Would you be surprised if i told you

No,



I thought he shot mostly in khaki coloured pants...............
 
No! It doesn't surprise me.
BUT, I would like to know why!!
 
Because now he shoots with Nikons he doesn't have to worry about the camera screwing up the WB or exposure

David now :exit: to hide in his Canon bunker :D

David
 
Willid1 said:
Because now he shoots with Nikons he doesn't have to worry about the camera screwing up the WB or exposure.

David
Click to expand...

Surley its down to the photographer, not the camera! :shrug:

Isn't it? ;)
 
wontolla said:
No! It doesn't surprise me.
BUT, I would like to know why!!
Click to expand...

After taunting him with West Ham 1 Bolton 2 he let me into this little snippet.
He told me that so long as you nail the exposure which let's face it most pro togs can do with relative ease compared to us mere mortals then you don't need a wide latitude for correction which is what RAW gives us. He is very happy with his Nikon D3's and admitted most of his work is now in Jpeg. It's interesting as i know a very very good bird tog who does exactly the same so it's a bloody huge piece of humble pie for the times i have wound him up for doing that. Was an interesting conversation to be honest.
 
Willid1 said:
Because now he shoots with Nikons he doesn't have to worry about the camera screwing up the WB or exposure

David now :exit: to hide in his Canon bunker :D

David
Click to expand...

I was speaking to a Daily Mail photographer last night at the football who was saying he was having many problems with his D3s and WB/colour rendition :p
 
I've got a mate who shoots in JPEG and will only 'get it right in camera' - he refuses to post process. He does fine.
 
A couple of people I know have talked about their D3 and new d3s' having a few problems with colour and wb, especially reds not looking red. Don't think it was too serious.
 
I used to shoot RAW till I had enough experience and skill to 'remove the stabilizers' and get my Jpegs spot on.

.......Honest.....not.
 
oh....

not even on the radar, must be a genre thing..

shooting jpg doesn't surprise me though, if you're good enough to shoot it, you might as well, saves buckets of faffing afterwards..
 
Glad I googled. I was wondering why a touring car driver was shooting at all let alone in jpeg
 
shot raw when I had a 10d and 1dmkII now and then... But have never shot raw in last few years... mkIII or mkIV cant see any rerason to.. If i need to fix somehting then photoshop and jpg fix just fine :)
 
joxby said:
who the hell is Andy Rouse...:shrug:
Click to expand...

Exactly - I could tell you stories...lol

Nice photos, shame about the bloke.

And why is it that everyone assumes that people only use RAW to 'save' badly-shot images? As if people who shoot JPEG only do so because they're so damn good that they nail the exposure every time?

It was the same debate with slide film vs colour neg shooters back in the day - "oh, you only shoot negs because it gives you so much latitude that you don't have to be careful when exposing..." blah, blah, blah

I shoot RAW because I want to utilise all of the potential from any image I shoot...never mind what size the image ends up at...
Why throw a third of the information away before you've even started your P&P...?
I can sharpen in RAW, colour-correct in RAW, even do my B&W conversions in RAW the same way I used to use the channel mixer in Photoshop, but now with more control...
RAW offers you more control over your images, simple as that.

Rouse shoots JPEG because he's a lazy sod: He's found a niche-market and become very good at it, so much so that he possibly feels he doesn't need to 'try' any more...and the books and magazine articles he produces don't require the full potential that the RAW from a D3x provides.

And if comes on here to defend himself, then I will tell you the stories from the HMS Endurance trip a few years back.
 
I have a friend who is on this forum and is a professional photographer. He always shoots JPEG's. The work flow does not allow him time to process a RAW image, but he seems to get it right everytime anyway. Having been a press photographer and now has a portrait business he should get it right I guess.

I agree with Arkady that not shooting in RAW seems a bit daft when you are throwing away so much information that could be used in the image.

Me I would never shoot anything but RAW. I used to shoot RAW and JPEG, but realised that it was only giving me more grief and doubling the quantity of pictures I had on the hard drive. The original idea was to be able to view the JPEG's on any other computer without installing something like photoshop, but now there are so many software packages such as Breeze Browser that allow you to view a RAW image that there is no requirement in my life for JPEG's.

Regards

Chris
 
That does surprise me, each to their own I guess.

Personally I think that the way in which Arkady summed it up is spot on. Why throw 1/3rd of the information away. I am (nearly always) confident enough in my own ability to shoot jPeg but prefer to shoot RAW. I like the fact that I have a large file with all the detail stored and I can do non destructive editing and then take it back without loosing details.

Arron
 
Ok (I do shoot RAW occassionally, depending on how many pictures the shoot involves) those who always shoot in RAW....what do you then save your worked on image as?
Another RAW?
A TIFF?
A jpeg?

Daft, I know, but mine get saved as the highest quality jpeg I can produce (but the editing info is saved so I can simply open the RAW and resave as whatever I like exactly as it was processed to). That way, if I NEED a TIFF for ehatever reason, I can just burn one off in a few seconds.

Most of my work is done in jpeg - because each shoot is between 90-120 shots, that sort of order on a day to day basis. I did TWO features yesterday, two on Monday, two Sunday and Two on Saturday. Whilst out in France shooting the boats last week I did 6 features in two days....like other pros with that kind of pressure, I simply do not have the time or space to work on all RAWs. However, if during a shoot I come across something worth it, I will switch to RAW for that and then switch back again.

I am surprised that Rouse is shooting in jpeg though, with the archive worth of his subjects. He does get a good proportion of stock sales, not from libraries, but from reuses, where the same shot will be used in various outlets over time, in addition to his first use. I count these as "stock sales" too, just self generated ones.
 
I mainly shoot JPEG for the simple reason that I enjoy taking photos I don't enjoy sitting infront of a computer fiddling with them.
 
I save (work images) as a high-res JPEG (no cropping) about 8-10Mb, suitable for printing up to A3 and a lo-res JPEG, about 2Mb, optimised for transmission.
I therefore end up with three sub-folders in each job folder: RAW, Print and Transmission. If people require alternative sized images - such as for PPT slides, then another folder is created for those.
But I can always go back to the RAW image and have a 'play' later on if the mood takes me...If I'd shot JPEG, I'd be stuck with it as it'd been shot on the day...
 
Hi Rob,

Surprised you mention 'shot' in your line of work!!!

For the pictures I work on I save as TIFF's and keep the original RAW as taken. If I need to upload or send then I save as a JPEG usually about 1 - 2 mb.

Regards

Chris
 
Jerry Ghionis shoots JPEG too. He mentioned this at a recent seminar. Didn't convince me to change from RAW though!
 
If I need a higher-resolution image then I'll save as a TIFF, but as the 16-bit RAW files from the D3x can be saved as 80Mb TIFFs, I don't do that for all images...
 
The size of TIFFs is the reason I don't keep them either!

The D3 still shoves them out around the 70MB mark (it isn't that far behind the X version you know).

For publication jpeg is fine, straight out of the camera. Besides, most of the picture desks wouldn't recognise the difference anyway. I do work on jpegs sometimes - I just "save as" and create another, same file number with .2 as a suffix for these. You can increase the density and tweak the curves or contrast happily in jpegs - the rest can be done in camera.

Those of you who have the time and room to work on images don't know how lucky you are....I am just having a coffee break from setting up the next round of jobs. Then I'm off - either kayaking or fishing this afternoon. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top