Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Irritated RAW  (Read 11049 times)
Piboy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



WWW
« on: January 27, 2011, 08:07:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I am a photo enthusiast who likes to buy an occasional new camera.  My last 3 were 5DII, Lumix LX3, and am eagerly awaiting the arrival of my GH2.  I am about to relive a recurring nightmare.   When I bought the 5DII and LX3 I had CS3.  Of course it would not support either RAW format and after using the extra step of DNG conversion for a while I upgraded to CS4.  Now as I await my GH2 I am faced with the same situation.  Work around for a few months and then likely upgrade again as the extra step of DNG conversion fatigues me again. I know what you may think, anyone who can buy these cameras should stop whining and pony up the $200 every 2 years for an upgrade.  That is true but it is the whole tower of babel situation in photography that is irritating.  Angry

I see the individual solution options as follows:
1. In the future do a better job of synchronizing my software upgrades with my camera purchases (Now I like to upgrade about every other version)

2. Limit future camera purchases to those capable of in camera DNG output (Hmmmm   $27k Leica or Hassie vs $200 upgrade seems foolish)

3. Shoot JPEG…….

4. Get enthused about the incredible video capabilities of the GH2 and by the time my feeble mind gets some semblance of competency with video it will be time to upgrade anyway or god forbid the industry as a whole comes up with a solution…   Which leads to:

Industry  solution:
1. $200 rebate from any manufacturer who releases a RAW format that CS or LR Current Number – 1 or 2 doesn’t recognize

2. Much like medicine 20 years ago did adopt a universal and updatable image format recognized by all. 

I know this rant isn’t unique nor am I oblivious to fact that universal RAW format has been discussed ad nauseum.  Thanks for letting me ventilate.  Maybe next week as I download my first pics and have to take the extra step of conversion I’ll feel better.
 Grin
Sam Ward
samwardphoto.com
Logged

Sam W.
samwardphoto.com
Aristoc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2011, 08:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

same thing happened to me but only once.

You see I sold my crappy P7000 and bought a Canon S95. W'ell I had CS4. Guess what. It didn't support S95. So , another $200 to get CS5 to support my new S95. In the future, I will definitely think about the software investment that I have on my computer - even thought it is not as tangible as a new camera !
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5257


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2011, 08:21:05 PM »
ReplyReply

That is true but it is the whole tower of babel situation in photography that is irritating.  Angry

And exactly who do you blame for this?

#1- Do you blame Adobe for developing software for the currently available camera hardware and then requires a DNG Converter conversion or upgrade to the current version of ACR/LR because the raw file formats didn't exisist when the software was released?

#2- Or do you blame the camera makers for failing to come up with and adhere to some sort of basic raw file format standards...

If you select #1, I don't have any sympathy for you because you clearly don't understand the current situation, if #2, then you need to be blaming the perpetrators of this situation; that's camera companies...

Yes, it's a pain in the arse...but who caused it?

« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 08:23:08 PM by Schewe » Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2011, 08:58:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Learn & use the raw processing software that comes with your camera. Then you can use any version of Photoshop you have.
Logged

~ CB
Aristoc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2011, 09:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Learn & use the raw processing software that comes with your camera. Then you can use any version of Photoshop you have.

Ahh yes i could have used canon's raw processor , but it's worse than Nikons Smiley
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2011, 09:19:50 PM »
ReplyReply

yes i could have used canon's raw processor , but it's worse than Nikons

But it's included in the price of the camera. One could even consider it "free".   Roll Eyes
Logged

~ CB
Piboy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2011, 09:25:30 PM »
ReplyReply

#2- Or do you blame the camera makers for failing to come up with and adhere to some sort of basic raw file format standards...

Yes, it's a pain in the arse...but who caused it?


Of course the answer is #2.  As I alluded to previously medicine got it right with DICOM.  Numerous competing imaging systems able to have a standard format for archiving and interpreting enormous and complex imagery.  Certainly the situation isn't as dire if CR2 and CW2 can't be viewed on each others viewing software or Adobe. Adobe can't be expected to keep up with an industry that has no interest in correcting its "tower of babel"

Learn & use the raw processing software that comes with your camera. Then you can use any version of Photoshop you have.
I am aware of many possible work arounds and please see that my post was mostly tongue in cheek.  Just was using my current and recurrent situation to revisit an ongoing and irritating industry -not Adobe- problem.
Logged

Sam W.
samwardphoto.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5257


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2011, 09:40:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Adobe can't be expected to keep up with an industry that has no interest in correcting its "tower of babel"

I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.

Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2011, 10:10:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Just was using my current and recurrent situation to revisit an ongoing and irritating industry -not Adobe- problem.

Yeah, been there, done that, too. It's quite the treadmill, ain't it?   Undecided
Logged

~ CB
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743


« Reply #9 on: January 27, 2011, 11:12:21 PM »
ReplyReply


2. Limit future camera purchases to those capable of in camera DNG output (Hmmmm   $27k Leica or Hassie vs $200 upgrade seems foolish)


so buy Pentax or Ricoh or Samsung... you will get native in camera .DNG
Logged
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2011, 02:03:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.

Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.

Fully agree, using the DNG converter (which is free) there's always backward compatibility to older versions of Photoshop / Lightroom.

Only time it didn't fully work (but not fatally flawed) is when Adobe went to Process 2010. To be able to use that improved raw processing you needed to get the latest Adobe version. On the other hand that was such a major improvement that Adobe can rightfully claim that we pay for that.

Cheapest option to be able to use process 2010 is get Photoshop Elements 9 and use the ACR 6.X raw converter in that (80$ after mail in rebate for a full/new version at the moment),  Upgrading to Lightroom 3 or CS5 are the other (but more expensive) options. I personally went the Lightroom upgrade route (have been on Lightroom since Beta 1 so probably not objective) and the 99$ for the upgrade to V3 was worth it, for process 2010 and a lot of other small enhancements that sometimes take a little effort to get used to (all change is hard) but once you get the hang of it are real improvements.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2011, 02:13:39 AM by pegelli » Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2011, 06:14:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Another option is some cameras have tiff, not ideal I'll grant you, but better than a jpeg.
Logged
Piboy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2011, 07:02:10 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks all for your replies.  Not having to search for mirror lock up while shooting with the GH2 should afford me the extra time needed to add DNG conversion to my workflow Cheesy
Of course the individual solution for me will be to upgrade to CS5 or take the LR plunge.
Logged

Sam W.
samwardphoto.com
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1411


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2011, 07:04:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Another option is some cameras have tiff, not ideal I'll grant you, but better than a jpeg.


There is only one very minor way in which an in-camera TIFF is better than a JPEG, and that's the lack of lossy compression. In every other way, the TIFF is just as bad as the JPEG -- it's "fully baked" in camera, with all the white balance, white and black point settings, sharpening, etc. fixed in place -- and in one way it is significantly worse than the JPEG because the file size is so much larger, larger even than a raw file.

I remember having this same discussion with some of my Nikon-shooting colleagues back at the dawn of the digital era, when they thought the in-camera TIFF was the best way to shoot. It's not.


To the OP: Making the switch to CS5 or LR3 has another major advantage, in addition to being able to process your raw files directly. You get the new Process 2010, which has made a significant difference in the image quality from my cameras, especially the GF1. Do it, you won't be sorry.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2011, 10:08:40 AM »
ReplyReply


There is only one very minor way in which an in-camera TIFF is better than a JPEG, and that's the lack of lossy compression. In every other way, the TIFF is just as bad as the JPEG -- it's "fully baked" in camera, with all the white balance, white and black point settings, sharpening, etc. fixed in place -- and in one way it is significantly worse than the JPEG because the file size is so much larger, larger even than a raw file.

I remember having this same discussion with some of my Nikon-shooting colleagues back at the dawn of the digital era, when they thought the in-camera TIFF was the best way to shoot. It's not.


To the OP: Making the switch to CS5 or LR3 has another major advantage, in addition to being able to process your raw files directly. You get the new Process 2010, which has made a significant difference in the image quality from my cameras, especially the GF1. Do it, you won't be sorry.
Then it's still better, memory is cheaper than it's ever been.
Logged
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1411


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2011, 12:25:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Then it's still better, memory is cheaper than it's ever been.

True, but the time it takes to download the files is 3x greater than raw and 10x or 20x greater than jpeg files. The lossy compression of JPEG is not a real issue as long as one chooses the highest jpeg quality setting. If I had to choose between in-camera TIFF and in-cameta JPEGH, I would choose the latter.

But raw files are still better for most purposes.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 571


« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2011, 02:36:19 PM »
ReplyReply

True, but the time it takes to download the files is 3x greater than raw and 10x or 20x greater than jpeg files. The lossy compression of JPEG is not a real issue as long as one chooses the highest jpeg quality setting. If I had to choose between in-camera TIFF and in-cameta JPEGH, I would choose the latter.

But raw files are still better for most purposes.
I argree totally.
Logged
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 413


« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2011, 02:54:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad YOU understand this but...the understanding is not universal as most people complain that Adobe doesn't retroactively update Camera Raw/Lightroom for file formats that didn't exist when the software was released. Adobe provides free updates for currently shipping software which at this point means ACR 6.x in Photoshop CS5 and Lightroom 3.x.

Beyond that you need the free DNG Converter to convert new raw file formats for backwards compatibility.

I'd be happy to pay the full price for every new Photoshop version,
if installation could be limited to an exchange of the ACR plugin.

Seriously.

From time to time a basic update of the Photoshop & Bridge matrix is certainly needed,
but for reasons of all the restrictions of time and priorities in life, I would address this less often than with a basic ACR version update.

Peter

--
Logged
tokengirl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 360



« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2011, 04:10:29 PM »
ReplyReply


I see the individual solution options as follows:
1. In the future do a better job of synchronizing my software upgrades with my camera purchases (Now I like to upgrade about every other version)

2. Limit future camera purchases to those capable of in camera DNG output (Hmmmm   $27k Leica or Hassie vs $200 upgrade seems foolish)

3. Shoot JPEG…….

4. Get enthused about the incredible video capabilities of the GH2 and by the time my feeble mind gets some semblance of competency with video it will be time to upgrade anyway or god forbid the industry as a whole comes up with a solution…   


5.  Shoot film.  Grin
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2399


« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2011, 02:46:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought photographers got shot of it decades ago? Smiley
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad