You think that is something other than the color of the sky?

You shouldnt have said anything..:tup: now that you mention it the light boards could be toned down just a bit,.,.but over all it looks good..

I have to say it again...the shot really looks good! I dont know what problems you are seeing with JPEG..or with post processing,,,if you could be more specific or post it done the way you think it should be done, maybe I could learn something ,.,.but until then i think its excellent

JPEG Discussion
 

I know its not fashionable but I like JPEG..Unless the exposure is way off, there is no need for radical RAW processing,.and frankly call me lazy..but I figure I paid enough for this camera,so let it do its thing and save me the trouble..

Yes RAW has much more flexibility,.,.,.if you encounter a situation where radical processing is needed...but so far I think its more bother than its worth for the great majority of shots..and in the end looks the same.

As for noise, i have a 14x11 print in my hand,,shot at 1600 ISO and I see no noise..and my eyesight is fine..

Plus I can shoot a whole bunch and not worry about buffer overload,.

So anyone care to have a discussion on this? :)

This old dog is always open to learning new tricks!

I think I am going to re-visit it, as I have done with quite a few shots after I've learned new tricks.
And address the CA as mentioned above!

RAW is by far the best way to get the most information onto the image file while taking a picture. JPG mode in most cameras has gotten a lot better tho. I shoot RAW, but that's just my preference.

Personally, the RAW vs. JPEG debate is kind of silly. They both have their advantages and for the most part a jpeg image can be good enough for certain projects. I tend to shoot more JPEG than RAW in some instances, because processing RAW can be a bit more time consuming. It really depends on the shoot. For family events that will only really see Facebook, shooting RAW is overkill. Your results will be the same as shooting jpeg, but with more work. You don't need the extra dynamic range and white balance data if your shot is pretty close to what you want. JPEG has more than enough data for minor tweaks.

For a professional shoot or stuff you want to end up in your portfolio though, it's worth it to shoot RAW because you want as much image data as possible. It's all about time and money management. It would be more expensive to do a re-shoot for fashion for example, whereas it wouldn't really matter much for snapshots of your company picnic.

It's a bit silly to take sides. Some people swear by RAW, others swear by jpeg. Until cameras can handle large, lossless RAW files without breaking a sweat, there will always be a place for a compressed jpeg file. I wouldn't be surprised if something new comes around to replace both in the near future. Lossless data with the ease of jpeg. Just think, we use to think 6 megapixel jpeg files were insanely huge at one point, but technology has allowed for cameras and computers to handle them with ease.

If you know what you want to achieve in regards to color, noise, sharpness, etc, before you shoot, there is no "need" for RAW. For instance, when I shoot a car, I know my white balance is correct, I control the lighting with either my lights, and I can shoot 100 ISO, therefore I only shoot in JPEG. But, last night, I shot a concert in a bar and the lights were dim, unevenly colored, and very unevenly directed. Even using my primes @ ~f/2, I knew I had to crank the ISO up around 2000 to 3200 to shoot handheld, so I shot RAW. This way I can go in later and apply my noise correction and make subtle color balance changes in RAW. If I were to do this in Photoshop with a JPEG (at least with the resources available to me), It'd likely create artifacting and hurt the image quality, which is already less than I wanted due to the high ISO. I'll post some when I finish them.

What he said.
Since I run all of my images through Lightroom, I have the option to adjust anything... or not. But at least I have more options and control available if I decide to do something with the image.

If it's really just snapshots, something that I'm going to share untouched in a small size, or stuff I'll give away to someone who doesn't possess software that can process RAW, or it will need to be viewed on their computer (such as snapping at a friend's picnic), I'll set my camera to RAW + JPEG Small. It doesn't really take that much extra space on the card. They can have the files they need to post on Facebook and just in case there's something good on there, I'll still have a file I can work with.

There was a time when my 6mp 10D was a pretty bad-a$$ camera :rofl2:

Yes and there was a time when my Brownie Bullseye was high tech!! Do they still sell Instamatics? My first serious camera was Minolta SRT 101 and my friend had Nikon Phototomic FTN i believe..

I agree If the camera can make the correct adjustments no need for RAW..There is a program called Noise Ninja that i used to use but when I switched to Windows 8 all that software for Photoshop Elements was useless..

The Deltawing at COTA. Probably compressed thanks to Photobucket.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...ps03e4388d.jpg

So I haven't told the wife yet but I bought a new macro lens today ... a Canon 100mm 1:1 with USM AF, the works. I took some pictures at the rose garden after the rain this afternoon.

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4e5f6ad4.jpg

You better pick some of those roses for her when you tell her!!:tup:

Okay, well I told her about this morning. She wasn't too surprised. I've been softening her up for it for a month or so, telling her I was looking at lenses and thinking about buying one pretty soon. We can afford a few luxuries at this point.