Better late than never

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Molaker

Molaker

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
6,084
Location
Springfield, Mo.
We just finished an 8,000 mile trip out west toting a puny Sony Cyber-Shot as our only camera.  Needless to say, our photos were somewhat lacking.  But, I just received my new Canon SX50 this last Thursday.  Now I'm anxious to take it on a trial run.  Maybe we'll head west again soon. :)
 
The Sony should have taken decent photos.

Congrats on the SX50.
 
If you haven't already done so get spare batteries.  I use Vivitar branded ones I got on Ebay and Amazon.  They work as well as the $50 Canon ones and cost about 7.50 each.

I have an older version.  It eats batteries like crazy!

I highly recommend shooting in RAW format.  Much better quality.  The disk that came with the camera has drivers to display and edit them on PC.  I think there are Mac versions as well.  I use Canon's Digital Photo Professionail (free) and it produces great results. Once I'm done tweaking & editing I export the image as. JPG.
 
Spare batteries are on my list.  I hated waiting for the included battery to take a charge before I could use it. :mad:

As for the Sony taking good pictures, part of the problem was no view finder.  It's hard to see the screen in bright daylight.  Since we have to view most sights from the MH, zooming without a viewfinder sucked.  The little Sony is great for snapshots, but not so good for landscape and that buffalo on the hill way over there.
 
A viewfinder is a 'must' on any cameras I buy.
 
Alas, the viewfinder will soon become extinct.  The few remaining ones will probably be tiny OLED screens with an eyepiece pretending to be a viewfinder.  Kind of like what they did with video cameras years ago.
 
8Muddypaws said:
I highly recommend shooting in RAW format.  Much better quality.
Click to expand...
That is terrible advice. The vast majority of camera users do not want to sit at their computer for an hour or two every time they shoot photos. And learning how to post process RAW is a very time consuming event.

RAW does not have better quality. Both RAW and jpg start from the same image. The camera post processes the RAW file and produces a jpg or you take the RAW and post process it into a jpg. The first problem is most people can't even get their post processed jpg to look as good as the jpg that comes out of the camera.
 
SeilerBird said:
That is terrible advice. The vast majority of camera users do not want to sit at their computer for an hour or two every time they shoot photos. And learning how to post process RAW is a very time consuming event.
Click to expand...

Seiler, I strongly disagree with you.  RAW is the best way to capture an image.  Most people only process their favorite images and once you learn a few basics it only takes a few clicks to make a huge difference in an image. 
 
MN Blue Skies said:
Seiler, I strongly disagree with you.  RAW is the best way to capture an image.  Most people only process their favorite images and once you learn a few basics it only takes a few clicks to make a huge difference in an image.
Click to expand...
RAW is the best way only if you have put in the time and effort to learn how to post process RAW images. It is a very time intensive process to learn it. I see images on a photography forum taken in RAW and butchered frequently.

Edit: Removed excess white space.
 
Seiler, I strongly disagree with you.  RAW is the best way to capture an image.  Most people only process their favorite images and once you learn a few basics it only takes a few clicks to make a huge difference in an image. 
Click to expand...

That statement is likely true for most people who shoot in RAW (most folks don't), but I agree with Tom that RAW is great for those who wish to spend the time and effort to not only learn to do it right, but to spend the time after each session processing the shots, especially if they want to modify the pix with the least possible degradation, yet for most folks the processing done by the camera is more than adequate, superb in fact, for what they'll do with the pictures.

If I had to work from RAW with everything I shoot, there wouldn't be much output, because it would be more trouble than it's worth TO ME (I suspect most folks think the same way) -- and you're not the one using my pix after the processing of either type.
 
Seiler, you are absolutely wrong on this.  Every serious digital photographer in the world disagrees with you.  Every book on digital photography ever printed disagrees with you.

So the answer is to shoot RAW+JPG!  That way if you take that that award winning shot that just needs a little more contrast or a slight change in color to be perfect you'll have the RAW format to play with.  I simply seperate the RAW and JPG images into different folders on the computer when I import them.  If I'm not going to edit the RAW images I delete them.

You never know when that casual shot of the moose napping in the middle of the road is going to be the one you want to blow up to poster size.  You cannot do that with a JPG with acceptable results IMHO.

I carry several 16&32GB cards in my camera bag.  A 32GB card will hold over a thousand RAW + JPG images, I'm seeing 32GB cards on sale for around $12.  It's probably not worth buying smaller ones anymore.

I tried using 'hacked' firmware in my old SX so I could shoot RAW images on it too but the firmware crashed one too many times.  Two things I want out of it's replacement are better low light video recording and RAW images!

You can be sure the image I used for my avatar was shot in RAW format.
 
When someone writes that you are giving terrible advice, either just accept that you know nothing and the respondent is a genius, or totally ignore the statement. 

 
Well, I can tell you the only thing I'll do in RAW I'm too old to do.  I take pictures to share with friends and family and have no desire to be a professional photographer.  I agree with Seilerbird on this one.
 
He has some good images in his portfolio, so he's not totally ignorant.  But he IS a bit of a contrarian and has an opposing comment to almost anything I post.  I'm beginning to wonder if it's personal?

I was a professional photographer for a time and actually have a degree in photography.  I put myself through college by working for several modeling agencies in the SF Bay Area.  Thousands upon thousands of good quality images in my portfolio, which I will not share online because they are my material and mostly aren't digital.  I've photographed hundreds of weddings, fashion models, sports events, disaster scenes, kids, pets, landscapes, nudes, and some things that cannot be identified because I intended them to be a mystery.  I used large format cameras as much as I could with my favorite being the heavy and weird Mamiya RB-67, and an old Rollei twin lens reflex.  I know a little bit about image quality.
 
Everything seems personal after a bit. I agree with him only on the point that some folks do not need to shoot raw.    RAW processing does not need to be difficult.  JPG is just an easy way to shoot and post.  The 'Terriblle', is insulting, something we do not need to do here.
 
8Muddypaws said:
Seiler, you are absolutely wrong on this.  Every serious digital photographer in the world disagrees with you.  Every book on digital photography ever printed disagrees with you.
Click to expand...
Every serious photographers in the world should shoot RAW. However for the average shooter RAW is way too much work and a waste of time.
 
Time out!

I thought I would just let you guys know I bought a new camera and hope to use it on upcoming treks.  I don't need lessons on photo processing.  Geez!!!  :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,238 (members: 23, guests: 1,215)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,968
Posts
1,388,410
Members
137,721
Latest member
Dmac3003
Back
Top Bottom