Our own private ski area for the day (New camera tr)

[crashnburn'd]

all you old tgr farts are a bunch of bitches on here, I have seen you all post alot shittier pictures than the ones in here. Alot of the guys who posted shit in here are pretty huge beaters and dont have alot of room to talk...

heh... Since I was about the only critical one, I suppose I'll feed you.

First off, I'd just like to say that most of the newer people here are an even bigger group of bitches than the old crowd.

Second, AKPM can take my post however he wishes. If he thinks his pictures are the shit the way they are and thinks I'm an ass for saying otherwise, well, good for him. If he reads what I wrote and thinks that maybe he'll try changing his camera settings to see what happens, great. If he really loves photography as much as he seems to, I'd think he'd keep an open mind when people make suggestions.

I'm know I've posted pictures that were a lot worse in terms of quality, but then again, so has he.

[4-TEEF]

So a question about RAW why doesn't adobe photoshop recongnize it on my computer??? I figure it should right?

Nikon uses their own version of RAW called ".nef" I think... maybe... Anyways, there is a photoshop plug in from Nikon that lets you open them. Check their site.

I personally have very little use for using raw when shooting on snow. It is very helpful in mixed lighting scenarios like a room lit with tungsten and also sun through a window but not so much outdoors... You give up a LOT in terms of card capacity, frames per second and increased processing time.

RAW is safer and lets you tweek a lot on import but you can deal with all of these things by dialing in your camera WHEN you are shooting if you know what you are doing.

[CS]

So a question about RAW why doesn't adobe photoshop recongnize it on my computer??? I figure it should right?

You have to convert the RAW file to a tiff file that PS can read. I don't know what the Cannon file is as I shoot Nikon. Like TEEF said, there should be a plug-in for it.

Nikon uses their own version of RAW called ".nef" I think... maybe... Anyways, there is a photoshop plug in from Nikon that lets you open them. Check their site.

I personally have very little use for using raw when shooting on snow. It is very helpful in mixed lighting scenarios like a room lit with tungsten and also sun through a window but not so much outdoors... You give up a LOT in terms of card capacity, frames per second and increased processing time.

RAW is safer and lets you tweek a lot on import but you can deal with all of these things by dialing in your camera WHEN you are shooting if you know what you are doing.

Card capacity is cheap for a file that is much larger to work with and hence gives you greater capabilities down the road. And as for frame rate, well, with my D200, it shoots just as fast and I have yet to overload the buffer when shooting a burst in RAW.

This can get into a huge debate about the merits of RAW v JPEG. I used to only shoot JPEG, but since I got the D200, have pretty much shot exclusively in RAW because if you ever think you might want to submit some pics to mags or whatever, JPEG won't cut it.

[ak_powder_monkey]

I shot some raw and some JPEG and the nice thing about JPEG is it makes you get the exposure right, whereas with RAW you can change whatever you want. Its weird iPhoto accepts nikon's RAW file but now Canons. Anyhow I got the black and white one printed 20x30 and damn, its sweet.

[dipstik]

AKPM,

Rule #1, don't blame it on the equipment!!! The stock lens isn't THAT bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either 1. looking to get their images published, or 2. A rich equipment masturbator that thinks anything below L-glass is shit. Don't listen to the latter.

A good photographer can make any setup work, even the poorly built kit lens. Before you go off spending money on new glass, learn the ins and outs of your new camera. Learn what all the features all, the custom functions, white balance control, etc. and you will be that much better when you have new glass to use.

Good luck!

[4-TEEF]

I shot some raw and some JPEG and the nice thing about JPEG is it makes you get the exposure right, whereas with RAW you can change whatever you want.

Not exactly true... The RAW interface allows you to adjust exposure by I think 2 stops as you open the file but this is waaaaay different than "whatever you want."

Also, if you know how to use photoshop you can pull pretty much the same amount of exposure latitude out of a jpeg if you shoot it with the in-camera sharpening and saturation turned off.

[Junker]

The terrible terrible kit lens. I just ordered a 50mm f1.6 for it though.

Are you talking about the f1.4 of 1.8? Or am I not up with the news, and Canon has a 1.6?

I agree with dipstik. Get to know your gear, try not to get hung up on "the good glass" and shoot your camera like crazy.

[ak_powder_monkey]

f1.8 I think

[4-TEEF]

Card capacity is cheap for a file that is much larger to work with and hence gives you greater capabilities down the road.

I know what you are saying but personally I don't find the capabilities that much "greater."

I shoot with my 20D set to "best quality" jpegs with all in-camera sharpening and saturation increasing turned off. The resulting file has essntially no differences to a RAW file except for fixed white balance and a much smaller file size. Your D200 is newer than my Canon 20D so maybe something has changed in how RAWs are captured and there is something I'm missing.

And as for frame rate, well, with my D200, it shoots just as fast and I have yet to overload the buffer when shooting a burst in RAW.

Your D200 looks pretty sweet in this regard. Nikon advertises 37/22 frames (JPEG/RAW) My 20D advertises Up to 30 JPEG or 11 RAW frames but I have found real world results to be more like 10-15 frames on Jpeg before the camera starts slowing down.

since I got the D200, have pretty much shot exclusively in RAW because if you ever think you might want to submit some pics to mags or whatever, JPEG won't cut it.

I've had a number of photos published and every one of them was shot as jpeg. These shots weren't in Powder or anything like that but I don't know why a magazine would require RAW as it would add all sorts of processing time to their workflow...

Anyways, whatever works for you is great. I just wanted to raise a counterpoint to your advise that AKPM should "shoot RAW without thinking about it" and "just do it." I think he should understand what RAW gives him and what it doesn't.

[mtbakerskier]

AKPM,

Here are a few pointers, and hopefully this will clear up some of the in accurate posts above.

1. Your white ballance does not look to bad. Also you should never use the auto white balance setting outside. Always set it manually to daylight.

2. Your exposures are WAY OFF. BUY A HANDEHELD METER! This will allow you to make perfect exposures everytime. In fact I would almost buy this before I bought a new lense.

3. The kit lense is a POS. Dump it.

4. Photo shop does not recognize any RAW files. You need to download light room (Apples Aperature if you can afford it) and Adobes DNG converter and Camera RAW.

Basically, the .DNG RAW format is quickly becoming the industry standard for RAW iamges and you SHOULD convert all of your RAW files into .DNG' before touching them. Camera RAW is the PS plug in that allows PS to open and edit RAW files. Once you edit the RAW files you can save them as .jpeg or .tiff and then further tweak the files in PS.

REMEBER to always preserve the original un alterned RAW file directly from your camera as well as the unalterened .DNG as these are your digital equivlent of negatives.

[mtbakerskier]

I've had a number of photos published and every one of them was shot as jpeg. These shots weren't in Powder or anything like that but I don't know why a magazine would require RAW as it would add all sorts of processing time to their workflow...

There is a HUDGE difference in quality between RAW and JPEGS directly from the CAMERA. Magazines NEED RAW fiels inorder to acheive the best possible print quality by tweaking the RAW file to match there printing process and paper. This is a very EXACTING process and is specific to each publication. YOU CAN EASILY spot the difference between RAW and JPEGS in any decent mag.

[midget]

I know what you are saying but personally I don't find the capabilities that much "greater."

I shoot with my 20D set to "best quality" jpegs with all in-camera sharpening and saturation increasing turned off. The resulting file has essntially no differences to a RAW file except for fixed white balance and a much smaller file size. Your D200 is newer than my Canon 20D so maybe something has changed in how RAWs are captured and there is something I'm missing.

There is. Shoot raw. you can do 932,344,455 times more things with the photo. I do know what I am talking about here. Also with the tone curves that are built into the 20d you have quite a bit of work to do to the jpegs to get them to a usable state. The tone curves that come with the 20d suck goat balls. Shooting raw, the processing them after is simply one extra step that you have to add into your workflow vs. shooting jpeg. You also have a lot more to work with after the fact, and if you don't have the proper white balance set (you'll want a few custom ones set for different types of light, the presets aren't that great) then you are stuck with them in jpeg.

Your D200 looks pretty sweet in this regard. Nikon advertises 37/22 frames (JPEG/RAW) My 20D advertises Up to 30 JPEG or 11 RAW frames but I have found real world results to be more like 10-15 frames on Jpeg before the camera starts slowing down.

A faster memory card like a san disk ultra II, extreme, extreme III/IV will help get it through when the frame buffer fills up and the camera starts choking. However it should give you the advertised number. Try doing a firmware update, it might be something as stupid as that. Go to the manufacturer's website, go to support, look for firmware updates. Download the file, extract it, put it on your memory card, plug in the camera to power (with your A/C cord), load the firmware through the menus.

I've had a number of photos published and every one of them was shot as jpeg. These shots weren't in Powder or anything like that but I don't know why a magazine would require RAW as it would add all sorts of processing time to their workflow...

Yup it adds time to the workflow but once you get the workflow down, it isn't too bad. I highly reccomend the workflow over at www.d65.com it will shave a lot of time and make your organization 100x better. Also any legit ski magazine (or extreme sports magazine) requires raw files. Period, end of story. If you want to take your photography seriously, you should learn how to use raw. Also, use Adobe Photoshop CS2 (cs 3 demo is availalble for download now), the raw processor in there is the best thing to work with right now, once you get to know it.

Anyways, whatever works for you is great. I just wanted to raise a counterpoint to your advise that AKPM should "shoot RAW without thinking about it" and "just do it." I think he should understand what RAW gives him and what it doesn't.

Sorry to be blunt, but I think you should take some time to understand what it does before you hand out advice.

AKPM, don't run your shutter lower than 1/1000 second. You are getting shitloads of motion blur. I know you won't buy a proper light meter, so meter off your hand, something bare skin in the same direction you are shooting. You will get a more accurate light metering then off the snow. You seem to be shooting everything about 2 stops too dark. PRE-FOCUS YOUR SHOTS. You should know where they are going. Set your focus to where you want the skier in the shot, switch it to manual, don't touch the focus, then shoot. Get your exposure settings right, get your shots focused. Worry about the basics first. GET YOUR SHOTS IN FOCUS.

CS, don't use the canon/nikon software to convert from raw, then do stuff in photoshop. Just use Photoshop CS2 to convert them. You'll come out with a lot better shots in the end if you go that route.

edit: Another good thing about raw is it'sgoing to force you to not take 932,323,202,556 photos per outing. You will pick and chose your shots a lot more as if you were shooting film (not quite but a little) as you start running out of room on memory cards. Shooting a lot is good, shooting a lot of garbage is just time wasted when you have to sift through all the garbage in front of the computer.

AKPM,

Rule #1, don't blame it on the equipment!!! The stock lens isn't THAT bad. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either 1. looking to get their images published, or 2. A rich equipment masturbator that thinks anything below L-glass is shit. Don't listen to the latter.

A good photographer can make any setup work, even the poorly built kit lens. Before you go off spending money on new glass, learn the ins and outs of your new camera. Learn what all the features all, the custom functions, white balance control, etc. and you will be that much better when you have new glass to use.

Good luck!

Yah, and what he said too.

[/end photo geek rant]

[midget]

HUDGE I TELL YOU, HUDGE!

[warthog]

Good info Midget.

Listen to him AKPM and Teef- he knows what he speaks. So does MBS.

Teef- there is a big difference btwn the D200 and the 20D. I can shoot 35 shots to a burst. With a fast card, they are processed before I can turn on the LCD to look.

The 20D I sampled was not even half done after a 10 shot burst. Not sure what speed the card was, though.

I shoot in RAW for all the stuff I care about. High Quality JPEG for the other stuff. Once I get the 8gb card, I will shoot RAW always.

AKPM- Download Adobe Lightroom. You will see what you can do with RAW images. It is still in beta till Feb.

Midget- Meter off your hand eh? I'll have to try that. Just for snow shots? Or any sports shots?

[4-TEEF]

There is a HUDGE difference in quality between RAW and JPEGS directly from the CAMERA. Magazines NEED RAW fiels inorder to acheive the best possible print quality by tweaking the RAW file to match there printing process and paper. This is a very EXACTING process and is specific to each publication. YOU CAN EASILY spot the difference between RAW and JPEGS in any decent mag.

I am a photo hack and I freely admit it. I am also the first to say that I am not a "photographer" in the true sense of the word but I do have a solid understanding of photography save for my limited experience with camera RAW work flow.

The other side of the coin is that I have over 15 years of experience in prepress and print production and knowing what I know about the color variance that happens during a print run on a web press I am a little skeptical about how HUDGE the difference between these formats is in the final magazine.

Please understand that I am in no way doubting the fact that there is a difference. Pro photographers make a living by being EXTREMELY aware of the quality of their images and the quality of what I've seen from you makes it obvious that you can see the difference. I'm just saying that maybe there are a lot of people out there who can't see the difference.

Looking at AKPM's photos I still think that there are other areas of photography that he should be working on before he dives into the world of handling a RAW workflow. Just so you understand, I think similar things about my own photography. Maybe I have it backwards and starting into the RAW flow will make my shooting better...

[4-TEEF]

Midg,

Thanks for taking the time to write this response. It is much appreciated. I think a lot of the points you touch on are things that would be a lot easier for me to grasp if I was watching over your shoulder while you processed some images.

There is. Shoot raw. SNIPThe tone curves that come with the 20d suck goat balls.

I'm really interested in what you mean by this. Is it just certain areas of the curve that are not represented well? This is probably something that I would need to see on screen to properly understand...

You also have a lot more to work with after the fact, and if you don't have the proper white balance set (you'll want a few custom ones set for different types of light, the presets aren't that great) then you are stuck with them in jpeg.

This part I was well aware of. A few weeks ago I bracketed some interiors with mixed lighting, shot with auto white balance and the end result SUCKED. This definately needed to be shot in RAW.

A faster memory card like a san disk ultra II, extreme, extreme III/IV will help get it through when the frame buffer fills up and the camera starts choking. However it should give you the advertised number. Try doing a firmware update,

I have the Extreme III card and I checked the firmware about 6 months ago and it was current. I will check again.

I highly reccomend the workflow over at www.d65.com it will shave a lot of time and make your organization 100x better.

$25 for the PDF eh? Maybe I can get work to pay for it...

Also any legit ski magazine (or extreme sports magazine) requires raw files. Period, end of story.

It is interesting how quickly things change. Does powder except digital yet, or still slides only? So are you doing all your tweeking in Photoshop while still in RAW mode or do you need to convert to access all the tools?

Also, use Adobe Photoshop CS2 (cs 3 demo is availalble for download now), the raw processor in there is the best thing to work with right now, once you get to know it.

Again things change fast. A year ago all of the stuff I read was touting Canon's RAW converting software as better than Adobe's. I have CS2 so I will check out the converter.

Sorry to be blunt, but I think you should take some time to understand what it does before you hand out advice.

Point taken, but I stand by my original statement. You've brought a ton of great information to the discussion but this is complicated stuff that requires specialized software and decent computer to run it. I'm thinking AKPM is on a imac or an ibook and he is using iphoto for his import. I run iphoto on a MacMini sometimes and it has a hard enough time dealing with the jpegs off my 20D, let alone his bigger files from the new Rebel.

Set your focus to where you want the skier in the shot, switch it to manual, don't touch the focus, then shoot. Get your exposure settings right, get your shots focused. Worry about the basics first. GET YOUR SHOTS IN FOCUS.

Thanks again for the advice. Drop me a line the next time you are coming up to Snowbird.

[ak_powder_monkey]

WARNING PHOTO NERD FLAMEWAR!!!! Thanks for the tips guys

[Buzzworthy]

AKPM, keep it up man. I bet by the end of the season people will be wanting to see your pics cause you will have learned the equipment.

Maybe start your "Very own Truth sucks, my photos rule thread" thread in the Padded Room.

Put up your good shots and lets see the progression!!!

[mtbakerskier]

[QUOTE=4-TEEF;1058401]
The other side of the coin is that I have over 15 years of experience in prepress and print production and knowing what I know about the color variance that happens during a print run on a web press I am a little skeptical about how HUDGE the difference between these formats is in the final magazine.

QUOTE]


Sheet feed printing systems have a heck of a lot less variation in printing. Plus having the RAW files gives the print house more control to optimise the image for the printer in question. Since most photographers do not know jack shit about pre-press work, 99.99% of the time the color house can do a much better job of preparing the raw file than the photographer can.

Finally .jpg is a shitty file format as it looses data every time that you re-save an image.

[mtbakerskier]

Yup it adds time to the workflow but once you get the workflow down, it isn't too bad. I highly reccomend the workflow over at www.d65.com it will shave a lot of time and make your organization 100x better. Also any legit ski magazine (or extreme sports magazine) requires raw files. Period, end of story. If you want to take your photography seriously, you should learn how to use raw. Also, use Adobe Photoshop CS2 (cs 3 demo is availalble for download now), the raw processor in there is the best thing to work with right now, once you get to know it.

Anyone that even remotely cares about there digital images should buy the D-65 PDF it is quite possibly the best $25.00 you will spend on any camera gear.

[Tippster]

Midget- Meter off your hand eh? I'll have to try that. Just for snow shots? Or any sports shots?

It's pretty close to Neutral Gray. This trick works everywhere, not just in bright (snow) situations.

Do any of you guys work with a card that's 95% white on one side and the ol' 18% gray on the other? Seems like it would make metering and white balancing easier....

[midget]

I actually do have a little fold up disc that's white on one side for custom white balances, and 18% grey on the other. It's pretty dope, too bad it cost $40!

[bbirtle]

These photos are nice. As usual a lot of blahblahblah to go with it (rename this thread "Photo Geeks Slug It Out!") but what can you do.

(I envy your snow too... we're going on three weeks of dry skies over here :-( )

[phUnk]

HUDGE

HUDGE!

Lovin' it.

[truth]

CS, don't use the canon/nikon software to convert from raw, then do stuff in photoshop. Just use Photoshop CS2 to convert them. You'll come out with a lot better shots in the end if you go that route.

[/end photo geek rant]

Dunno about that. I've been very happy with Lightroom as my RAW workstation. I find it to be 10x faster and just as accurate as Photoshop. I'm anxious for the release of the final software. It saves me a ton of time dicking around in bridge since Lightroom essentially is blend of Bridge and CS2's RAW converter.