lphilpot

IMO, if it requires 30 to 60 minutes work per picture to 'get it right', then the original must've been 'off' enough that RAW is surely the better choice given its advantages. If, however, JPG is close enough that they look pretty much look the same, the question is then, 'how important is this image'?

YMMV.

David Bierbaum

It's the sharpening that get's me! I use G'MIC's Gimp plugin, and prefer the "sharpen-deblur", which I use often enough to have saved my favorite settings. On my antique, it takes 5 minutes to do a full-sized image... and I'm never satisfied with the first... or second... or fifth attempt. The jpg only has a bad case of the "greenies," where the plants look almost like radioactive slime, and usually an EV value that's too high and washes out some highlights (such as the background behind the song sparrow, for instance).

On the plus side, CHDK now has version 1.2 in RC status, so I'm using that, and it does DNG almost as fast as the sensor-dump raw, and has the color balance and EXIF data to boot.

lphilpot

I do RAW conversion using Capture 1 v6 (I've not upgraded). Once of these days I might try LightRoom, but no more than I shoot right now it's not worth it. I have RAW Therapee on my Linux laptop, but I've so far been unable to calibrate the screen so there's no reason to work there.

I usually use a very gentle Unsharp Mask, applied more than once, and usually end up undoing the last pass that made it look crunchy. Typically the results are better than one 'larger' pass. Also, decomposing the image into channels, sharpening the value (B&W) channel only then recombining sometimes works better. Also, always... always! sharpen at 100% view. If you're not pixel-peeping during sharpening, you'll never know how it looks.

I've used GIMP plenty over the years, but also used PSP 10. Neither are Photoshop, but nor are they as expensive, particularly with Adobe's latest shenanigans (Creative Cloud). In a lot a ways I like GIMP better than PSP, but its Unsharp Mask is SLLLLOOOOWWWW. If the GIMP developers will ever add support beyond 8 bit color, adjustment layers, etc., I'll probably end up dropping PSP. PSP was good when Jasc had it, but once Corel got involved it really dumbed down.

David Bierbaum

Crunchy. That is a good way to explain the effect when G'MIC oversharpens, and the image starts to look ... er... sandy, and crosshatched. I'm a cheapskate, so it's just the Gimp for me, with the G'MIC gimp plugin, and UFRaw for my RAW conversions.

I think I'll continue using RAW, except in those situations where I might want to take a series of pics without the extended waiting period.

Bikey Mikey

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet about manipulating photos. If you're spending that much time fixing images, be sure your monitor is properly calibrated. In fact, using a system that also has hardware as the sensor, is good investment. Calibrating a monitor by eye is not precise and often turns out wrong. If you are even more picky or are dabbling into pro or semi-pro photography, you need to use a good monitor, not the cheap LCD monitors. Use a CRT monitor or an LCD that is NOT made using a TN panel. IPS panel LCD monitors are becoming more popular, available, and cheaper.

TromboneAl

Here's my answer: You don't know this until after you've taken the picture, so it's best to assume that it will be worth the time, and that the picture is very important.

Here's a simpler example. For 90% of the photos I take when on my bike, a low resolution would be fine. For example, 640 x 480 would be fine for this image:



So, I would love to set that as the default resolution in the camera. Uploads would be faster, and I wouldn't have to resize every image.

But, sometimes I get a photo that I want to use at a very high resolution, like this one (click here for higher resolution):



So, I always use the best resolution.

IOW, it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

cccorlew

RAW can handle more manipulation (before it goes to Photoshop)
I find for "important" things that I'll spend a lot of time on, then print, it's worth it. It's almost never worth the bother for things that just end up on line.
As for handling wider contrast: sometimes, but not so much as many think. What it really does if give you more in the middle to play with, so edits don't "stretch" the brightness scale to the point that your edits show.

Biker395 

My snapshot cameras can only shoot jpeg, and that seems to work well for most cases (set to max resolution and least compression). But on the cameras that can shoot RAW, I not only use the jpeg+RAW setting, I also typically bracket the exposure 2/3 of a stop in either direction. They do it automatically, and memory is cheap, so for me it is an easy decision. You never know when that picture that you thought was a snapshot turns out to be one you really care about.

Nice photos up there, BTW!

FenderTL5

This was taken Sunday July 21st, 2013 in Warren County TN with my Samsung Flight II (non-smart) phone.

volosong

Re: RAW vs. JPEG

My cameras shoot both, and as stated, memory and disc storage is inexpensive. So, I capture both. If it is a special picture, or if the exposure is a little bit off, I'll process the RAW, (usually captured in DNG format instead of the proprietary format). For web posting and snapshots, JPEGs are fine, assuming the exposure is accurate. For simple stuff, I use GIMP on Linux. For more difficult things, I'll use Photoshop, (it's wonderful getting an educational discount). The only reason I keep Windows on my machines is because of Photoshop.

lphilpot

Absolutely. My cellphone won't shoot raw, but my DSLR will and that's how I always shoot - I never shoot JPG. Trouble is, carrying a DSLR (even my ancient old Rebel XT) and a couple of lenses on a bike tends to be a bit awkward at best. It's tough to quickly unload all that stuff before clipping out.

If I was shooting regularly and doing a lot of editing, I'd probably spring for Photoshop, cloud or not, and define a better workflow. Back in 2008 when I bought my current computer setup, although I didn't buy an IPS monitor ($$$ at the time) I didn't go for a cheap TN panel, either. I also bought a Spyder for calibration. At the time PSP seemed a reasonable compromise given what I was doing. But these days, it seems most of the images I touch up are quick one-offs going nowhere but online so I don't even worry about using 16-bit TIFFs as working files (and end up in GIMP as much as PSP). Depends on the image, though.

David Bierbaum

Thanks for all the responses. I fear I may have hijacked this thread, so without further ado, it's back to the pictures!

h2oxtc

Interesting discussion on the technical aspects of photography. I'd love to have a DSLR camera for the quality of photos possible, but wish it was a small as my cell phone. Increasingly I've found my priority in camera's is becoming portability and having the camera, aka cell phone, available at a second's notice. Cycling or doing whatever.

Biker395 

Hey ... no worries about a thread jack. I think it's completely on topic.

I want to echo h2oxtc's comment up there. The best camera there is ... is the one you have with you. Portability is a huge.

And don't pine over the DSLRs too much. In my limited experience, most people are better off without them. The cameras themselves are fine, but I've not had good experience with a lot of the lenses. Sure ... if you're willing to pony up $800-$2000 just for a lens, you'll get great quality. But the kit lenses are typically crap and the lower cost lenses aren't so great either.

I finally dug up the lens performance data for the ones I have and I shoot exclusively at the best apertures ... just to get decent quality out of them. On the other hand, the lenses on a lot of the pocket cameras out there are pretty damn good, and a lot of them offer some pretty incredible zoom ranges, making interchangeable lenses less attractive.

Anyway ... Sunday we were out on Mulholland Highway ... a place so popular with motorists, motorcyclists and bicyclists, there are professional photographers out there on weekends. Here is one of yours truly on one of the descents.

big john

https://shop.rockstorephotos.com/p271538643/e5c81b3a6

Here is one of me in the same area.

I don't know how you embed the photo from the site, Vic.

Mr. Beanz

With a little photchopping, who needs the website?

Biker395 

Hit "share" and select the BBC code. Copy and paste that into the post, and voila!



Reply to this and you'll see what the code looks like. I prefer to do this so there are no issues with the author's copyrights.

Mr. Beanz: How did you photochop that?

Mr. Beanz

1) I saved the image via snipping tool

2) Opened in a free edit program called Serif Phot Puls SE (from the net) similar to photo shop

3) I used the cloning tool to take sections of the image and put them over the others that had the seal. For instance, I'd take the yellow line from the right side of the image and clone it over the yellow line near his bike to cover it up. It can be a little tricky but if you can get it just right, it's kinda cool. I use the small brush tip to get a pinpoint section then place it over the other section. Some sections of his bike I could easily use the color tool and place blue over the seal.


As you can see here, I took that small section (red oval) and placed it over the lettering. I have to match the edge of the road pretty much exact to make it look good. As you can see , once I got so far, teh letters began to clone to the right of th section. So I'd have to stop then redo another section till I get it all covered up. I do it section by section, sometimes very small sections. Like the rims are hard to do because if you are off a bit, the wheel looks like a rough ride.

rm, kind of tough cause you have to do little by little and hope it doesn't look deformed and skin has to somewhat match tones cloning shadows and all.

Kind of rough at first but once you practice, it's fun!



ZAK_9094-XL by gulpxtreme, on Flickr


ZAK_9094-XL2 by gulpxtreme, on Flickr


Third image you can see that I took the line even a little further cloning the now larger section of white line. You can see the little blip in the white line where I did not match it perfectly. I left it the was so you could see. Plus the cracks in the should have changed a bit as I covered some up to cover up the repeat image. When someone sees the same crack twice in an image, they know something is up.


ZAK_9094-XL3 by gulpxtreme, on Flickr



Pretty col program. I used this image to show you the clone tool. I took some of the image from the couch to hide the neck of my guitar. Then I took John's face from another picture and added it on the wall ha ha! So if you ever want to impress your friends with a pic of you hanging out at the club with a bunch of models, you can clone yourself in a pic.



DSC00074A by gulpxtreme, on Flickr


DSC00074 by gulpxtreme, on Flickr

If you get good at it, all your friends would envy your rides.



ZAK_9094-XL4 by gulpxtreme, on Flickr

big john

Damn, Beanz, you got mad photo skills!

Mr. Beanz

......I take pics at our family gathers, wedding etc. All my cousins are happy to pose for photos. I touch them up, remove pimples, shiny spots, lipstick on the teeth etc. That cloning tool works miracles!

I love it for riding, you know the one guy in background that you just don't want in the picture

Biker395 

Or inserting a woman you DO want in the pix. lol

Thanks for the explanation. I know about cloning and the like ... you just did a great job of it, I thought it was something else!

TromboneAl

I got a few OK photos on today's ride, but for now I'll post this funny one.

They must have recently removed the chain-link part of this fence, because the dog was running back and forth just behind where the fence had been, just as if it were still there ("If only this fence weren't here I'd tear them apart!"). He got pretty scared when I stopped to take a photo (note his hackles):

goldfinch

Lincoln's sparrow?

David Bierbaum

I think it's a Song Sparrow, actually.

I don't know why I torture myself like this, aside from the sheer challenge of it! I just hand stitched a panoramic shot from two wildly mismatched photos, of the Smallpox memorial for Confederate Prisoners in West Alton. Right-click/view-image to see it in all it's 5752x2188 glory. Plenty of glitches to spot, too... Like the fact that the memorial is leaning to the left

Smallpox Panorama by goofus_maximus, on Flickr

volosong

YES! How did you do that**********

- - - - -

edit: You did that with just the clone tool? Damn! You're good. (Of course, that is what Gina always says.)