[AB^2=BCxAC]

Mine Olde digital camera doesn't do RAW files, and I'm a long way from buying a camera that does. *cue moth flying out of wallet*

I'll be waiting until Nikon and Canon both do amateur cameras with full frame sensors (like the 5D or the current high end stuff), which should be about a year or two from now. That's my prerogative, although I know the quality is there to be had today if I weren't so picky.

But I'm itching to try out tweaking RAW files in Photoshop CS2 right now. And I can't find any on the net for testing and experimenting...

Does anybody have any to share? I know they're huge. I just want to try exposure correction, Zone system type stuff, etc, on something that isn't a JPEG. Nikon or Canon, it doesn't matter. If you have a decently sharp lens, all the better. Pretty please? For the sake of science?

[tooki]

What camera do you have? Some (like my Nikon Coolpix 4500) doesn't have RAW -- but it does if you put it into Service Mode and monkey with some settings. Yours might do the same.

tooki

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

I'll be waiting until Nikon and Canon both do amateur cameras with full frame sensors (like the 5D or the current high end stuff), which should be about a year or two from now. That's my prerogative, although I know the quality is there to be had today if I weren't so picky.

Your going to be waiting a long time for an FF camera from Nikon, they seem to be dedicated to the DX format. They've come out with some pro glass that's DX only. while it will work on a Full Frame camera you get the inverse of the 1.5 crop.

To me FF is like the holy grail that some people need. the Nikon D50 and D70s shoot great pix and the D50 is cheap (I'm reasonably sure it does RAW). What does FF give you that the current crop of cameras don't. Back in the day you had multiple format camera's and so a 8x10 camera would produce a lot more area then a 35mm yet the SLRs produce excellent results. Additionally Digitial SLRs with their smaller sensor produces results that are just as good. Just my $.02

Mike

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Tooki:

I have a Canon A40, which probably has the slowest autofocus-lag & shutterlag I've ever experienced (though I've heard of worse). I only use it when I absolutely can't wait for film developing, and there is no RAW support for this legacy product. It's just of that generation before RAW caught on. Mind you, in 2002 it was cool to have.

Maflynn:

Admittedly, I'm not sure if Nikon will ever embrace FF, but I hope they will. From what I've seen, getting a good wide-angle lens (20mm to 28mm in 35mm equivalent) is really hard to do with the 1.5 and 1.6 ratios. In my inexpert opinion, the current Canon S and Nikon DX lenses seem slow, produce lots of flare, or cost a hefty premium, or all of the above. And for me, wide angle primes are really important with my regular 35mm photography.

Good wide-angle lenses typically produce difficult hurdles for manufacturers, such as light fall-off, distortion, corner softness, and getting a good speed (at least f2.8): all result in greater expense for the consumer. If I'm going to pay alot for a lens that overcomes these weaknesses, as I have in the past (investment lenses), a FF sensor is the best choice so that I can make the most of the wide-angle and get decent usage with film (when I want to use my regular SLR).

I have to believe that the trickle down factor will bring FF sensors to the DSLR masses in a few years, but there sure are alot of people investing in the DX and S glass right now that makes me wonder what will happen.

[Maflynn]

I have the 12-24 Nikon lens and I've been happy with the results, the effective focal length is 18mm (1.5) at the wide end, but for what I use it for its wide enough for me.

As for the other DX lenses, I bought the very pricey 17-55 f2.8 dx and its been a dog, exchanged once and sent to Nikon for repairs, Its getting repaired now (2nd time same problem - soft). Once fixed I'm going to ebay it. I picked up the 28-70 f2.8 and have been happy with it. Its not a DX lens so if Nikon does go the FF route I should be ok. Since I have nikon glass I'm sticking with nikon, I don't want to lose my shirt switching over.

I'm of the idea, that if the current crop of DSLRs produce good images now why wait. Its kind of like the old computer analogy that there will always be a faster/newer/better computer around the corner. buy now to suit your needs now and let the future worry about itself.

Mike

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I have the 12-24 Nikon lens and I've been happy with the results, the effective focal length is 18mm (1.5) at the wide end, but for what I use it for its wide enough for me.

As for the other DX lenses, I bought the very pricey 17-55 f2.8 dx and its been a dog, exchanged once and sent to Nikon for repairs, Its getting repaired now (2nd time same problem - soft). Once fixed I'm going to ebay it. I picked up the 28-70 f2.8 and have been happy with it. Its not a DX lens so if Nikon does go the FF route I should be ok. Since I have nikon glass I'm sticking with nikon, I don't want to lose my shirt switching over.

I'm of the idea, that if the current crop of DSLRs produce good images now why wait. Its kind of like the old computer analogy that there will always be a faster/newer/better computer around the corner. buy now to suit your needs now and let the future worry about itself.

Mike

Ken Rockwell says that's a good lens, so I don't doubt it. I can imagine it's serving you pretty well. But it costs as much as the D50... Which brings me to another factor that has me waiting for 2 more years... hopefully when FF is all around, I'll be ahead in my career and can afford even the low end DSLR.

Doesn't anybody want to share a RAW file?

[Maflynn]

The thing with Ken rockwell is he doesn't fully test the lenses. If you look at some of his reviews he states that things along the line as "I assume this will perform as well as x" Not somehting I really want to hear. Overall his site is insighful and helpful

You may already know aboutdpreview if not its a great site to read the forums, and reviews. There's a lot of threads at dpreview.com of people having issues with the 17-55 lens. if you (or anybody) gets a good one then its just about the best lens out there but if not

Between the issues withh the 17-55 and finding that I now shoot longer the wide I found the 28-70 to be my liking. Since I've only been doing digital and I never used a film slr I don't notice the cropping issue. Its all the same to me.

Mike

[JustAnOl'Broad]

I shot raw one day; mostly flowers, bugs, and the like.
Mine are dumped into iPhoto and I haven't yet played with
them in CS2.
I'm on dial up and at over 3 MB each it's no fun; but if you walk me thru
burning some to CD/DVD I can throw a disk in the mail to you.
P~

[rozwado1]

Here's one of my cousin

Canon 20D (7.2MB)

edit: when you DL, Safari puts a .txt extension on it. Not sure why...

[Demonhood]

i only shoot raw. the amount of stuff you can tweak in the CS2 raw filter is impressive.
sure, i could fit like 1200 JPGs on my card, but i think the 480 RAW pix are a better investment in quality.

[JustAnOl'Broad]

I imported a raw file into CS 2 right after I got it and the file was
huge. The interface with iPhoto is alot more intuitive, so I've taken
the easy way out and just left them all in there.

Demonhood - how big is your card?
I have a Gig and a 1/2 gig and didn't remember 480 raw
as a possiblity.
*maybe my setting is different in the camera ( the L + raw)
maybe the next one down will yeild a bit smaller results.
damn, so much to learn.

[Demonhood]

i have a 4GB card.
i use the RAW setting (without the JPG) and then i convert them all to lossless DNG once i get them out of the camera. the CR2 files are typically about 7-8MB. then i convert them to JPG (thru the PS CS2 import filter), move those into iphoto for easy viewing, and backup the DNG files (my "negatives").

i've taken 6.6GB of pictures since i got my camera 2.5 months ago. it's a bit addictive. hell, i took 1.5GB worth on my trip to Oregon last weekend alone.

[villalobos]

Here is a NEF of a kitten

I agree with others here : you are missing by holding on your purchase. The actual DX are already pretty good. Wide angle lenses are indeed expensive, but the result is pretty good.

Edit : as for the other post, Safari adds a '.txt' to the file when you download it. Just erase it before opening the picture.

[Mr Kino]

what is it about RAW that makes people interested??? i own a sony cybershot p150 and those damn files are like 5 to 6 megs each and they are jpgs. what are the benefits of raw vs jpgs?

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Mr Kino

what is it about RAW that makes people interested??? i own a sony cybershot p150 and those damn files are like 5 to 6 megs each and they are jpgs. what are the benefits of raw vs jpgs?

RAW is a lossless format. You can also change a lot of parameter (WB being one of the most useful, but also exposure contrats and so on). RAW is very 'adjustable', more so than jpegs.

[Mr Kino]

Originally Posted by villalobos

RAW is a lossless format. You can also change a lot of parameter (WB being one of the most useful, but also exposure contrats and so on). RAW is very 'adjustable', more so than jpegs.

interesting, does my camera do that??? take raw pics instead of jpgs?

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Mr Kino

interesting, does my camera do that??? take raw pics instead of jpgs?

it does not.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Thanks for the files everybody! Nice work! I was glad to see a Nikon NEF file there, too.

So far, the photos were pretty wonderful to begin with, so I had an interesting time sliding parameters around just to see the various effects.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

Thanks for the files everybody! Nice work! I was glad to see a Nikon NEF file there, too.

So far, the photos were pretty wonderful to begin with, so I had an interesting time sliding parameters around just to see the various effects.

Here is a night picture. That's where the white balance filter really shines IMHO.