an interview or have spoken to personally, of any type, shoots raw except for Majoli. I'm not making that up. That doesn't exclude that there are others who do shoot JPEG; I just haven't heard what they shoot. I said earlier in the thread I imagine sports photographers shoot JPEG. Low-level newspaper photojournalists probably do, too. With the exception of Majoli, all the other high level photojournalists I've heard about shoot raw.

>>116174
I don't know how to do this exactly- I just process a few at a time- but there's some way to do basic batch processing on those. Just let your computer sit and it'll clank through them. I know two professionals who reguarly do weddings with loads like that, and that's how they do it: Preview with BreezeBrowser, pick out the ones that need special work, punch in the right settings, and let the computer go through and automatically apply them to all of the keepers.
>> Anonymous
I’ve made 40gb of imagery with it in these few months. And … just so the fucking fondlers know … you don’t have to shoot it RAW to make an outstanding image. I’ve seen you guys who only shoot in RAW … I’ve seen your original files … fucking blown the fuck out by 3 stops … or under … by a few …

Yep, save it with Capture One. You’re a pro.

Or at least you have PRO after your name on Flickr. ;)

http://cweeks.deviantart.com/journal/14813178/
>> Vincent
     File :-(, x)
>>116233
Ok. PRoblem is most of the time they were with their "dates"

>>116325
IF you can Batch process Images with Generic settings (aka same settings for each pic) Then that takes away half the point of shooting Raw.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)36 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern818Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:21 22:08:17RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlash, Auto, Return DetectedFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width964Image Height1421
>> Anonymous
>>116325

More likely you are still lying or you have selective memory to back up what you believe is right. Listen and remember only what reinforces your own personal beliefs. A common problem with such puffed-up know-it-alls.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116327
>fucking blown the fuck out by 3 stops
Digital sensors work better with more light. You record more data in the highlights than in the shadows. So you get higher image quality by overexposing as much as possible without clipping your highlights and then bringing it down to the actual exposure you want in postprocessing.

It's a good technique, not a mistake being covered up later.

Similarly, underexposing and bringing things back up in post is a good way to pull an extra stop or two of speed out of your camera. Depending on the scene and your camera, an underexposed-then-pushed ISO400 might look better than a "properly" exposed ISO800.
>> Anonymous
>>116329
Can you make any serious case not to use raw?

The only disadvantage of it is some extra storage space, and if one is shelling out $1000 on camera equipment, $80 for an external hard drive shouldn't be too much.

And again, this whole side debate over what "the professionals" do is silly.

>>116328
A) One still gets higher quality.
B) If something goes wrong, there's more room to fix it.
C) Most of these other shots are random shots the bride and groom just would want stuck in an album somewhere.
D) They're the photographer's settings, not someone else's. The same as shooting rollfilm and developing it oneself versus having somebody else develop it.
>> Anonymous
getting it right “in camera” is way better than coming semi-close and tweaking the fuck out of it in PhotoShop. A PhotoShop jockey is not a photographer.
>> Vincent
     File :-(, x)
>>116333
Theres lots of disadvantages.

Memory Card Space "In Camera"
Much longer Post Processing (Even Viewing RAW files takes an extra step)
And even with the best Batch processing it will still take longer
Hard to keep similar lit pictures looking uniform.
For Sports the Buffer can fill up too fast with RAW.

I shoot ALL my wedding pics JPG, not just the guest shots. Theres no noticeable difference in Prints, and only Arguably can anyone say they see a difference in a JPG or Raw output Quality.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D200Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern846Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:08:21 19:31:19Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating320Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1936Image Height1296RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>116334
Sure, it saves you time later on, but there's no other real benefit. Ansel Adams's negative for "Moonrise, Hernandez" was overexposed by more than three stops, because he got the site late and only had a couple minutes to set up a view camera. Does that make him a darkroom jockey and not a photographer?
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
After this RAW vs. JPG debate ends, can we move on to Canon vs. Nikon?
>> Anonymous
>>116347
OH YES PLEASE. I'm ready for a fresh and interesting debate.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>116347

How about Canon film versus Nikon digital? Wouldn't that be hot? Oh yeah!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116378
There's always that old standby "Real photographers shoot in full-manual mode" vs. "There's nothing wrong with shooting Aperture/Shutter priority, or even full Auto"
>> Anonymous
how about the niggers versus white people debate? that is a good one.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Seeing as the thread has went off on a tangent into the shitter anyway: Any experienced Nikon shooters here know what the Nikon 18-55mm VR is like and if it is any better than the kit lens? I was considering getting it as a gift for someone as a replacement for their kit lens as I know they were wanting to get it themselves at some point in the future.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116398

I don't see the point of VR on a 18-55mm lens?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116402
If you use it for a day, you will. I absolutely love my Canon 18-55 IS.
>> Anonymous
ok um, just some wild misconceptions here.

The first is that pros don't use consumer lenses like the 18-200. They totally do. Like, for my particular brand of photography, I work with the 70-200 2.8 99% of the time, but occasionally I need a wide angle, and I turn to the 18-55 for that. The 18-55. It's like $100 bucks! Why would I waste a grand on a 16-35 for the occasional shot? I would never make that money back. It's simple business. The 18-200 is a sick ridiculous lens thats crazy versatile and one I wish I owned.

The second is that pros all use RAW.. like, wtf?

Dude, pros shoot 300-400 pictures a day. I shot about 3k last week. Do you think im going to spend 30 seconds per shot fiddling with ACR to get the shadows right? Get real, you've probably never even been in a studio let alone worked in one, so where do you get off telling us how "the pros do it"?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116404
Yeah, I shouldn't badmouth the 18-55 given how much I used Canon's equivalent (although I have since upgraded to the 18-55 IS).

>I shot about 3k last week. Do you think im going to spend 30 seconds per shot fiddling with ACR to get the shadows right?
You know, there's a middle ground. Every camera I've worked with that had RAW also offered RAW+Jpeg as an option. For the majority of the time when you're happy with the look of the JPEG, use that. For the times when a great shot is ruined by being a stop or two over or underexposed, the RAW is there to help you save it.

(Personally, I've stopped using the JPEG version on pretty much any shot I care about. The version where I've tweaked it from the RAW always comes out looking better to my eyes)
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
OT: Thanks to this thread, I got hang of Lightroom's workflow somehow. A great success for me.

But, I'm still missing some things I would certainly like to see in it.
>> Anonymous
Another problem with RAWs and pro photography is.. well for starters, photoshop CS2 can't read newer RAW files, like the 40D, the D300, etc.

Now imagine a staff of 50 photographers, all handing in their individual raw formats, to the finishing crew (most studios don't have actual photographers doing PS work, fyi) - its a mess.

Real world shoots jpeg, sorry. I don't care what you read in popular photography. Its wrong.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116417
>Real world shoots either RAW or jpeg, depending on the workflow that suits them best.
Fix'd.
>> Anonymous
>>116404
I know two pros very well, and by their account, they, and everyone they know shoots raw near exclusively.

They don't spend thirty seconds messing with it on most shots. They batch process most of the good ones, and the ones that are going to be printed very large/ are really important/ need some fixing they work on. One of them sucks at Photoshop, and so has an in-house PS expert, but he still shoots raw. The other does all his post-processing himself.

How many of those three thousand shots are you actually delivering to clients and how many were just multiple tries at getting the shot you're delivering?

And as far as raw formats go, the thing about CS2 not working with the 40D's raw files is just wrong. I've done it. As long as ACR is kept up to date, no one should have any problems managing anything.

But again, "what the pros do" doesn't matter here. The OP and most people on /p/ don't have clients or timeframes. We do it for art or kicks.
>> Anonymous
I like to do PP and tweak the hell out of things but sometimes I have to use jpgs for the time, volume and turn around. Not long ago I had to take pictures and the subject was going to be dead not long after. No time to mess around with huge numbers of RAW. Get them done, in and back out so they can see them and approve. Biggest stress I've ever had on a job.
>> Anonymous
lol @ the "my dad is a pro and he shoots raw" comments.

I know the owners of a multi-million dollar photography studio, and they and their photographers shoot jpg. If its good enough for them, im wagering its probably good enough for you and your D40.
>> Anonymous
And any pro who actually needs RAW, say fashion, commercial, whatever. Well, they use hasselblads. But here's the kicker, those same photographers could outperform you and your RAWs with a point and shoot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116428
I'd like to hear more about this snuff film you worked on.
>> Anonymous
>>116435

LOL. Not quite. It was a cancer patient. Advanced and aggressive case.
>> Anonymous
>>116417Now imagine a staff of 50 photographers

oh lawd