Jump to content


Photo

Raw And Studio Portraits

RAW portraits exposure

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 bfc1

bfc1

    New Member

  • Stunners
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 18-105. sigma 17-70. Nikon 50mm. 18-55 kit lens. sigma 70-300. 90mm macro
  • Flashes:Nikon sb600. 700.
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon d 7000. Nikon d200

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:12 AM

if I am taking portraits in a studio setup where I have complete control over the lighting and exposure, knowing that it is not going to change over the shoot, am I gaining anything from shooting RAW. I understand the technicalities of RAW files over jpg, but for A4 prints is it really necessary ??



#2 Bill Peppas

Bill Peppas

    Your friendly moderator :-)

  • Administrators
  • 1,723 posts
  • LocationAthens, Greece
  • Lenses:14-24 f/2.8
    18-35 f/3.5
    24-70 f/2.8
    50 f/1.8
    70-200 f/2.8 VR II
    70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR II
    105 f/2.8G IF ED Macro
    12-24 f/4
    18-55 f/3.5 VR
    55-200 VR
  • Flashes:Nikon SB-910
    Yongnuo YN-568EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:D810
    D600
    D5200

Posted 26 May 2014 - 08:29 AM

Don't look for printing differences only ( there will be even at just A4 size ), look at the post-processing flexibility and non-destructive editing that can be done with a RAW file compared to a JPEG file.

JPEG is a no-go even for a half-assed semi-serious amateur photographer.

Go RAW, it will only help you get things done better and more conveniently.

Awards Bar:


#3 bfc1

bfc1

    New Member

  • Stunners
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 18-105. sigma 17-70. Nikon 50mm. 18-55 kit lens. sigma 70-300. 90mm macro
  • Flashes:Nikon sb600. 700.
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon d 7000. Nikon d200

Posted 27 May 2014 - 01:41 AM

I know many "half-assed semi serious amateur photographers" who produce outstanding work" only" shooting jpg that would find your comment offensive.



#4 Bill Peppas

Bill Peppas

    Your friendly moderator :-)

  • Administrators
  • 1,723 posts
  • LocationAthens, Greece
  • Lenses:14-24 f/2.8
    18-35 f/3.5
    24-70 f/2.8
    50 f/1.8
    70-200 f/2.8 VR II
    70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR II
    105 f/2.8G IF ED Macro
    12-24 f/4
    18-55 f/3.5 VR
    55-200 VR
  • Flashes:Nikon SB-910
    Yongnuo YN-568EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:D810
    D600
    D5200

Posted 27 May 2014 - 03:14 AM

That's not my problem :)

Awards Bar:


#5 IntensorPoet

IntensorPoet

    Advanced Member

  • Stunners
  • PipPipPip
  • 46 posts
  • LocationMount Juliet, TN
  • Lenses:Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon EFS 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS Canon 24-105mm f4, Canon 85mm f1.8
  • Flashes:Vivitar 283
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Canon T3i, Canon 5D Mark III

Posted 27 May 2014 - 07:31 AM

I find working with RAW is far SUPERIOR to taking jpeg directly in camera.  Working with RAW allows us to reach down deep inside shadows and bringing details out of it to our liking.  It is not possible with jpeg without damaging the image, try experimenting with it with lightroom trial version.  With that in mind, I tend to set my camera a step or two unexposed to bring the detail the BEST possible out of sky on camera and adjust the details out of underexposed areas, bringing the perfect image possible.  Working with RAW is like working with negative films, the result on printed form is like jpeg.  While you develop a printed form with negative film, you have more flexibility to change whatever you will.  Camera's processing a jpeg is like doing negative film and do final jpeg format for you automatically and when you dislike the result, you use eraser to "ruin" the image.

 

And why would you want to limit yourself to jpeg when RAW is available?  For me, I would want to take anything that is available to me.

 

I googled for them and found a good explanation:

 

When to Shoot JPEG

  • When you need to display images immediately
  • Shooting for lower-quality uses, like the web
  • You have a restricted amount of space on your memory card(s)
  • Rapid-succession shooting

When to Shoot RAW

  • Professional shooting, journalistic shooting
  • When you need additional range and tonal detail

  • Bill Peppas likes this

Scott


#6 bfc1

bfc1

    New Member

  • Stunners
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Lenses:Nikon 18-105. sigma 17-70. Nikon 50mm. 18-55 kit lens. sigma 70-300. 90mm macro
  • Flashes:Nikon sb600. 700.
  • Camera Body or Bodies:Nikon d 7000. Nikon d200

Posted 27 May 2014 - 08:56 AM

thank you intensorpoet for a civilized non arrogant reply.

Edit: BEHAVE

Edited by Bill Peppas, 27 May 2014 - 12:20 PM.
BEHAVE


#7 Bill Peppas

Bill Peppas

    Your friendly moderator :-)

  • Administrators
  • 1,723 posts
  • LocationAthens, Greece
  • Lenses:14-24 f/2.8
    18-35 f/3.5
    24-70 f/2.8
    50 f/1.8
    70-200 f/2.8 VR II
    70-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR II
    105 f/2.8G IF ED Macro
    12-24 f/4
    18-55 f/3.5 VR
    55-200 VR
  • Flashes:Nikon SB-910
    Yongnuo YN-568EX
  • Camera Body or Bodies:D810
    D600
    D5200

Posted 27 May 2014 - 12:25 PM

Tread carefully.

If you don't like/appreciate the other person's opinion just ignore it.
Any kind of flame-baiting or whining won't be tolerated.

You asked if it's worth shooting RAW for studio portraits, and you've got your answer.

Nobody forced you to accept the answer, nor forced you to use RAW, nor said that your work isn't good or whatever to make you feel insulted.

If we wanted to "get rid of you" the "RTFB" ( Read The Flashy Book ) would be the answer ( and yet again, in the book it says shoot RAW for portraits :P ).

We just gave you some advice.
Mine was a short answer since I didn't have the time nor the will to go full details on why I told you to shoot RAW, intensorpoet sat down and wrote you a couple of reasons why RAW should be the way to go.

Awards Bar:






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: RAW, portraits, exposure

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users