Erin posing for d300 portraits.

zoomer

These are the first pics I took with the d300. Nice camera. These were in neutral setting with all camera settings at default and then processing in photoshop.
The come out of the camera pretty blah but process nicely.



This photo has a soft focus effect done to it.

jeffreaux2

I really like that first one. The pose is excellent, and I think I might borrow that!! I really like the tilt of her feet, and the relaxed look.

You did a good job on the second one as well. I see similar poses regularly, but with the tree out of focus....which doesnt look as nice as this.

One question....

If you are using a neutral setting.....why not shoot RAW? I fought it myself for awhile, but now shoot strictly RAW for my portrait work. There are many debates, but the truth is ......you have at least twice as much latitude for exposure adjustments, and being able to fine tune white balance to perfection sold me.

ShepsMom

I do too really like 1st shot, your lighting is outstanding. I love crispiness, and very sharp details of the image. Good composition and a good looking gal.

zoomer

Hi Jeff,
I used to shoot raw, now I process in Lightroom which lets you do the same thing to the jpeg, if necessary. If I get the exposure right in the camera I don't need raw. Raw adds to much time to my workflow.

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate your comments.

zoomer

Thanks Marina!

Icebear

zoomer wrote:

Hi Jeff,
I used to shoot raw, now I process in Lightroom which lets you do the same thing to the jpeg, if necessary. If I get the exposure right in the camera I don't need raw. Raw adds to much time to my workflow.

I really don't understand this comment. If you're using Lightroom, how does shooting RAW add to your workflow?

Agnieszka

Very nice shots! and sooo crisp! Makes me (who "only" has a D200) droole ....

Paulcao

Icebear wrote:

I really don't understand this comment. If you're using Lightroom, how does shooting RAW add to your workflow?

I'm guessing cause of the larger file size, they take longer to load/process

zoomer

Hi Icebear,
It doesn't if you still have to do all the editing.
I am trying to take the photos in jpeg and not have to do any photoshopping to them.
Not quite there yet.

Mitchell

These are excellent. I love the framing with the tree on the second one.

Which lens was used?

zoomer

Thanks again Mitchell,

d300 and 70-200 f2.8

Love that lens. Sooooo sharp at f2.8.

Mitchell

zoomer wrote:

Thanks again Mitchell,

d300 and 70-200 f2.8

Love that lens. Sooooo sharp at f2.8.

You have an excellent copy of that lens. Mine is not nearly as sharp as your's wide open despite two trips to Nikon.:cry

photogmomma

zoomer wrote:

Hi Jeff,
I used to shoot raw, now I process in Lightroom which lets you do the same thing to the jpeg, if necessary. If I get the exposure right in the camera I don't need raw. Raw adds to much time to my workflow.

Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate your comments.

Beautiful photos!!!

RAW shouldn't be adding anything but quality to your workflow when you're using Lightroom. (Many other programs, it will lengthen the time.) You should be able to download it and import it directly into LR and then edit.

But by doing RAW, you add more than 20x the information. Actually, that's a low number... But when I say 100x the information, it sounds crazy. And that's even a low number.

When you shoot in RAW, it captures things that are brighter than your blowouts in JPG - JPG in camera processing deletes this stuff. Same with the shadows. You'll have more depth in the shadows that's completely gone in JPG that's still there in RAW.

And RAW captures information in each color channel. So imagine that you've blown reds and blues and yellows. RAW still retains that, JPG doesn't. So when you go to adjust your temperature if it's too warm, for example, if you're reds/yellows are blown and you try to get them back in JPG, you can't. In RAW you can.....

I understand how people who need to shoot a lot of photos for the paper and don't stress the loss of information can stick with JPG or those who are always perfect in their exposure and their temperature. But personally, I love the ability to expose and get the temp perfect in camera - and still have the latitude to really play and push the image in different directions.

Anyway.... Gorgeous shots! And some of that information may be old hat for you, but for anyone reading that's considering RAW, I highly recommend it!

Scott_Quier

I keep coming back to this thread and have finally decided it's time to post a reply. The first photo is simply wonderful. Love it. Love the light, the OOF background, the sharpness of the model (who is simply stunning ). The only thing I might change is to crop a touch off the left - the green stuff on the left edge keeps pulling my eye.

Scott_Quier

Please correct me if I'm wrong!
and I know my friends here will

photogmomma wrote:

But by doing RAW, you add more than 20x the information. Actually, that's a low number... But when I say 100x the information, it sounds crazy. And that's even a low number.

Since JPG is 8 bits/channel, I believe the factor (per channel), for 20D/30D/5D which all have 12-bit wide sensors, is actually (2 ^ 12) / (2 ^ 8) = 2 ^ 4. If I'm right about this, then you have 16x the information per channel. The 40D (and others I'm sure) have wider sensors so the difference becomes greater with the newer cameras.

photogmomma wrote:

When you shoot in RAW, it captures things that are brighter than your blowouts in JPG - JPG in camera processing deletes this stuff. Same with the shadows. You'll have more depth in the shadows that's completely gone in JPG that's still there in RAW.

It's all there in the RAW if you haven't actually blown/plugged that channel. JPG blows/plugs much earlier than does RAW, but RAW will eventually do the same. RAW just gives you a lot more wiggle room before bad things happen and that wiggle room can be the difference between a succesful photography and a mighta-been.

photogmomma wrote:

And RAW captures information in each color channel. So imagine that you've blown reds and blues and yellows. RAW still retains that, JPG doesn't. So when you go to adjust your temperature if it's too warm, for example, if you're reds/yellows are blown and you try to get them back in JPG, you can't. In RAW you can.....

JPG does capture information on a per-channel basis, it's just that these channels are only 8 bits wide versus 12 bits (14 bits for 40D) for RAW. Regardless of the size of the channel, once a channel is blown/plugged, it's blown/plugged - there's no recovery.

photogmomma wrote:

I understand how people who need to shoot a lot of photos for the paper and don't stress the loss of information can stick with JPG or those who are always perfect in their exposure and their temperature. But personally, I love the ability to expose and get the temp perfect in camera - and still have the latitude to really play and push the image in different directions.

And this is one of the biggest reasons to shoot RAW - the latitude to be creative, to experiment with the photograph to express/display what you SAW - which can be quite different from what was actually there.

If there's a down-side to shooting RAW, it's the size of the files created. But, you know what, memory and disk is getting cheaper all the time. Cameras are writing the data to the memory cards faster all the time.

photogmomma

Scott! Thank you so much for clarifying all that information! I knew it was a huge difference, but now I'll remember it's 16x.... Leave it to you to know that!

Thanks!

zoomer

The argument is persuasive that using raw vx jpeg in Lightroom does not change the workflow. I may just give it another look.
I used to use Rawshooter for Raw and then Photoshop Elements
for finishing up and converting to jpeg. When I was doing a few hundred photos that was just to long.
Now I make much more of an effort to get the exposure correct in the camera and am learning to use Lightroom which is proving to be a huge time saver with all the batch processing ability.

I appreciate all the info posted here on raw, keep your mind open and you will never stop learning.

Again thanks to all who took the time to look and comment on the photos.

jeffreaux2

Processing RAW vs. JPEG when using Lightroom is exactly the same workflow except that the RAW files will take a bit longer to import and export.

Icebear

I'm not questioning Scott's math, but isn't there more to it than the straight capture data? What about the compression? Certainly that "throws away data." Seems to me (based on Scott's math) that jpg STARTS with 1/16th the data, then, depending on the quality you chose, throws some (or a lot) of it away. Am I misunderstanding something? Not arguing . . . just searching for knowledge.

Scott_Quier

Icebear wrote:

I'm not questioning Scott's math, but isn't there more to it than the straight capture data? What about the compression? Certainly that "throws away data." Seems to me (based on Scott's math) that jpg STARTS with 1/16th the data, then, depending on the quality you chose, throws some (or a lot) of it away. Am I misunderstanding something? Not arguing . . . just searching for knowledge.

You're right, it does throw away data. Some of that data that is thrown away is the result of approximating a 12 (or 14) bit data value to 8 bit. That, in and of itself is usually not a huge concern. It's when you start messing with the color values by tweaking WB, inducing curves, etc. It's the limit of 8 bits/channel that you run into first. And when you do, the result you get is called posterization.