I wouldn't call it a misconception.
When I teach my class, I tell my students that there are 3 ways to control light coming into the camera, F-stops, Shutter speed, and ISO.
I have used F-stops to control light from time to time, but I generally use shutter speeds, and save the F-stops for DOF.
I shoot manual 90% of the time, except for portraits (Unless its a art portrait, then its manual).
But I cannot say that doing one over the other is wrong, I just think shutter speeds are used more often for this purpose.

 

-----signature-----

I did a test for a solid month on RAW Vs JPEG, and the end result(And that is all that matters), was no different in my photos, except I had to do a helluva lot more post process work on the RAW to achieve the same end goal.
The debate of RAW Vs JPEG, will never end, and its a matter of choice in the end, and IMO if you know how to use a camera, either one will do just fine.
Stating that a person is wrong using one over the other, is incorrect and extremely rigid to rules that mean nothing in the end.
Some of the greatest photographers, never follow rules, and they do just fine.

 

-----signature-----

I do both.

For quick browsing it's nice to have the .jpg, but if I want to do any real editing like removing a tree branch or whatever, I like having the raw file to work with.

I use up card space pretty fast but I have a 16 gig in there now and a 8 and 4 as spares. The biggest downsize is doing backups. One full card is 2 dual-layer DVDs, and my external drive is getting full quickly.

 

-----signature-----

I've not read past "what prompted you" because the family are demanding my attention

I was shooting on AV, ISO 100 - F4.5ish and the shots were coming out way over exposed, so instead of switching to full manual and upping the shutter speed it was quicker and easier to close the aperture up a bit. It was exceptionally bright and sunny, brighter than any conditions I have ever shot in before.

 

-----signature-----

I'm sorry Kashani, we'll just have to disagree on that. (and that's okay, we don't always have to agree )


My reasons for saying shooting in jpg is inferior to RAW:


- Raw converters are so powerful now, it takes one click in LR to apply the same colorprofile your camera would when processing a jpg

- Raw converters these days are able to store diffrent profiles for each of your cameras, and each of your lesnes. applying what you need/like of PP automaticly on import.

- Raw converters keep getting better all the time, having the raw files lying around, will ensure that you're able to get the most out of your images, even later on.

(A friend of mine, who's quite a bit older then me, has been shooting since he was fourteen (he's fifty now) and he can see noticable differance from his old raw files when he uses an up to date rawconverter vs the converter he used back when he bought his first dig. cam (Nikon d70))


That beeing said, there are no rights or wrongs in this area, and the differances we're talking about here are minute, for now.


For fun: (very non-scientific test)


Raw vs JPG, see if you can tell which is which. The only PP thats done is I've applied the cameras color profile to the raw image, and both images are slightly sharpened (the same amount on both)

 

-----signature-----

Yes, shalis that is one of the many exceptions.


To answer you Kashani on the topic we were originally discussing:


You're ofcource right, (except one small technicality, iso settings don't affect how much light is let in, just how much the camera records - but you knew that ) those are the three ways you can regulate how much light is recorded.


Where I see the misconseption, is when people use the aperture as their main way to limit how much light they're recording. As the aperture is _mainly_ a tool to regulate depth of focus. As I stated there are probably thousands of exceptions, but I think that is a good rule of thumb to carry around in the camera bag.


I think that is especially important for beginners, because most lenses, and especially the cheap ones that come in kits, have problems with diffraction as lower aperture values.


This for instance: http://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?act=attach&typeost&id=302298 (its ~850 kb, so I posted the link only)

This is shot at f/18 @ 25mm iso 100. As you can see the forground is sharp and nice, but the background isn't at all, and you can clearly see diffraction on the mountains in the back (looks like two layers, with one layer shifter upwards a little bit)


Now, he could have gotten just as good DOF at f/8 or f/11, and wouldn't have had those annoying mountains in the back, and it's such a shame too, because it's a really nice picture. :<

 

-----signature-----

I will totally agree with that, I was just saying, that it can be done, and I cant say its wrong to do it sometimes, and IMO the best way to limit light is always with the shutter speeds.

The only difference I see in the photos you posted, is the one on the right looks alil brighter. Which was really my argument to begin with, that "For Me", I see no reason to shoot in RAW for my end result.
But I will not tell people its wrong to do it, either way, because I think both work fine if you have a eye and the knowledge of how to use a camera correctly.

And I think we rarely disagree, and when we do its on a very subjective matter

I do wanna say though, that I learned something from you awhile ago.
A while back you posted about how there was no need to go to your tightest aperture on a lens (say F-32), really no need to go above F11-F20 for the deepest DOF.
And if you do, you can actually make the photo worse because of the defraction.
I did not know that, and now I make sure to be careful not to do it (Unless I'm using very slow shutter speeds).

 

-----signature-----

Yeah, because it is a reciprocal number. 1/10 is smaller than 1/2.4

 

-----signature-----

Unless you are doing HDRI then raw is essential.

 

-----signature-----

Always nice to hear someone actually reads some of all the text I produce


An important thing to remember to get the most out of your lens is what's called hyperfocal focusing.


When you focus on a point, your focal distance is supposed to be (if the lens is as it should be) 1 third to the front of the focuspoint, and 2 thirds to the back


[you]-----[start focus]~~~~~~~~~~[focal point]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[end focus]


How great this distance is, is ofcource decided by aperture, closeness to the focal point and type of lens. For macro for instance it might be only millimeters, but for landscape it will be very long.


So, that means that in order to get the picure as good as you want it, you have to place the focal point not in the middle of the landscape, and not directly infront of you, but somewhere inbetween. That way you get as much DOF as possible, while still not having to stop down too much.


Hahaha, another theory lesson from me :>

 

-----signature-----