Comments on: Raw revisited … perhaps

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:34:24 +0000

@Eric: Ah, another voice of reason. Long ago I got tired of listening to that same refrain repeated over and over that JPG files where only for images that you didn’t care about. Snapshots, etc. I still disagree and much prefer JPG with 1:4 compression. Mind you, these files still come of my card up to 15 MB in size, depending on the complexity of the scene. They can also come out as small as about 4 MB if the scene is basically monochrome.

I am, however, willing to experiment with RAW from time to time knowing full well that technology does improve over time. But, as yet, I have never ‘seen’ an advantage, even in pictures that I take side-by-side, one RAW, the other JPG. There is never a visible or printable difference. Now, if I decide to mess up the exposure to a certain degree, perhaps more of it can be saved using RAW. Also, as mentioned before, if I mess up the white balance, it’s easier to fix in RAW. Lastly, the other excuse I’ve heard, is that when you want to really push a picture to the limits, you might get banding. Point taken. I’ve seen this happen, but only because I wanted to see if it could happen. I don’t push my pictures that far. So, I guess that it depends on how you shoot and how you post process. I don’t play on the edges, so RAW is a negative thing for me.

In the end, low compression and careful shooting will yield the same results. Also, my work flow is greatly simplified AND my files are compatible with most anything.

By: Eric Jeschke

Eric Jeschke — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:12:20 +0000

Nice to hear from someone else who is not a RAW fanatic. I sometimes shoot RAW, but like you, I am used to careful exposure from my days shooting slides, so I don’t get too many surprises.

I do realize that there are high bit depth advantages that are getting increasingly compelling. For now, I can store 3 bracketed JPEG exposures in less than the space of 1 RAW image.

There seems to be a general refrain of “there is no good reason to NOT shoot RAW” on the web these days, when, in fact, RAW processing does impact your workflow and storage requirements in significant ways!

By: reza

reza — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:33:34 +0000

yeah, there isn’t much difference between jpeg and raw if you ask me. Visually they are the same on my screen. But when I do begin to work on a photo, a RAW shot seems to be more forgiving. I have no “proof” of this, its just how it feels when I work with it. I can do much more without the photo becoming distorted.

By: Andreas Manessinger

Andreas Manessinger — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:54:58 +0000

Sure, the tripod changes a lot, and with bracketing you get even more headroom than from RAW, the only problem is, I shoot 70% of my images on the streets of Vienna, on my way to or from work, and there the tripod is not only impractical to carry around, it is also a big problem to bracket at all, because of all the moving people and objects in a city. Sure, Photoshop has nice tools to get rid of all that by now, i.e. to reduce the scene to the static elements, but that would mean bracketing for two dimensions: to get rid of moving objects, and additionally to expand dynamic range. This gets a little out of control, and if I had to do all this regularly, I would be better off with RAW.

By: Anita Jesse

Anita Jesse — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:34:33 +0000

I have drunk the Kool-Aid. I could never convince myself to go back to jpeg, but then I am not in your leagueâ€”I need that safety net Thomas mentioned. I don’t do that much converting to b&w, still I didn’t think I would ever want to give up channels. Now with CS3 and smart objects, in addition to the New-to-me-b&w adjustment layer, I may be converted on that issue.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:47:24 +0000

@Thomas: As for the black and white, I convert in Photoshop. I like having the option to either go color or black & white. Plus, I like having the control of the 3 channels.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:28:39 +0000

I can only second Andreas’ post. Of course, a good JPG is as good as any RAW (or better, as you can actually show it to people). RAW is simply more flexible, it provides me with a safety net that I use quite often… But of course, that’s just me.

Paul, I wonder what you do when converting to B&W? Do you use the in-camera conversion?

By: Adam Maas

Adam Maas — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:51:36 +0000

Note it’s not Lossless Compressed that slows the D300 down to 2.5fps, it’s 14-bit RAW mode. I always shoot my D300 in Lossless Compressed RAW mode, either at 6fps in 12-bit or 2.5fps in 14-bit.

What Lossless Compressed does do is reduce the buffer size compared to lossy compression (which is much faster for the camera to do).

By: John Watts

John Watts — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:20:17 +0000

Paul,

Welcome to the “Dark side”, LOL!!!

Your post is very intriguing, as are the links – - I’m going to give HDR a whirl, and I’ll let you know how it goes…

Cheers,

John

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:21:13 +0000

@Mark: LOL!!! Was I being an evangelist? I hope that my mind is free, which is why I was thinking of going to ‘the dark side’ once again, or at least for a few moments. For now, I’ll still believe what my eyes can see and stick with my ‘math’ theory.