The Digital Negative

[steve.ledger]

John Rayner asserts that photographers who shoot RAW are just being lazy.
I counter this by saying that with a RAW capable camera, JPEG is the lazy mans snapshot.

Briefy;
What are the advantages of raw format.
• All your conversions are done on a fast powerful computer at your convenience.
• Images can be 'fixed' in ways which would be very difficult without the raw sensor data. (Purple fringing for example)
• You get the full range of data from the sensor.
• Without sharpening or compression you have not 'lost' any data.
• You can change your mind about some of the picture settings after you have taken it.

I'd like to read objective comments from anyone with a RAW capable digital camera who have chosen for or against RAW.
This isn't a vote or opportunity to gloat, but rather an analysis of the perception or usefullness that the Digital Negative has (or not) for users.

What say you?

[RTK]

I don't know... Maybe John searched "benefits of RAW" on Google and locked on the number one and two results:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

RAW is too much work... The whole article is based on the following notion:

You take the perfect shot with a jpg and a crappy one with RAW... The former won't save the day... Just the assumption that there is a "perfect" is silly. I'm not a photographer or client but I would think artistic 'preference' and 'intent' matters also?

The 'article' lists the following disadvantages with RAW (shortened):

(1) It's too much work... (Well, duh...)

(2) Formats are not standardized... (Unless you built you camera yourself, it comes with software, or opens in Adobe Lighroom. I promise!)

(3) You can't send them to clients and expect them to be able to open them... (If they expect to receive RAW file, one would expect them to know what to do with them, no? Worse comes to worst, convert them to JPG or ask them to buy Lightroom.)

(4) Each camera maker has its own incompatible format, and they can't be saved... (WTF? It's just data (and and a file...) Again, any software nowadays...)

(5) Different software opens up the files differently. The same files look different... (AdobeRGB and sRGB looks different too... It doesn’t matter what it "looks" like... It's RAW data.. Make it look the way you want it to look...

(6) Did I say it takes a long time... (Yes, it's a lot of work and time... on a 486 or a C64. Who said perfection was easy?)

(7) Today's versions of software may not be able to open older raw files, losing your images forever... (Yeah, right, grandma... If there is data, it can be read and interpreted in the future. Worse comes to worst – convert it to a JPG just before Armageddon happens ).

http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=430215&seqNum=3

RAW is a lot of work, and take up A LOT OF SPACE (2005). This was before Adobe started peddling Lightroom 2. It's an all-together different story now.

?

Instead of the technical benefits:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

(Granted... It was ano 2004...)

However, JPG hasn't changed since then, it’s still 8 bits... RAW is now up to 14 bit in the Canon Mark III. That's a lot more range and information to manipulate and tweak.

What do I think personally? You RAW folks are nuts! Sure, all professional fine-art photographers use it, but it's tooo much work! Yes, I'm lazy with my JPGs... BUT I can fill my hard drive with "keepers" faster than you RAW shooter-tweakers can!

My 2 cents.

Risto

[raynerj1]

I am sorry if you took my comment that way Steve. No offence was intended.

[steve.ledger]

No offence taken here John.
You simply repeated a statement which I consider to be very incorrect.
Rather than spoil the Ultra-Zoom thread with a continued discussion about slr's & RAW, I suggested a new thread be started. In the event, 'tis I who have started the thread instead

As for 'You RAW folks are nuts! ' - well possibly, but I'm cool with that..

[raynerj1]

Steve,

If you are not rushed to take a shot, do you typically take your shots in manual mode, or in one of the automatic modes (Aperture/exposure). When I have the time to take a good shot it is always in manual mode. I typically use RAW when I am pressed for time and need a great shot. That does not happen very often.

My default settings are for the largest file possible at the highest quality possible. The .jpgs are rather large, but then the shots are rather large. What are your default savings settings?

[joel]

I can't say it any better than Risto's post. Raw offers so many advantages over jpg that it is hardly worth the discussion. That said one can get very good images with minimal effort by using the jpg format if one doesn't have the inclination or the time to shoot Raw and convert the images.

For those concerned about multiple Raw file formats and the possibilities of future problems with opening these files Adobe has a DNG converter that will convert any Raw image into the DNG format which they are trying to make into a universal Raw file. It is free.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...atform=Windows

Joel

[steve.ledger]

Not ever being rushed for time or simply a happy snapper, I use the camera in a manner which suits how I feel about the result I'm after at the time I take the shot. But I know that shooting RAW means that I have the freedom to do pretty much what I like with the photo later. I have no default setting, even on Auto mode I will reset the maximum ISO accordingly.
I have no concern for the size of the image (megabytes). SD cards are cheap.
When I want to simply snap a scene or object I use the PnS I carry.
Both cams are tools which have a purpose to me.

RAW = Really Awesome Workability

[Egg Bramhill]

Most of this is gobbledygook to me but as a matter of interest is it possible (is there a camera capable of) saving a shot in both raw and jpg at the same time?

I realise there would be a file size increase and longer delay between shots but it would suit both camps at the same time.

[steve.ledger]

RAW capable cams suit both camps as is.
You set your camera to write to the file type you prefer.

A user preferrence or desire towards a particular file type would pre suppose that the other outputs are unrequired.
If you prefer to use RAW to develop your own JPG output (this is not 'conversion') then it would follow that you have no use for an in-camera processed JPG.
On the other hand if you feel that your camera setup and it's own JPG processing is satisfactory, RAW is likely of no use to you either.

[Egg Bramhill]

I can follow that argument to a certain point, but why shouldn't it be desirable, sometimes, to have both formats?

For example if you wished to share a wedding photo/s very rapidly across the globe. From my understanding of the different formats then a jpg formatted image whilst inferior in quality requires no post-production whilst a raw image does. So for rapid distribution the jpg format would be better.

But if the camera also had the capabilities of dual file type saving, the raw image would be available for post production at a later date.

I merely asked if such a set-up was available