Old 07-17-2008, 11:21 PM   #51
Diamond D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz
Nick, that's a good point that I haven't heard many people mention in these discussions. I never even thought about that, about how RAW is better archivally (as an editor, I should know if that's a word or not, but i'm too lazy to look it up) than JPEGs.
That's another controversial point actually... yes you have all the information that the camera captured, but will you be able to open that file 10 years from now? 30? 50? I would not be the least bit surprised to see camera manufacturers encrypt their RAW files as has been mentioned here, meaning you'd at least need a new piece of software - if they're even still supported. Which seems ludicrous now, but that's not a bet I'm willing to stake my whole photo collection on with the pace of technology today.

I'm sure many of us have read this article by Ken Rockwell , I know it's been posted other places before, and I'm lots of people feel strongly about it one way or another. But for anyone wanting to read (a lot) more, he brings up a lot of points for JPEG, but basically comes to the same conclusion we seem to have reached - do what works for you.

I shot RAW + JPEG for a while, but I found myself working straight from the JPEGs most of the time. For storage reasons on my HD and my camera's SD card, it's just not practical right now to shoot RAW everyday. Maybe once I get CS3 and can start doing batch processing I'll shoot RAW "just in case" - convert everything to JPEGs and save only a few select RAWs. But for now, it's reserved for special occasions, things I know I won't get a chance to re-shoot.
Diamond D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 12:21 AM   #52
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
Someone should post two unprocessed 100% crops, and then see if anyone can actually tell which is which.
I think my non-100% crop was good enough to show the merits of RAW
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 12:55 AM   #53
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Know what, if it works for you one way and you like what your getting stay with it. But RAW is better and i was a old school, shot it right and don't mess with guy. glad i stopped shooting jpeg's, working them in Raw is just easer. at lest in I Photo it is.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:01 AM   #54
Frederick
Senior Member
 
Frederick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hastings, Minnesota
Posts: 594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40
I think my non-100% crop was good enough to show the merits of RAW
I'm talking technical IQ - with both images totally unprocessed.
__________________
Railpics Photos

Flickr Account
Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:11 AM   #55
Paulinbna
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 14
Default

I have sold pictures that I could not of sold if I would of shot in JPEG. For example you can convert a RAW image to 16 bit TIFF and not loose any quality you would be hard pressed to get the same results if you converted a JPEG to a 16 bit TIFF.
Paulinbna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:14 AM   #56
millerm
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
I'm talking technical IQ - with both images totally unprocessed.
How exactly would you do that? You'd have to at least process the RAW into a JPEG to post it online which could be done many different ways...full auto or manual adjustments, program auto or camera settings auto...

If the dimensions, content, and file format aren't exactly the same it wouldn't be a fair test.

EDIT:
I'm not as interested in doing the test as how you could fairly conduct the test without slanting the results one way or the other.
millerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:25 AM   #57
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederick
I'm talking technical IQ - with both images totally unprocessed.
The main point of RAW isn't how high the overall IQ is, though. It's about editability. If you won't need to edit much, go ahead and shoot jpeg.
Additionally, the jpeg out of the camera is processed anyway, in-camera.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:49 AM   #58
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond D
That's another controversial point actually... yes you have all the information that the camera captured, but will you be able to open that file 10 years from now? 30? 50? I would not be the least bit surprised to see camera manufacturers encrypt their RAW files as has been mentioned here, meaning you'd at least need a new piece of software - if they're even still supported. Which seems ludicrous now, but that's not a bet I'm willing to stake my whole photo collection on with the pace of technology today.
Do you honestly thing that the format of the images shot today by thousands of photographers isn't going to be readable in the future?

The companies can't retroactively encrypt your data either - that fear is completely unfounded.

The idea that the future is going to be cruel to this technology instead of good to it is completely wrong, IMHO. If anything, the software of the future is going to be able to do incredible stuff with our images. Look at the progress of the image editing software since the mid 90's... it's getting better, not worse.

I spend too much time on my shots not to store them in the highest fidelity format available.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:06 AM   #59
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,042
Default

Anyone have documents in WANG, MultiMate, or MacWrite?

Anyone own a Polaroid camera?

Anyone have a Betamax?

Technology moves on.

That being said... my great grandpa always said, don't discuss religion, politics, money or a man's digital format choice.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:19 AM   #60
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Here is the photo I mentioned earlier. The first is how the image looked straight out of the camera without any color correction in post-processing or WB changes in-camera, pretty bad, eh?

The second is what I was able to do with the JPEG, no difficulties and I think its pretty darn close to what it should look like. Could it be better? Sure if I spent time making layers and selective color replacement but even when you look at the scene with your own eyes the red glow is apparent therefore my post-processed image looks like how I remember seeing it. Note: The only change I made besides color correction was an increase in brightness due to it becoming darker in Levels during color correction.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	NS4270Original.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	250.3 KB
ID:	3090   Click image for larger version

Name:	NS4270ColorCorrected.jpg
Views:	98
Size:	303.5 KB
ID:	3091  
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:31 AM   #61
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks
Anyone own a Polaroid camera?
What's a Polaroid?
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:41 AM   #62
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,986
Default

I have been digital for 2 years and RAW-only for one.
I started using Apple's Aperture 6 months ago and my workflow, is I think as streamlined as it can be.
I import cr2 off the camera directly with no more than creating a folder, and clicking import.
I am former side shooter and I know my equipment.

Still, crap happens and I'm amazed what RAW can do.

This one
Image © Dennis A. Livesey
PhotoID: 242973
Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey


came from the one below (at least 2 stops over exposed)

If this had been Kodachrome, it would be a goner.

I love how digital exponentially increases my keepers.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ValleyRR 97 overexposed.jpg
Views:	80
Size:	332.0 KB
ID:	3093  
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777

Last edited by Dennis A. Livesey; 07-18-2008 at 03:50 AM. Reason: better organised
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:44 AM   #63
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch
What's a Polaroid?
Its a creature from the Polar Galaxy, ............. DUH !
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:22 AM   #64
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Saying that JPEG is better because more folks have software that can deal with it on their PC's is like saying that the movie studios should toss out their original film and keep a VHS copy instead. It's like saying that the Beatles should have tossed out their masters and kept their mixed LP's instead. It's like dropping $4,000 on a Mark III body and equipping it with a used kit lens from a Rebel, or spending $2,000 on a nice piece of L glass and protecting it with a $15 UV filter. Your shots are still going to be "good enough," but anyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground would point out that there's a significant shortcoming in this system.

There's no question that technology will change... the point is what is the best format for storing your data you worked so hard to capture in the first place. JPEG's is a lossy format that compresses your work - it may very well look fine, but the point is that it isn't the original document. You will always have the ability to convert your old work to the popular format d'jour to share it with people. If you're going to invest as much time and effort into your shots as I know many of you do, why in the hell would you not store the data in it's original format?

Some of you seem to think this is trivial, but the fact of the matter is that those of you who aren't shooting RAW now are likely going to regret it later. The fact that you didn't store RAW because it took 60 GB instead of 2 GB is going to be laughable as storage prices continue to decrease. The Ken Rockwell article linked to earlier gives examples of how a photographer was saved by JPG when he started to run out of space on his 256 MB card, and talks about how a 1 GB file took over half an hour to transfer... these aren't issues anymore folks.

I'm not telling you which railroad had the best paint scheme on an E unit, nor am I telling you that well lit wedgies are a waste of bandwidth, as those are qualitative issues. The fact that RAW is superior to JPEG (as a way of storing your original work) is a quantitative issue.

// End rant
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:24 AM   #65
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

I shot in raw for one day and just gave up, I had no luck with it. I personally dont think I loose anything quality wise shooting in Jpeg Fine.
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:28 AM   #66
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Default

Kinda reminds me of the old discussions about what film to you use.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 05:02 AM   #67
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose
JPEG's is a lossy format that compresses your work - it may very well look fine, but the point is that it isn't the original document. Some of you seem to think this is trivial, but the fact of the matter is that those of you who aren't shooting RAW now are likely going to regret it later.
Precisely.

It's analogist to keeping your prints and disgarding your negatives. Scan your prints at high res and process in Photoshop and the results can be quite amazing but when you decide to get yourself (or sell) a poster print, I'll bet you wish you had the negative or slide.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 12:52 PM   #68
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks
Anyone have documents in WANG, MultiMate, or MacWrite?
I've never heard of any of those formats, but I'm going to guess that RAW is a much more popular format currently used by professional photographers. Please feel free to correct me (and educate me) if I'm wrong.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 12:54 PM   #69
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Why do magazines prefer RAW files for publication?

I have used just JPEG for a long time and now I have used RAW for quite some time. For me RAW is far superior only if you have the space for them.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 01:57 PM   #70
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,986
Default

In my previous post, I didn't make clear that I think my original exposure could not have been made usable had it been in JPEG.
(I had my settings at 1/25th, f22 and 400 in full daylight!) About 2 stops over.

In Apple's Aperture, I selected View>Highlight Hot & Cold Areas.
Then I used the Recovery and Black Point sliders to dial out the Red and Blue.
(Actually, there is no Blue in the original. I just put some in so you could see.)

Then I brought down the Exposure slider till the histogram was good. Then I prettied the image from there.

Viola!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Aperture Highlight and Shadow.jpg
Views:	70
Size:	161.0 KB
ID:	3094  
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777

Last edited by Dennis A. Livesey; 07-18-2008 at 02:01 PM.
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:10 PM   #71
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz
Why do magazines prefer RAW files for publication?

I have used just JPEG for a long time and now I have used RAW for quite some time. For me RAW is far superior only if you have the space for them.
1 trigibytre external hard drive is about $200
should hold about 200,000 RAW shots
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:10 PM   #72
Bill
Senior Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 234
Default

I think file format is a personal choice & I don't begrudge anyone for the choice they make.
My personal reason for shooting RAW is the exposure. Shooting jpg is throwing away two full stops of dynamic range. I'm not a big post-processing guy, in fact, I have a 3-minute rule. If I can't get a picture looking the way I wanted it within 3 minutes, I should have shot it better in the field. RAW actually speeds up my workflow, rather than adjusting Curves, Levels, Saturation & Contrast in PS, a majority of the corrections I need can be made with a simple Exposure or White Balance compensation in RAW.

However, if jpg works for some shooters, go for it, who are we to judge?
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:22 PM   #73
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias
I've never heard of any of those formats, but I'm going to guess that RAW is a much more popular format currently used by professional photographers. Please feel free to correct me (and educate me) if I'm wrong.
The fact that you haven't heard of them is telling. WANG was the major Word Processor and in the mid 1980s, nearly every office here in LA had it. MultiMate was supposed to provided a smooth transition from WANG to PC users. MacWrite was on Apples, and nearly every Apple user I knew in the 1980s has many useless files (on 5 1/4 floppies).

I have quite a few reel to reel audio tapes of my family. My brother has a huge collection of 8-Track music albums. What about Super 8 with sound film? How many people had Kodak Disk cameras? While it seems inane today to even consider our widespread technology to one day no longer be supported, history teaches us that one day it probably won't be.

Last edited by Freericks; 07-18-2008 at 02:59 PM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:16 PM   #74
millerm
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 63
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks
The fact that you haven't heard of them is telling. WANG was the major Word Processor and in the mid 1980s, nearly every office here in LA had it. MultiMate was supposed to provided a smooth transition from WANG to PC users. MacWrite was on Apples, and nearly every Apple user I knew in the 1980s has many useless files (on 5 1/4 floppies).

I have quite a few reel to reel audio tapes of my family. My brother has a huge collection of 8-Track music albums. What about Super 8 with sound film? How many people had Kodak Disk cameras? While it seems inane today to even consider our widespread technology to one day no longer be supported, history teaches us that one day it probably won't be.
Totally unrelated to photography...

Wow, I never knew that! My grandparents have a ton of reel-to-reel tapes and a numberof 8-tracks as well as records. I wish their players were working better so I could make them digital before they fall apart.

I have a Win3.1 compute somewhere in a closet with a package of 5" floppies still in shrinkwrap
millerm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:22 PM   #75
J Douglas Moore
Senior Member
 
J Douglas Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: "It's a dry heat" Arizona
Posts: 716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks
The fact that you haven't heard of them is telling. WANG was the major Word Processor and in the mid 1980s, nearly every office here in LA had it. MultiMate was supposed to provided a smooth transition from WANG to PC users. MacWrite was on Apples, and nearly every Apple user I knew in the 1980s has many useless files (on 5 1/4 floppies).

I have quite a few reel to reel audio tapes of my family. My brother has a huge collection of 8-Track music albums. What about Super 8 with sound film? How many people had Kodak Disk cameras? While it seems inane today to even consider our widespread technology to one day no longer be supported, history teaches us that one day it probably won't be.
5 1/4 floppy?? That is both bragging and complaining in one sentence!!

True enough about the advances, BUT you can still have the Super 8 w/ sound put on DVD, some one has a business of rebuilding old 8 track players, and your reel 2 reel can be digitized very easily, so even though obsolite, it can still,, with effort and cost, be used................ I have no concern of me out living my archived photo files, therefore, my level of concern is not too great concerning what happens once I reach the "EverAfter"
But I still think I am gonna shoot RAW
__________________

"Thanks for looking"

It is a proven fact that birthdays are good for you. The people with the most always live longer!
J Douglas Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.