|
|
|
|
| [VN
Boards Archive] |
Welcome to the Vault Network
forum archive.
This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the
opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards
deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least
20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per
page).
Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50
topics per page, while others deemed of historical
signifigance may be archived in their entirety.
We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but
we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in
lieu of that.
Please enjoy the archive.
~
Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.
|
| Author |
Topic: A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
As leader of our photoclub, I'm getting ALOT of questions about how to use cameras, and one thing I've recently noticed is that many people think they should use a smaller aperture opening to limit the amount of light they take in. (in bright light they use a small aperture)
So, my question to you is this: Is this something you do? or something you did before? Just a bit curious :>
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ah-Schoo
Title: Fuzzy Caterpillar of Friendliness
Posts:
71,317
Registered:
Aug 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 68,974
User ID: 39,247
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I only fart around with aperture for DOF reasons.
-----signature-----
.
Opinion = fact. Anecdote = proof. Political label more important than either of those.
Welcome to ACF, where debate goes to die.
.
"fascist totalitarian secular progressive Zionist intellectually challenged Christian puppets." - Aerlinthina
|
|
Link to this post
|
-MrBean-
Title: Now With Extra Baldness
Posts:
13,652
Registered:
May 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,376
User ID: 98,822
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
actually, it is fairly common to get it backwards for beginners.
You have to train your brain to realize a smaller number is actually the bigger opening, which is backwards from most things in life where a bigger number is a bigger opening/object.
I have brain farts about it all the time still.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
ShalisR
Title: Cao's Haggis Hustler
Posts:
0
Registered:
Mar 27, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 17,133
User ID: 662,141
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I'm more likely just to increase the shutter speed, but there were occasions when I was in Spain that I found closing the aperture a bit (too much on occasion  ) was helpful.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
That isn't my question though Bean 
What I'm saying is this. Generally speaking you don't use the aperture to regulate the amount of light you get, you use it to control the depth of focus. You use the shutterspeed to control how much light you record. But many beginners seem to think that using the aperture is the way to go, and then forgets all about the shutterspeed.
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Ah, then you're the one I should ask Shalis, why did you close your aperture? I mean, what prompted you to think "I need a smaller aperture"
I'm not critisizing or anything here, I'm just trying to get to grips with the why and how behind it, as I'm trying to teach these people :>
I'm the kind of photographer that sits around for ages, reading up on every technicality, I've even read the entire manual for my d300, So even before I had my first SLR in my hands I knew this stuff, and have since just been practicing putting it into action (which I'm still struggling with :> )
To put things a bit more in context, here's what I'm attpempting to teach these people:
- Aperture and it's effect on your images.
- Shutterspeed and it's effect on your images.
- ISO and it's use.
- Basic composition rules ( rule of thirds, Golden Section, diagonal rule)
- Why you should shoot raw, not JPG (some of the people here should learn this as well :P )
- Why postprocessing is important.
Once I've gotten through that with everyone, I think they'll have a much better chance of going out there and getting good shots.
As for myself, I have a giant flaw. I tend to understand things quicly and once I've learned how to do something I have a hard time getting to grips with the fact that others might not understand the same thing.
For instance I've been trying to get my father to use Lightroom, because I love it so much myself. But he's been refusing to pay much attention to it, and I've not understood why untill recently. It's something as simple as the fact that's he's not comfortable working in an English enviroment, and LR isn't translated to norwegian. I mean.. the thought didn't even occur to me untill he asked if it was available in norwegian. Even though I KNOW he isn't very good in English. The problem is I am (I don't intend this as bragging, I know my English isn't perfect, but it's far better then most Norwegians) My work enviroment is in English, I have Eng. Windows, Lightroom, Photoshop, MS Office, all my games are in english. The books I read are in english (the fantasy guys in norway only translate the very most popular series, and even those are slow.. ) And it's been like that since I was 14 years old.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I have problems identifying where others think diffrently from me, so that's why I'm asking you guys, you might be able to offer me a diffrent viewpoint, and then I can approach the subject from a diffrent angle I guess.
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
|
Sorry about the wall of text :>
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
-MrBean-
Title: Now With Extra Baldness
Posts:
13,652
Registered:
May 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,376
User ID: 98,822
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Raiztlin posted:
That isn't my question though Bean
What I'm saying is this. Generally speaking you don't use the aperture to regulate the amount of light you get, you use it to control the depth of focus. You use the shutterspeed to control how much light you record. But many beginners seem to think that using the aperture is the way to go, and then forgets all about the shutterspeed.
Sorry, misread it :P
One possible reason there are less possible AP settings, so better odds to guess and get it right? Dunno, you did say they are beginners.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Stiger
Title: Nerd in Training
Posts:
6,506
Registered:
Sep 2, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 6,084
User ID: 710,825
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Ah-Schoo posted:
I only fart around with aperture for DOF reasons.
Same here. I usually keep the camera on Aperture priority 95% of the time. I make changes based on the depth I need. Let the camera figure out what shutter speed I need depending on the light.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
|
Me too stiger. And that's my point, the aperture is a tool to control the DOF, not to control the amount of light you get (unless its so bright you can't get a fast enough shutterspedd, or you need a slower shutterspeed for some reason (moving water comes to mind) and probably a thousand other exceptions)
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
kashani
Title: A Country Boy Can Survive
Posts:
15,655
Registered:
Nov 12, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,448
User ID: 856,795
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I wouldn't call it a misconception.
When I teach my class, I tell my students that there are 3 ways to control light coming into the camera, F-stops, Shutter speed, and ISO.
I have used F-stops to control light from time to time, but I generally use shutter speeds, and save the F-stops for DOF.
I shoot manual 90% of the time, except for portraits (Unless its a art portrait, then its manual).
But I cannot say that doing one over the other is wrong, I just think shutter speeds are used more often for this purpose.
-----signature-----
Nugent for president 2012
With Guns............We Are ~Citizens~.
Without Guns......We Are ~ Victims~.
For America To Live Political Correctness Must Die
|
|
Link to this post
|
kashani
Title: A Country Boy Can Survive
Posts:
15,655
Registered:
Nov 12, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,448
User ID: 856,795
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Raiztlin posted:
- Why you should shoot raw, not JPG (some of the people here should learn this as well :P )
I did a test for a solid month on RAW Vs JPEG, and the end result(And that is all that matters), was no different in my photos, except I had to do a helluva lot more post process work on the RAW to achieve the same end goal.
The debate of RAW Vs JPEG, will never end, and its a matter of choice in the end, and IMO if you know how to use a camera, either one will do just fine.
Stating that a person is wrong using one over the other, is incorrect and extremely rigid to rules that mean nothing in the end.
Some of the greatest photographers, never follow rules, and they do just fine.
-----signature-----
Nugent for president 2012
With Guns............We Are ~Citizens~.
Without Guns......We Are ~ Victims~.
For America To Live Political Correctness Must Die
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ah-Schoo
Title: Fuzzy Caterpillar of Friendliness
Posts:
71,317
Registered:
Aug 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 68,974
User ID: 39,247
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
kashani posted:
Raiztlin posted:
- Why you should shoot raw, not JPG (some of the people here should learn this as well :P )
I did a test for a solid month on RAW Vs JPEG, and the end result(And that is all that matters), was no different in my photos, except I had to do a helluva lot more post process work on the RAW to achieve the same end goal.
The debate of RAW Vs JPEG, will never end, and its a matter of choice in the end, and IMO if you know how to use a camera, either one will do just fine.
Stating that a person is wrong using one over the other, is incorrect and extremely rigid to rules that mean nothing in the end.
Some of the greatest photographers, never follow rules, and they do just fine.
I do both.
For quick browsing it's nice to have the .jpg, but if I want to do any real editing like removing a tree branch or whatever, I like having the raw file to work with.
I use up card space pretty fast but I have a 16 gig in there now and a 8 and 4 as spares. The biggest downsize is doing backups. One full card is 2 dual-layer DVDs, and my external drive is getting full quickly.
-----signature-----
.
Opinion = fact. Anecdote = proof. Political label more important than either of those.
Welcome to ACF, where debate goes to die.
.
"fascist totalitarian secular progressive Zionist intellectually challenged Christian puppets." - Aerlinthina
|
|
Link to this post
|
ShalisR
Title: Cao's Haggis Hustler
Posts:
0
Registered:
Mar 27, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 17,133
User ID: 662,141
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I've not read past "what prompted you" because the family are demanding my attention
I was shooting on AV, ISO 100 - F4.5ish and the shots were coming out way over exposed, so instead of switching to full manual and upping the shutter speed it was quicker and easier to close the aperture up a bit. It was exceptionally bright and sunny, brighter than any conditions I have ever shot in before.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I'm sorry Kashani, we'll just have to disagree on that. (and that's okay, we don't always have to agree  )
My reasons for saying shooting in jpg is inferior to RAW:
- Raw converters are so powerful now, it takes one click in LR to apply the same colorprofile your camera would when processing a jpg
- Raw converters these days are able to store diffrent profiles for each of your cameras, and each of your lesnes. applying what you need/like of PP automaticly on import.
- Raw converters keep getting better all the time, having the raw files lying around, will ensure that you're able to get the most out of your images, even later on.
(A friend of mine, who's quite a bit older then me, has been shooting since he was fourteen (he's fifty now) and he can see noticable differance from his old raw files when he uses an up to date rawconverter vs the converter he used back when he bought his first dig. cam (Nikon d70))
That beeing said, there are no rights or wrongs in this area, and the differances we're talking about here are minute, for now.
For fun: (very non-scientific test)
Raw vs JPG, see if you can tell which is which. The only PP thats done is I've applied the cameras color profile to the raw image, and both images are slightly sharpened (the same amount on both)
 
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Yes, shalis that is one of the many exceptions.
To answer you Kashani on the topic we were originally discussing:
You're ofcource right, (except one small technicality, iso settings don't affect how much light is let in, just how much the camera records - but you knew that ) those are the three ways you can regulate how much light is recorded.
Where I see the misconseption, is when people use the aperture as their main way to limit how much light they're recording. As the aperture is _mainly_ a tool to regulate depth of focus. As I stated there are probably thousands of exceptions, but I think that is a good rule of thumb to carry around in the camera bag.
I think that is especially important for beginners, because most lenses, and especially the cheap ones that come in kits, have problems with diffraction as lower aperture values.
This for instance: http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=302298 (its ~850 kb, so I posted the link only)
This is shot at f/18 @ 25mm iso 100. As you can see the forground is sharp and nice, but the background isn't at all, and you can clearly see diffraction on the mountains in the back (looks like two layers, with one layer shifter upwards a little bit)
Now, he could have gotten just as good DOF at f/8 or f/11, and wouldn't have had those annoying mountains in the back, and it's such a shame too, because it's a really nice picture. :<
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
kashani
Title: A Country Boy Can Survive
Posts:
15,655
Registered:
Nov 12, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,448
User ID: 856,795
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Raiztlin posted:
Where I see the misconseption, is when people use the aperture as their main way to limit how much light they're recording. As the aperture is _mainly_ a tool to regulate depth of focus. As I stated there are probably thousands of exceptions, but I think that is a good rule of thumb to carry around in the camera bag.
I will totally agree with that, I was just saying, that it can be done, and I cant say its wrong to do it sometimes, and IMO the best way to limit light is always with the shutter speeds.
The only difference I see in the photos you posted, is the one on the right looks alil brighter. Which was really my argument to begin with, that "For Me", I see no reason to shoot in RAW for my end result.
But I will not tell people its wrong to do it, either way, because I think both work fine if you have a eye and the knowledge of how to use a camera correctly.
And I think we rarely disagree, and when we do its on a very subjective matter
I do wanna say though, that I learned something from you awhile ago.
A while back you posted about how there was no need to go to your tightest aperture on a lens (say F-32), really no need to go above F11-F20 for the deepest DOF.
And if you do, you can actually make the photo worse because of the defraction.
I did not know that, and now I make sure to be careful not to do it (Unless I'm using very slow shutter speeds).
-----signature-----
Nugent for president 2012
With Guns............We Are ~Citizens~.
Without Guns......We Are ~ Victims~.
For America To Live Political Correctness Must Die
|
|
Link to this post
|
GhostOfACPast
Title: The Phantom Curmudgeon
Posts:
35,105
Registered:
Aug 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 34,809
User ID: 703,561
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
-MrBean- posted:
actually, it is fairly common to get it backwards for beginners.
You have to train your brain to realize a smaller number is actually the bigger opening, which is backwards from most things in life where a bigger number is a bigger opening/object.
I have brain farts about it all the time still.
Yeah, because it is a reciprocal number. 1/10 is smaller than 1/2.4
-----signature-----
.\O/
...| <- Drawing of Mohammad doing jumping jacks
...|
../.\ Support freedom of expression. Aleksandr Sdvizhkov...martyr.
Parks sat so King could walk so Obama could run. Aaaaaaaammmmmmerrrrrika F••• YEAH!
|
|
Link to this post
|
GhostOfACPast
Title: The Phantom Curmudgeon
Posts:
35,105
Registered:
Aug 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 34,809
User ID: 703,561
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
kashani posted:
Raiztlin posted:
- Why you should shoot raw, not JPG (some of the people here should learn this as well :P )
I did a test for a solid month on RAW Vs JPEG, and the end result(And that is all that matters), was no different in my photos, except I had to do a helluva lot more post process work on the RAW to achieve the same end goal.
The debate of RAW Vs JPEG, will never end, and its a matter of choice in the end, and IMO if you know how to use a camera, either one will do just fine.
Stating that a person is wrong using one over the other, is incorrect and extremely rigid to rules that mean nothing in the end.
Some of the greatest photographers, never follow rules, and they do just fine.
Unless you are doing HDRI then raw is essential.
-----signature-----
.\O/
...| <- Drawing of Mohammad doing jumping jacks
...|
../.\ Support freedom of expression. Aleksandr Sdvizhkov...martyr.
Parks sat so King could walk so Obama could run. Aaaaaaaammmmmmerrrrrika F••• YEAH!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Always nice to hear someone actually reads some of all the text I produce 
An important thing to remember to get the most out of your lens is what's called hyperfocal focusing.
When you focus on a point, your focal distance is supposed to be (if the lens is as it should be) 1 third to the front of the focuspoint, and 2 thirds to the back
[you]-----[start focus]~~~~~~~~~~[focal point]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[end focus]
How great this distance is, is ofcource decided by aperture, closeness to the focal point and type of lens. For macro for instance it might be only millimeters, but for landscape it will be very long.
So, that means that in order to get the picure as good as you want it, you have to place the focal point not in the middle of the landscape, and not directly infront of you, but somewhere inbetween. That way you get as much DOF as possible, while still not having to stop down too much.
Hahaha, another theory lesson from me :>
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
deadcactus
Posts:
38,266
Registered:
Dec 27, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 37,437
User ID: 577,555
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I personally shoot JPEG+RAW. I use the JPEGs 90% of the time, but there are some pictures where being able to go back to the RAW saved them. Admittedly, I don't know if this is a technical limit or a limit to my knowledge. For example, in the statue photo I posted a few weeks ago, I used the RAW to bring back the sky. May be a way to do that with JPEG, but I couldn't get it to work.
I'll probably switch to pure JPEG soon, but that's because I'll be gone for a month with no knowledge of how often I'll be able to download the photos. I don't see a reason to do anything but JPEG+RAW for everyday shooting though, unless you go through an absolute ton of images...
GhostOfACPast posted:
Unless you are doing HDRI then raw is essential.
I don't know about pure HDR, but HDR+ToneMapping can be done just fine with a set of JPEGs (and pseudo HDR can be done with one JPEG these days).
-----signature-----
'member dat?
True dat.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Ah-Schoo
Title: Fuzzy Caterpillar of Friendliness
Posts:
71,317
Registered:
Aug 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 68,974
User ID: 39,247
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
.jpg is 8 bits of colour info and is lossy compression. RAW is zero loss and 16 (or 32 possibly) bits of colour data. The camera sees a lot more than is stored in a .jpg. On high quality jpg the loss really isn't noticeable to the human eye unless you're zooooooooooming in.
As kashani has basically pointed out we don't see much more than what's in the .jpg so for most things it doesn't matter.
But ... with the raw file you can do things like recover your lost sky, or deep shadows. That's great for people like me who take crappy pictures (I mean haven't mastered lighting issues and camera settings. Yeah, crappy pictures.) . kash doesn't need raw because he just starts with good pictures.
-----signature-----
.
Opinion = fact. Anecdote = proof. Political label more important than either of those.
Welcome to ACF, where debate goes to die.
.
"fascist totalitarian secular progressive Zionist intellectually challenged Christian puppets." - Aerlinthina
|
|
Link to this post
|
kashani
Title: A Country Boy Can Survive
Posts:
15,655
Registered:
Nov 12, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,448
User ID: 856,795
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Ah-Schoo posted:
Kash doesn't need raw because he just starts with good pictures.
Yea but it takes me a few to get that "Good" photo 
-----signature-----
Nugent for president 2012
With Guns............We Are ~Citizens~.
Without Guns......We Are ~ Victims~.
For America To Live Political Correctness Must Die
|
|
Link to this post
|
GhostOfACPast
Title: The Phantom Curmudgeon
Posts:
35,105
Registered:
Aug 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 34,809
User ID: 703,561
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
deadcactus posted:
I personally shoot JPEG+RAW. I use the JPEGs 90% of the time, but there are some pictures where being able to go back to the RAW saved them. Admittedly, I don't know if this is a technical limit or a limit to my knowledge. For example, in the statue photo I posted a few weeks ago, I used the RAW to bring back the sky. May be a way to do that with JPEG, but I couldn't get it to work.
I'll probably switch to pure JPEG soon, but that's because I'll be gone for a month with no knowledge of how often I'll be able to download the photos. I don't see a reason to do anything but JPEG+RAW for everyday shooting though, unless you go through an absolute ton of images...
GhostOfACPast posted:
Unless you are doing HDRI then raw is essential.
I don't know about pure HDR, but HDR+ToneMapping can be done just fine with a set of JPEGs (and pseudo HDR can be done with one JPEG these days).
Pure HDRI needs the raw but then the pure HDRI I am talking about is what is used in 3d rendering for games and Hollywood.
edit: Notice the I in hdrI.
-----signature-----
.\O/
...| <- Drawing of Mohammad doing jumping jacks
...|
../.\ Support freedom of expression. Aleksandr Sdvizhkov...martyr.
Parks sat so King could walk so Obama could run. Aaaaaaaammmmmmerrrrrika F••• YEAH!
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
That's another pet peeve of mine. People go away on trips and go "I have to shoot jpg to conserve space"
What you should be thinking is this: "I'm going away on a trip, and I'll most likely won't be able to go back and reshoot, I'd better shoot raw"
JPGs shine in controlled enviroments, raw shines where you're not all in control
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
-MrBean-
Title: Now With Extra Baldness
Posts:
13,652
Registered:
May 23, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,376
User ID: 98,822
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Raiztlin posted:
That's another pet peeve of mine. People go away on trips and go "I have to shoot jpg to conserve space"
What you should be thinking is this: "I'm going away on a trip, and I'll most likely won't be able to go back and reshoot, I'd better shoot raw"
JPGs shine in controlled enviroments, raw shines where you're not all in control
Or you can get there, shoot in raw and use all your space up in the first day, and then miss shots the rest of the time.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
|
Link to this post
|
Raiztlin
Title: Dick Tracy
Posts:
8,885
Registered:
Jan 23, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,688
User ID: 626,780
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
I'd rather have 10 decent shots then 500 worthless ones
Besides, memory is so cheap now, just buy a new memory card (you don't even need to buy high end for something like a vecation, just go for cheap with lots of room.)
-----signature-----
I has a flavor!
CC always welcome.
|
|
Link to this post
|
GhostOfACPast
Title: The Phantom Curmudgeon
Posts:
35,105
Registered:
Aug 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 34,809
User ID: 703,561
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
Raiztlin posted:
I'd rather have 10 decent shots then 500 worthless ones
Besides, memory is so cheap now, just buy a new memory card (you don't even need to buy high end for something like a vecation, just go for cheap with lots of room.)
QFT!
-----signature-----
.\O/
...| <- Drawing of Mohammad doing jumping jacks
...|
../.\ Support freedom of expression. Aleksandr Sdvizhkov...martyr.
Parks sat so King could walk so Obama could run. Aaaaaaaammmmmmerrrrrika F••• YEAH!
|
|
Link to this post
|
kashani
Title: A Country Boy Can Survive
Posts:
15,655
Registered:
Nov 12, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,448
User ID: 856,795
|
Subject:
A quick question about a common misconception (or is it)
|
"JPGs shine in controlled enviroments, raw shines where you're not all in control"
One basic rule I live by.."You are in control of the camera, the camera should never be in control of you".
And if you are, then JPEG is just fine no matter where you shoot
I can honestly say, that I have never took my camera out, that I didn't come back with shots I could use.
I still say JPEG Vs RAW is a matter of personal taste, and nothing else.
And yes I know we will agree to disagree
-----signature-----
Nugent for president 2012
With Guns............We Are ~Citizens~.
Without Guns......We Are ~ Victims~.
For America To Live Political Correctness Must Die
|
|
Link to this post
|
|
|
| © 2012. All
Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
|
