[lucifer1881]

Originally Posted by amitk26

...OK so still not getting why should not shoot in RAW and PP an image manually rather then depending on in-Camera PP
All other things being equal

Originally Posted by tsk1979

so you are saying that if you shoot RAW, you will automatically spend less time composing the shot?
Or are you saying if you got your composition right, there is no scene out there which will defeat your cameras JPEG engine?

Okay, let me explain .

I am just saying that I want to spend as little time as possible in front of my computer doing PP. I prefer spending more time doing my composition and framing. For example, if I have 2 hours of time then I would rather spend most of it shooting than spend half of it in front of my computer doing PP. Thus I want to get things right in-camera as much as possible.

Of course, this also works with RAW. But with RAW I still have to convert to JPEG even if I do no other PP on the shot. I would like to not do even that. I want to reduce my PP time as much as possible.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

I suppose you misunderstood me. Shooting in JPEG or RAW or some other format does not determine how great a photographer you are. The point I am making is precisely that. The format is meaningless. What matters are your composition and framing. That is what I meant when I said that the person holding the camera determines how the photograph turns out, not the format the person is shooting in.

I am also not saying that going trigger happy will get you better shots. I am saying spend more time out there working on your framing and composition before you press the shutter button. It is more fun shooting out there than it is sitting in front of a computer, at least to me. I would prefer to shoot as much as possible (again, does not mean shoot tons of images - it only means spend as much time out there to get the framing and composition right) and spend as little time as possible doing PP.

Oh ok, I guess I misunderstood your point. But again, I would prefer to have shot in RAW and apply my own set of PP on it. And I do post processing when I find time and I don't let time to force me to do anything just for the sake of getting a ready to serve photograph. Post processing is as important process as taking a photograph is what I feel and I don't want the camera logic to take that fun away from me.
And about time being given to composing a frame is totally different than the time for PP. While on the field shooting I would be concentrating on shooting only (and ofcourse soaking into the beauty of nature) and how on earth can I do PP while shooting ;-) So to me, post processing time never ever interfere with my shooting time.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

Okay, let me explain .

I am just saying that I want to spend as little time as possible in front of my computer doing PP. I prefer spending more time doing my composition and framing. For example, if I have 2 hours of time then I would rather spend most of it shooting than spend half of it in front of my computer doing PP. Thus I want to get things right in-camera as much as possible.

You have totally got the RAW thing wrong, havent you.
Shooting RAW does not mean you have to process each and every shot.
For example in DPP, you can select a Camera setting, for example "Landscape scene mode" and process all pics in batch. So spending 10 seconds will be enough to select all 100 shots you took, and press the convert button.
Now there can be 2 brilliantly composed shots which require post processing, you can spend time on those.
Your camera is not perfect, it may meter the scene wrong, so having RAW always give you better chance of recovering a shot which was composed well.
you may also have a shot which requires much higher dynamic range to render better, and your camera may be clipping highlights drastically in JPEG.

So shooting RAW will only increase your storage space... everything else is not an issue!

[amitk26]

Anyway this problem is fixed long back and almost all cam supports JPEG + RAW and you can choose later storage is cheap.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

Okay, let me explain .

I am just saying that I want to spend as little time as possible in front of my computer doing PP. I prefer spending more time doing my composition and framing. For example, if I have 2 hours of time then I would rather spend most of it shooting than spend half of it in front of my computer doing PP. Thus I want to get things right in-camera as much as possible.

Well, I wouldn't spend a minute from that 2 hour on anything else but taking photographs. PP will come later and won't hamper that time I have for shooting. Hope I'm clear now about what I was saying.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

.....I am just saying that I want to spend as little time as possible in front of my computer doing PP. I prefer spending more time doing my composition and framing. For example, if I have 2 hours of time then I would rather spend most of it shooting....

So to summarise you mean to say never shoot in JPEG, but always use the RAW format, spent many hours shooting on the field and double the time in processing them. Right ? (please dont search for me, I know how you are feeling )

Ok guys, anyone selling or planning to sell a Nikon mount wide angle ? Prime or zoom anything will do. Nikon, Tokina, Sigma or Tamron in order of preference. Even renting to me for 10 days also will be helpful. Posting it here because I dont find anything in our classifieds nor in the sections of other camera related forums. A seller with 50/50 mind will not post in the classifieds anyway. My usage will be from 21st April to 1st May.

Riju has promised to lend me his 12-24 but its with his friend, so not sure if it will reach him when I need it. I want to buy a 20mm 2.8 AF-D or Tokina 12-24 f/4, but prices are bit on the higher side right now.

Also: Has anyone got familiarity with ND filters ? Whats brands are recommended ? I need to pick up one for my travel.

[EP.]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

In case of Canon, the bodies bought from Singapore have valid Indian warranty (lenses have international warranty anyways).

Hi guys, back again. Well I have an option of buying my 60D from Singapore now, but I'm afraid if my warranty will be effected in India. Can anyone confirm what Jaguar said in his post above?

Ebay singapore quotes 60D body at 53K, but considering the pricing in Ebay India which quoted 62K while the stores quoting 59K, does anyone know the actual street price for the 60D body only?

and does Tamron have international warranty?

[Gandhi]

I think what (s)he meant by spending more time taking the shots was getting everything correct during shooting itself. Get the exposure right, WB right, colors, sharpening everything right and spend as less time as possible on the computer. If you are shooting RAW, you have a safety net and you won't think about EVERYTHING during shooting. Getting a shot perfectly right out of the camera is a joy too.

P.S.: This is just my interpretation of what lucifer wanted to say.

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by EP.

Hi guys, back again. Well I have an option of buying my 60D from Singapore now, but I'm afraid if my warranty will be effected in India. Can anyone confirm what Jaguar said in his post above?

Why you need someone else when Jaguar himself can confirm
Here you go: Where and How to Buy - Warranty information for tourists - Canon Singapore - Personal

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by EP.

.....Ebay singapore quotes 60D body at 53K, but considering the pricing in Ebay India which quoted 62K while the stores quoting 59K, does anyone know the actual street price for the 60D body only?

Not a complete answer to you, but from my experience, Ebay India always quotes higher prices than shop rates, its applicable to almost everything right from a computer mouse of 100 bucks to a Pro level lens that would cost few lakhs. Therefore I would never buy from Ebay unless the product I want is only available through them. Why not pick up from the shop itself as you get it right into your hands without any worries on shipping or getting it through someone else ? Specially when you are talking about half a lakh+ !

Originally Posted by Gandhi

....getting everything correct during shooting itself. Get the exposure right, WB right, colors, sharpening everything right and spend as less time as possible on the computer.

To get everything 100% right, I should be a super PRO, even super PROs do trial and error at critical lighting situations. So I should be spending atleast 5 years to get somewhere closer to that 'getting right on field' theory. I have shot more than 10,000 images in the past 2 years and 70% of them RAW. I cant pick up a single image that does not require bit of PP. But one day I will reach that stage, may be 5 years or 10 years, nothing better than a wild guess

[bikxsans660]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Also: Has anyone got familiarity with ND filters ? Whats brands are recommended ? I need to pick up one for my travel.

In conditions of extreme light intensity, such as sunshine on snowy mountains or on the beach, or when using a camcorder, ND (Neutral Density) filters are recommended as essential. ND filters appear grey and reduce the amount of light reaching the film, they have no affect on color balance.

They have four main uses:

1) To enable slow shutter speeds to be used, especially with fast films, to record movement in subjects such as waterfalls, clouds, cars, seas etc.
2) To decrease depth of field by allowing wider apertures to be used, which helps separate subjects from their background.
3) To decrease the effective ISO of high speed film (ie: above ISO 400) and allow it to be used outdoors in blight situations.
4) To allow cine and video cameras (which have fixed shutter speeds) to film subjects such as snow, sand or other bright scenes which would normally cause over-exposure.

I would certainly recommend a Hoya ND x2, x4 or x8 (depends upon your usage) or try a Kenko ND filter. Also check the diameter of your Lens. Although a tad expensive, but worth the money.

Have been using Hoya UV and ND for some time now and must say i am satisfied till date. Protects the lens from dust and those uncertain hits too.

Cheers.

[EP.]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Why you need someone else when Jaguar himself can confirm
Here you go: Where and How to Buy - Warranty information for tourists - Canon Singapore - Personal

Thanks man, u have earned my trust

[lucifer1881]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I think what (s)he meant by spending more time taking the shots was getting everything correct during shooting itself. Get the exposure right, WB right, colors, sharpening everything right and spend as less time as possible on the computer. If you are shooting RAW, you have a safety net and you won't think about EVERYTHING during shooting. Getting a shot perfectly right out of the camera is a joy too.

P.S.: This is just my interpretation of what lucifer wanted to say.

You have nailed it perfectly. Thank you for saying what I properly could not say for myself.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

You have totally got the RAW thing wrong, havent you.
Shooting RAW does not mean you have to process each and every shot.
For example in DPP, you can select a Camera setting, for example "Landscape scene mode" and process all pics in batch. So spending 10 seconds will be enough to select all 100 shots you took, and press the convert button.
Now there can be 2 brilliantly composed shots which require post processing, you can spend time on those.
Your camera is not perfect, it may meter the scene wrong, so having RAW always give you better chance of recovering a shot which was composed well.
you may also have a shot which requires much higher dynamic range to render better, and your camera may be clipping highlights drastically in JPEG.

So shooting RAW will only increase your storage space... everything else is not an issue!

Going by your trivial example, if all my PP needs were to batch process in landscape scene mode would I not be better served by switching to the mode in my camera and then shooting? Why spend even those 10 seconds running batch when I can get it right in-camera?

Secondly, modern cameras meter quite well. It makes more sense to understand how your camera meters and to make yourself familiar with how it works in different situations. That way with a little exposure compensation, you will get the exposure right more often than not in-camera itself. Why bother with all the exposure correction in post?

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Also: Has anyone got familiarity with ND filters ? Whats brands are recommended ? I need to pick up one for my travel.

Except what others said, ND filters are also used for Long exposures to specifically provide effects. For example hazed moving clouds and water turned into mist.

But most important use of ND filters is to remove people from pictures. Stack 2 Lee Big stoppers and set the camera to 180sec @ f12, ISO 200 and you effectively will leave moving objects out of the picture and only perfectly still objects stay in the frame.

Also you need to know what ND filter you want, ND Grad, Reverse Grad, Soft Edge, Hard Edge, etc.

I have used Lee, Hitech (hitek??), Hoya and Cokin. Anything other than Lee leaves a color cast on long exposures.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

Going by your trivial example, if all my PP needs were to batch process in landscape scene mode would I not be better served by switching to the mode in my camera and then shooting? Why spend even those 10 seconds running batch when I can get it right in-camera?

Secondly, modern cameras meter quite well. It makes more sense to understand how your camera meters and to make yourself familiar with how it works in different situations. That way with a little exposure compensation, you will get the exposure right more often than not in-camera itself. Why bother with all the exposure correction in post?

Well RAW format preserves all the information collected by the camera. The in camera jpeg does a lot of processing and on top of that it is a lossy compression, hence you may loose some fine details. Things were a bit better in the film days as the camera had no hand in processing the image. That was done by the photographers, the developer and the printer. In case of digital, the camera takes a lot of decision out of of your hand and generates the jpeg primarily to what the programmer though was the best bet. I would like to take those decisions myself and not by some programmer. What most of the pros do is

1. Shoot RAW, and if the facility is available RAW + jpeg.
2. Download both and use the jpeg for initial inspection. This enables you to judge the composition and other criteria. In case there is no RAW + jpeg available, use batch process to generate jpeg.
3. Once you select the shots you like, process then RAW

The main USP of RAW format is that all the information is there, unlike jpeg. If you are not satisfied with your PP results you can try again. RAW processors are evolving every day. So a PP may get better noise reduction and extract more signal from you image in future. This is analogous to using a better scanner for you film negatives. An inexpensive scanner would do for most of the jobs, an expensive one for higher quality output, and a top-of-line drum scanner for those once in a lifetime images which need to be blown up to exhibition prints (viewed at close distance), where every details is crystal clear.

There fore I am in favour of shooting and archiving RAW images. If I feel lazy I would just batch process them for WEB or 6x4 prints, but spend time and effort to process in the RAW PP, those few images that I like the best. In short I would not forgo the facility of getting most out of my images, just because I am lazy, or am running out of space, and lament later on.