^ shoot RAW. you can make so many adjustments in your RAW converter without degrading your image quality. I save my files only once as jpegs to limit compression. if I have to go back and make an additional change after I've already saved as jpeg, I start again from the RAW file. IMHO.

When I edit an image, I save it as TIFF for all the edition (or PSP if I am working with layers). But yes, I should be shooting RAW, everone says.

Did I get an education on WB! I will give manual  a shot and see how my pics come out tomorrow. By the way I don't even have 50 sales with all my sites combined yet so not even a considered a rookie more like a trainee in boot camp hoping to make the rank of private!

Quote from: madelaide on April 09, 2011, 18:35
PS: I still shoot JPEG - shame on me! - because I never installed Canon software! 

I was shooting in sand dunes and rocks under a slightly hazy sky yesterday. The guy I was with hasn't got anything decent because he shot on his "green square" jpg setting (he's new to photography). The shots I got needed tone-curve and WB adjustment to escape the super-flat contrast and yellow-brown cast, after which the results are excellent. There are some conditions where the standard camera functions just can't cope, even if the WB is adjusted, and you need to process in Canon's RAW processor (which, BTW, can also entirely remove CA from RAW files but not from jpgs, something that nobody seems to mention but which is increasingly important as iS becomes ever more fascist about CA rejections).

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 10, 2011, 06:12

Quote from: madelaide on April 09, 2011, 18:35
PS: I still shoot JPEG - shame on me! - because I never installed Canon software! 

I was shooting in sand dunes and rocks under a slightly hazy sky yesterday. The guy I was with hasn't got anything decent because he shot on his "green square" jpg setting (he's new to photography). The shots I got needed tone-curve and WB adjustment to escape the super-flat contrast and yellow-brown cast, after which the results are excellent. There are some conditions where the standard camera functions just can't cope, even if the WB is adjusted, and you need to process in Canon's RAW processor (which, BTW, can also entirely remove CA from RAW files but not from jpgs, something that nobody seems to mention but which is increasingly important as iS becomes ever more fascist about CA rejections).

great point about CA and other image corrections best done in RAW...

Just to clarify, by shooting JPEG I don't mean shooting in auto-everything mode. Even in my Powershot, I use aperture or manual exposure and adjust WB depending on the situation, as I explained before.

Oh dear __ so shooting RAW and fannying about with WB is really important apparently? I never realised. No plans to change though. Getting it right in-camera works OK as far as I'm concerned. It saves time in post-processing too.

Quote from: gostwyck on April 11, 2011, 01:08
Oh dear __ so shooting RAW and fannying about with WB is really important apparently? I never realised. No plans to change though. Getting it right in-camera works OK as far as I'm concerned. It saves time in post-processing too.

Yup... getting WB right in camera is important.
Believe it or not, maybe your type of photography is general and doesn't need WB control, okay, your work, but in controlled lighting, WB does mather, and not easily controlled with post processing programs, there will always be a noticeable difference unless you get it right in camera.

Patrick H.

shooting raw and adjust wb on camera raw or other "minor" setting is quite quick as we all know come on  (when travelling I do shoot always RAW)

as long as we have a fast workflow it is smooth