Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: No need of RAW !!!  (Read 16818 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9092



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2007, 05:11:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
okay, now my $0.02.

I know some fairly serious photographers who still beleive in the universal reality of what is captured by a camera.  They don't want to grapple with the fact that the camera sees a different reality than the eye does.  So, they see the out-of-camera jpeg as the truthful negative.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Its neither truthful nor a negative. Its scene referred, Grayscale data.

[a href=\"http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf]http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_di...ment_basics.pdf[/url]

Which is truthful, the scene captured with Kodachrome, Ektachrome or Velvia? None.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 726


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2007, 05:31:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thinking you can capture “the” image without using RAW is like shooting with the lens cap on.    

To follow up on what Michael said, I use a 16BG SanDisk card in my P30+ and get 331 images – way more than enough!
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3388



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2007, 05:48:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If in the days of film you used to take your client's images to the local drug store, have prints made there, and then watched while the kid behind the counter cut up the original negatives with a pair of scissors and thew them in the trash, by all means shoot JPG on your next commercial assignment.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When asked why use RAW, that's exactly how I describe how JPEGs relate to RAW and I also add with RAW you also get to redevelop the film again and again and again and.......

Though I always shoot RAW + JPEG, so I don't have to waste time converting all the RAWs to JPEG for a client who is not technical and wants a rough idea of the images for culling.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2838



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2007, 05:49:41 PM »
ReplyReply

deja vu ....

Didn't we just have a 50 post thread on this a couple of weeks ago?
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3388



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2007, 05:54:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
JPEGs degrade by the way. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158991\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is that like milk, which goes off?
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Guillermo Luijk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1289



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2007, 06:04:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
deja vu ....

Didn't we just have a 50 post thread on this a couple of weeks ago?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder if there is some week in which the "RAW vs JPEG" topic could generate less than 50 different threads in all photography forums around the world.

Digital photography is a baby, still getting subscribers who cannot differentiate. Maybe in the near future a stationary state is reached where finally most people feel comfortable with the idea that RAW is best for most applications, so we don't waste more time in this discusion.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 06:05:50 PM by GLuijk » Logged

djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2007, 06:11:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Whatever happened to "the right tool for the job at hand"Huh Why does everything degenerate to "this is the right answer no matter what the question is"??

People must really be bored with what they're doing!  
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2007, 06:37:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its neither truthful nor a negative. Its scene referred, Grayscale data.

http://www.color.org/icc_white_paper_20_di...ment_basics.pdf

Which is truthful, the scene captured with Kodachrome, Ektachrome or Velvia? None.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is my point, exactly.
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Paul Kerfoot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2007, 06:47:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Recently I came across an article in a local photographic magazine (A monthly magazine called "Chaya Chandana": meaning "Beautiful Photo") written by well Known and famous pro photographer and also a three time president of a photographic club called YPS(Youth Photographic Society)and also a very good friend of mine. The contents of which distracted me a lot and created  lot of 'FUD' in me        so seeking the help and comments on this.

The translation of which is as follows:

No need to shoot at all in RAW for a common pro photographer.

Raw is meant for big commercial photographers only.

If you shoot in Jpeg you can store more images on card, since Raw will take more space it takes more load on the card.

Apart from all this,more importantly Raw is not at all required for us.

So it is better to shoot in Jpeg. In it you choose 'Fine' quality out of 'Medium', 'Large' and 'Fine', that is enough.

So, which way to go, RAW or JPEG for a common pro photographer.

I think or understand from the article that a common pro photographer means wedding and general portrait professional photographer who earns his bread and butter from photographic  assignments.

Any help and comments are greatly appreciated.

AjantaKVS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Paul Kerfoot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2007, 06:55:04 PM »
ReplyReply

The JPEG has a place but if you shoot JPEG exclusively you forfit much of the information your sensor is capable of gathering.  Have you not wasted your money on a top quality body if you shoot JPEG exclusively.

Paul Kerfoot
Logged
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2007, 06:58:24 PM »
ReplyReply

"No need of RAW"

I love flat statements in a round world.........
Logged
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 726


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2007, 07:25:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No need to shoot at all in RAW for a common pro photographer.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gee I'm glad I'm not a common pro photographer  
« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 07:26:44 PM by Iron Creek » Logged

djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2007, 08:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2007, 08:07:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd certainly pay less for a camera that doesn't do JPEG :-)

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3388



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2007, 10:48:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you eliminate all the features that most people never use, you'd be left with a shutter button!
Everyone uses a diferent subset of tools, that work for them and their needs.

Besides the JPEG customisation also relates to how Cannon DPP develops the RAW I believe, so it can be very handy for RAW too.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2007, 11:37:30 AM »
ReplyReply

WOW, What a GREAT idea! Why didn't I think of that?

Honestly, photojournalists tend to shoot JPEG, because they just want and need to register information. Space, speed, that sometimes matter more than the advantages of RAW, even more when the target media doesn't need 300dpi quality. Take a 40D for example. A photojournalist covering a basketball game, action is going on for over 30 nervewrecking seconds, of the playoffs. You shoot RAW, on those 30s, on the high speed drive mode, it means your buffer will fill up after some 25 shots, and you still have 15 seconds of game you may miss a decisive moment. Shoot JPEG, you may have 90 shots on the buffer. Since this isn't a photo you want to photoshop, you won't do much twitching, it's not for HUGE prints, you just want to get the color temperature right, by all means, there's no reason NOT to shoot JPEG ( as long as you know WHY and you know WHAT you're doing... but again, if you're shooting NBA playoffs, odds are you DO ).

I surelly wouldn't "need" for the small neighborhood magazines I work for shooting food, to shoot in RAW, since they ask me to give them high-res JPEGs. BUT, I shoot in RAW for myself. And convert them into Digital Negatives, also for the sake of my own needs, rather than those of the client.

If you shoot mostly white background, cutout images for online catalogues, that you won't need to do much conversion work afterwards, and you want fast processing to deliver to the client, yeah, shoot JPEG.

But still, I shoot RAW. First, my clients never get the RAW files, meaning I can keep them as negatives, and anytime, prove I shot those photos, as I'm the only one to have the original RAW files. As if size was an issue these days. The problem is that if you shoot first, think later about what you want, you'll eventually kill 3 16Gb cards, regardless of the camera you're using. You'll end up, after a fashion photoshoot, with 6000 photos, to select 6 from those, to send to the magazine. If you compose, think on what you want first, the first thing you'll notice, is that you'll hardly get to 200 photos on every change of clothes... I try to limit to 72. When I shoot food, I shoot even less, I usually take 8 stills to 20 still in a single dish. Because I think first, I select first, I compose before I click, and sometimes, review on the notebook to see if I got it right.

So, all in all... I'm sure any experienced pro photographer will know when to shoot JPEG, when to shoot RAW. In my case, I think the distinct advantages of RAW over JPEG are worth keeping and working with file sizes 3 to 4 times bigger, as converting my RAW files into DNGs. Because, since we're talking files...

In 20 years, I'm pretty sure Adobe will continue it's support to the DNG file format, or will provide us with tools on converting from DNG into a new standard. Since we also have to move our files from old backup formats into newer ones ( from ZIP to CD, from CD into DVD... possibly from DVD into Solid State HDs or BluRay or some other format.... ), not a big deal. Can I be sure Adobe will still support the first RAW CRW Canon format's in 20 years? Will my first photos with a 300D be still readable on the native RAW format, or only the DNG ones will survive?

Sometimes some wild advocate will buzz around some wild idea on his strong opinions about something. Well, either I'm wasting time and disk space that costs less every day of the year.... or I'm now a Big Shot Photographer and I don't realize that  
Logged
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2007, 11:47:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder how much a "JPEG-less" 1Ds III would cost, without all those JPEG-related functions I will never use ... seems like 80% of all menus and super-duper functionality are related to the customization of the in-camera JPEGs.

I just look at all those (for me) wasted buttons and functions and pine for one lone mirror-lock-up button and maybe 3 fully customizable "instant configuration" buttons ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159165\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

RAW + JPEG is useful at times
Logged
djgarcia
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2007, 12:05:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
RAW + JPEG is useful at times
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I realize everybody works differently and has different goals, hence the "for me". Just taking a wishful perspective, is all. I do wish we could customize some of those JPEG-related buttons to do something else.

Better yet would be to have dual operational modes: JPEG & JPEG-lesser configurations. There's a worthwhile and marketable (?!) UI challenge I throw at Canon .
Logged

Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII & 1DsIII, Zeiss & Leica lenses
http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3388



WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2007, 03:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
......So, all in all... I'm sure any experienced pro photographer will know when to shoot JPEG, when to shoot RAW. In my case, I think the distinct advantages of RAW over JPEG are worth keeping and working with file sizes 3 to 4 times bigger, as converting my RAW files into DNGs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd be careful - don't you know that admitting to shooting JPEGs, or worse advocating their usuage on LL is tantamount to heresy according to the pixel peepers that post on here? You are liable to be bludgeoned to death with a wealth of detailed technical analysis, that proves beyond doubt, that JPEGs are actually the tool of the Devil.  
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JessicaLuchesi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 09, 2007, 07:55:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'd be careful - don't you know that admitting to shooting JPEGs, or worse advocating their usuage on LL is tantamount to heresy according to the pixel peepers that post on here? You are liable to be bludgeoned to death with a wealth of detailed technical analysis, that proves beyond doubt, that JPEGs are actually the tool of the Devil. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=159318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, I shoot RAW. But everyone wears a different shoe size  

All I mean is, I get very suspicious of a pro photographer that claims that very few pro photographers need or should use RAW files. In my experience, only those two lines of work I mentioned could do without RAW, or are impaired by handling RAW files. Sometimes we just get locked into thinking that if our workflow is A, why would anyone need a more complex, or less complex workflow? Some newspapers ask you to shoot RAW ( I shot for a newspaper once, was "graciously required" to surrender my raw files... unselected... in DVD by the end of the day... as if it was film, and I was simply giving away my rolls for them to develop and scan ), some others, you go on uploading JPEGs as the event goes on, to an FTP server, to be selected and processed by someone else, and used on the fly. Hence, Medium Size JPEGs, hence, sRAW ( which is useless to me, why would I NOT shoot a photo in full quality, ISO 100 at all times ?).

Because with every single other line of work I can think of, you only benefit from working in RAW, from wedding photographers to advertisement, from fashion to food photography, from still life to portraits. Just to name one advantage, the fact ( I found out while testing my 40D ), CS3 will let you "develop" your JPEG photos on Camera Raw, and give you the illusion it will work just like a RAW file. But after you complete a development process on a photo, if you change your mind, or think you twitched the curves a bit too much, you can't re-open it on Camera Raw, and alter those settings, taking the settings you did as a basis. You lost your original file, it won't store by default the  "untouched" version of the file, it won't store the changes you do as changes over an original file, but rather, render the changes and that's it, you don't have an incremental process, but rather, a destructive one. Maybe CS3 can store it on a separate file, I don't know. But honestly, "raw files takes too much space" isn't an argument you'd use in a professional capacity. Or at least, any real professional photographers I know of. Instead, I rather see pros sometimes getting into debts ( my case for example ) to be always the possible one step ahead of anything that can limit or impair your working process.

Ignoring different people have different needs, is a trap, even if it's a natural one, because we judge based on our experience, and try to look at a problem from our exclusive perspective. And maybe, the guy who wrote that article, is someone whose needs are fulfilled by JPEGs... and he's not acknowledging that, well, it's HIS needs and HIS workflow. It's misleading to simply assume that nobody needs to have a workflow and requirements unlike his own  

What I think people should keep in mind is that nothing replaces personal experience in this profession ( and I speak in a professional capacity... if you're in it as a hobbist, please, it's your hobby, you have the extra freedom we don't, of doing it just for fun, and hence, do things your way ) and having that in mind, do what works for you. I just feel we should take some "hard facts" with a spoon of sugar, and suspicious of people who instead of making suggestions or sharing experiences, they try casting rules that may influence some people.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad