What software do you use to process?
Not a bad idea but if you need a photo immediately that was taken in RAW you can simply export it to a JPEG in something like Lightroom without making any adjustments.
How often do you use your JPEGs?
*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread
- Thread starter computerhakk
- Start date
How often do you use your JPEGs?
NikonGuy
banned
I have Lightroom ( newest version just updated ) Photoshop CC, Corel photosuite x6, and for the tablet I currently have Snapseed, and soon will download the lightroom mobile version for the tablet.
I really need to get to work now, so I'll reply when I got home.
Geoff
VIP Member
Understandable, everyone takes photos in their own way. Many times I don't have the luxury to get the exposure right manually. It is a great way to learn more about photography though. Canon lets you convert RAW photos to JPG in-camera, so if I shoot RAW only I can select which ones to convert to JPG within the camera. Generally though, if shooting sports you need the fastest FPS possible, so writing to two cards lowers the FPS.
NikonGuy
banned
I use my Jpegs probably 65% of the time right now. I'm still working on changing that though.
G80FTW
Active Member
This. :good:
Jamebonds1
Active Member
Nice picture Jason! What was name of your camera?
He's called Fred.
It's a Nikon D3200 and I shot all but one of those photos with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 lens at 10mm.
He's got a D3200.
Got my new Rokinon 35mm lens the other day. Love the bokeh you can get with it! It's really a great portrait lens.
G80FTW
Active Member
Some more from the Sigma 10-20 (apart from the pumpkins one which was done on the 55-300).
The weather has been weirdly warm for November - I'm talking 18C!
Click for full resolution on Flickr.
Those look great. How much was that lens? Iv been wanting to get a new lens to play with for my D3100 and that looks like the kind of thing I would be going for.
Would that lens also be good for night photography?
I got mine for £230 used. The f/4.0-5.6 version is £330 new and the f/3.5 version is about £400 new I think. Not sure how much it is in the USA. Check it out on Amazon.
On a tripod this lens will be fine for night photography but for handheld night/low-light photography neither the f/4.0-5.6 or the f/3.5 versions are really suitable because the apertures are too small. It's definitely made for landscapes and architectural photography so it's not really designed to be used at night without a tripod.
Here are some others from yesterday:
Had to use ISO 800 on that because of the f/4.0 aperture and relatively low light.
You can see all of the photos I have taken with this lens in my set on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/sets/72157648551118965/
Last edited:
That's why you raise the ISO
Yeah and in most situations that's fine but it'd be nicer not to have to raise it. Cleaner shots.
Yeah and in most situations that's fine but it'd be nicer not to have to raise it. Cleaner shots.
You can also make that go away in post-processing
NikonGuy
banned
You can also make that go away in post-processing
Yeah, Lightroom has a great tool that works amazingly. Its called noise reduction
You can do it very well in Photoshop too. 
Jamebonds1
Active Member
He's called Fred.
It's a Nikon D3200 and I shot all but one of those photos with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.0-5.6 lens at 10mm.
Nice! I got new camera, Canon SX510 HS. It is very good camera I ever have it.
Yeah, Lightroom has a great tool that works amazingly. Its called noise reduction
Yeah it works well and is handy. But if you do too much of it you'll end up with soft photos if you're not careful.
G80 asked if the Sigma was good at night photography. I said it'd be fine on a tripod but obviously for low-light handheld shooting it's not the most ideal and remember too that the D3100, whilst it handles noise very well, doesn't handle it as well as the higher-end models. You'll get noticeable grain at about ISO 1600 or 3200.
So whilst raising the ISO and then reducing it in post is a workaround, if you want to get a lens for handheld low-light photography then get something with a bigger aperture, eg f/2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4 so you don't have to worry about using the higher ISOs. I know they're not ultra-wide but the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 are dirt cheap and would be more ideal. Otherwise the Sigma 10-20 is fine on a tripod.
Last edited:
NikonGuy
banned
That's why you bump up the detail. And even clarity if you wish. Because then you can get rid of Noise, while still keeping all the detail. Many ways of working around it
I'll just put it out there I had the D3100 for 2 and a half years. I know very well it's low light performance. So i'll say this @ G80. There will be no way around a tripod of a stable surface of sorts for a night shot with your camera. That is only because if you raise the ISO anything above 400, the Noise just get unacceptable. The best shot you can get with the camera is a nightscape of a city or something. The lights of buildings will help hide the noise. But astrophotography, or just street photography at night, you gotta keep it at 100 ISO. Even lightroom has a hard to removing the noise because it's so high. This is just my view. Of course if I were you ask a true professional, preferably someone with a lot of knowledge on the D3100