Ran across this site for mirrorless cameras yo might want to check out

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/

hey guys, I did something really stupid

I always shoot my 5d MK2 on Raw and somehow it got set to Jpeg. It got set to large JPEGs but still, I'm cringing a the lack of quality. It looks good overall but if you've shot with a dslr before, you can tell it's not at its highest quality. Some parts of the photos look almost smudged, almost a little pastely...

is there anyway I can reverse the conversion process and turn the jpegs into raw? They're all like 7-9meg files....

pretty crushed I let this happen. The JPEG shots look so bad imo I can't believe Canon even put it in.

No, once the camera packs the RAW data into a JPEG container, it's gone unless you were shooting in one of the RAW+JPEG modes.

goddddddddddd

Down so much this month + losing my photos to jpeg is really heartbreaking. I took a lot of photos in Barcelona and even inside the Sagrada Familia church.

Pretty soul crushed

ty for the link rubbrband, I'll look at it when I'm back in consumer mode

It would be great if you - or somebody else - could post a pic taken in RAW and JPEG. I would really like to see the difference (my camera doesn't shoot raw).

there is a noticeable difference in the quality of a raw file even when it's converted to a jpeg or png but the biggest difference comes in the ability to edit the color and lighting in these photos.

Dom Bower did a series of posts and videos about the advantages of RAW over JPEG on his site. They're compiled here:

http://dombowerphoto.blogspot.com/20...h-is-best.html

If you're not planning to print the pics at over 20x30 I doubt you'll see a huge difference - unless you just hate the creative license JPEG took with the pics. But then how would you know if you don't have the RAW file to compare to? Anytime you send the file to a printer, or view it on a monitor, it's getting compressed somewhere along the line.

Here is a copy of a pic i shot in raw and jpeg on a nikon. I didn't even bother to use any sort of lighting or post production as I wanted to snap and upload the pic, but there is a very clear difference in the two.

The major advantage of raw is to be able to have more data to edit photos with in lightroom or photoshop, but even without any editing there is a definite difference. If you can't see it load both pics on browser tabs and switch back and forth.

Yeah but keep in mind your browser is compressing the RAW file as well. So it's making decisions about color, contrast, etc. just like the internal camera algorithm. So the difference you're seeing is probably just in how both of those do their compressing (and then whatever interpretation your browser does on the JPEG on top of that).

Obviously yes the advantage of RAW is being able to go back and change all kinds of things like white balance, exposure, etc. But I don't think image quality should matter much compared to a max-res JPEG. Remember it's always getting converted to JPEG or something similar at some point before you see it.

Right. The JPEG algorithm in your camera takes some license with the color and contrast (and who knows what else), probably because it has to. It's the same stuff you would do to the pic in RAW, except that you make all the decisions.

I shoot in JPEG+RAW because I like to see what the JPEG compressor does to get possible ideas. Also it's a lot easier to scan through several thousand pics looking for the keepers if they've already been enhanced. Otherwise I have to boost the contrast, and usually shadows, on every one to see what pops out from the composition.

Thx for the pictures. I see the difference clearly but I'm not sure which one is the raw because both fotos are jpegs. If I had to guess I would say the one with the yellow tint to it (the second one) is the jpeg photo. Correct?

That's really amazing! I thought the difference would be in detail or sharpness and not in changed lighting or things like that.

Here is another jpeg vs raw exampel:

Sagrada Familia church

hi guys, I just bought a new flash for my camera and am looking to buy a diffuser. Should i just, for now anyways, buy a simple omnibounce or invest more money and buy Gary Dong's collapsible Lightosphere?

Try an omnibounce and see how you like it. I bought a knockoff lightsphere and it worked great, but build quality certainly wasn't what I would get from Fong.

What are you primarily shooting, and what do you need the diffuser for?

Good article on our own Mike Kelley from Strobist
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2012/11...-of-faith.html

This thread is amazing!

I took a bit of a break from poker this year, and ended up filling my spare time by becoming quite obsessed with photography - we had a trip to Italy planned, and I really wanted better photos than I got from previous holidays.

Now that I'm back I will (hopefully) contribute somewhat regularly to this thread, but in the meantime you can find some of my favourite shots on http://500px.com/dpenman - I'd appreciate any constructive criticism you guys have to offer, as it's quite rare to get anything meaningful on 500px or Google+.

Some more photos from China

Yangshuo










Tibetan Road









Longsheng Rice Terraces











Chongqing





Chengdu



Dali



Somewhere in Sichuan

very nice photos. God I love the first set the most, sick mountains

I really enjoyed looking through your set. I especially liked the motion ones, tootin broadway and city in motion, as well as some of the architecture shots. Whats your post processing like? Are most of these HDR? I'd love to hear what you did on The Descent and Tooting Broadway.

First thing I noticed that bugged me was your verticals in the first picture, as well as few others. Get those straight! Theres some fairly obvious haloing in some of the b/w photos on the second page. Not much criticism besides that, except for some stylistic preferences. But definitely some very solid work!

Thanks. The photo where the verticals bothered you - was it the shot of San Marco?

As for post-processing, it varies a great deal. For Tooting Broadway I didn't do much - just some contrast/clarity/vibrance and a levels adjustment in Lightroom. For City in Motion, it's two exposures blended by hand to achieve the amount of motion I wanted; I then finished it off in Lightroom. The Descent is actually about 9 separate frames shot handheld at the same exposure, so that I could use Photoshop to mask out the tourists on the staircase; once I had the composite of the empty staircase, I used HDR Efex Pro to stylise the image and again made final adjustments in Lightroom.

I generally use Lightroom on all of my shots, Photoshop to some degree on most of them, then on some images where I want a more stylised look I use Perfect Effects, Nik's HDR Efex Pro or Colour Efex Pro, or some combination.

A lot of my shots are HDR, and I use either Photomatix or Photoshop to blend them - generally if I want a more realistic result I use Photoshop, and rather than tone mapping I create a 32-bit TIFF which I then import back into Lightroom to make adjustments; most of the shots from Italy are done in this way, whereas the shots from Corfu are done in Photomatix (and then Perfect Effects).

As for the halos in the B&W shots, that's actually chromatic aberration that I overlooked before converting to monochrome. I've been meaning to go back and fix it, but haven't got round to it yet.

Agreed, those mountains are amazing. I also love the people crossing the lake on a door (three to a door obv). Some very cool shots.