Who here has a 20D or 'above' and doesn't use RAW?

Strick wrote in post #4021165
Other than not being able to see them right away on any computer then why not just shoot RAW if in fact you are going to be doing basically the same PP. I use LR and with that there is a good bit of PP'ing that can be done to a JPEG, basically what you can do to a RAW file.

i use several programs for processing. irfanview does jpeg only and it's great for batch processing and is very fast.

i just began using LR recently and i am only using it for RAW files, and i can process a file quickly but can do a jpeg even quicker....and with most you wouldn't be able to tell raw from jpeg...or at least i can't.

why limit yourself to using RAW only?

yeah yeah i know the arguments but let's face it most of the files we save will never be looked at again much less processed again and the format that you decide to shoot in is seldom if ever the deciding factor in good photography.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4021466
more time to process, bigger files. maybe you can PP a RAW file as quickly but i think that's an exception. i can almost process a raw file as quickly but i prefer to use a program like irfanview -- which does not read RAW -- for simple processing.

Actually, with today's software, notably Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw in their most recent updates, processing RAW is as simple as processing jpeg; for the majority of my images I don't need to leave Lightroom -- I can export batches of jpegs for the Web or send batches of RAW files to my printer after a very brief time of adjustment.

ed rader wrote in post #4021466
i'd most likely use my P&S for the or maybe my 30d and JPEG.

That's the salient point: if the picture you're taking would be just as well served by a point-and-shoot, well, that's why I carry a pocket p&s wherever I go! And I don't complain about inferior image quality. Unless, of course, I realize that I really should have been packing a DSLR! DSLR's are for maximum control with maximum quality. IMHO shooting RAW fits right in there, unless, as many in this thread have pointed out, your workflow demands immediate output with no decent computer available to do a quick RAW conversion.

ed rader wrote in post #4021466
i think the guys who push out their chests and proclaim at every opportunity "i shoot RAW only!" are pretty much an internet chat board phenomena.

While there are blowhard on both sides of this discussion, I believe that most people who shoot RAW do so because they are trying to preserve the full quality of their images. People shoot jpeg for convenience, and are satisfied with the quality of their output, but by nature jped does not preserve the full quality of an image, and has no way of retrieving discarded image data.

But, Peace to everybody!

Tony

Tony Long Photos on PBase

tonylong wrote in post #4021634
Actually, with today's software, notably Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw in their most recent updates, processing RAW is as simple as processing jpeg; for the majority of my images I don't need to leave Lightroom -- I can export batches of jpegs for the Web or send batches of RAW files to my printer after a very brief time of adjustment.


That's the salient point: if the picture you're taking would be just as well served by a point-and-shoot, well, that's why I carry a pocket p&s wherever I go! And I don't complain about inferior image quality. Unless, of course, I realize that I really should have been packing a DSLR! DSLR's are for maximum control with maximum quality. IMHO shooting RAW fits right in there, unless, as many in this thread have pointed out, your workflow demands immediate output with no decent computer available to do a quick RAW conversion.


While there are blowhard on both sides of this discussion, I believe that most people who shoot RAW do so because they are trying to preserve the full quality of their images. People shoot jpeg for convenience, and are satisfied with the quality of their output, but by nature jped does not preserve the full quality of an image, and has no way of retrieving discarded image data.

But, Peace to everybody!

Tony

Tony Long Photos on PBase

but there is a learning curve to the software, yeah? i mean before you get to the point of effortless processing with lightroom you do have to learn the program....believe me i know .

i use both jpeg and RAW. i see a need for both. if cameras were not able to process jpeg files there would be 95% fewer people using DSLRs i'll bet.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #4021666
but there is a learning curve to the software, yeah? i mean before you get to the point of effortless processing with lightroom you do have to learn the program....believe me i know .

Compared to a full-featured pixel editor like Photoshop, I think that the learning curve for Lightroom is rather minimal. Yeah, one should learn to use the program but considering the fact that current releases allow you do do so much with a relatively simple interface, it quickly becomes pretty routine. The biggest problems with Lightroom arise from the fact that it is a brand new program and is still working out some bugs.

ed rader wrote in post #4021666
i use both jpeg and RAW. i see a need for both. if cameras were not able to process jpeg files there would be 95% fewer people using DSLRs i'll bet.

Well, I wouldn't criticize anyone for using jpeg, but still -- jpeg throws away image data and image quality. For large jpegs right out of today's cameras that won't be noticable at small print sizes, but any editing will further degrade the image. Plus, at large print sizes, eventually you will notice jpeg artifacts. With Lightroom, you can print directly from RAW files, which is a very nifty feature, or you can export tiffs, which do not have the losses of jpegs and work fine for print jobs.

Tony

Tony Long Photos on PBase

I can't stand RAW because I have to open them in Photoshop individually to see the shots. I like to open them in the regular Windows viewer and flip through the shots quickly, and I can't do that with RAW.

If there's a plugin or something so I can see my shots without opening them individually in Photoshop then please tell me.

Ves,

Both Adobe's Lightroom and Photoshop let you browse RAW files (as well as Apple's Aperture), both as thumbnails of various sizes, and full-screen size. You will need up-to-date versions of Lightroom or of the Adobe Camera RAW plugin for the more recent camera models, but you get these updated free from Adobe if you own Lightroom or Photoshop.

Canon ships RAW processing software with their SLR cameras, but with less capabilities than other products such as Adobe's.

Photoshop Elements is an inexpensive scaled-down version of Photoshop, but you can still view your RAW files in the browser and adjust them in a scaled-down version of Adobe Camera RAW. I prefer Lightroom for all my RAW work, though, because it has enough features in processing RAW photos so that I can output for the web or for printing without ever needing to go to Photoshop.

The thing to bear in mind, though, is that you do need special software to do your browsing. Windows XP doesn't know Raw and most 3rd party inexpensive photo apps don't know RAW, because RAW files are data dumps, not image files. Windows Vista, though, has an updated Photo Gallery with RAW viewing capabilities.

Hope this helps somewhat,

Tony

Tony Long Photos on PBase

Pekka wrote in post #4021318
Maybe I was not clear.

I am simply wondering (a lot) why on earth one would not use RAW when you really care about quality of one's work and you have 30 secs to spare.

Pekka,
Maybe you should read my reply again.

John_B wrote in post #4021040
I have used many of my photos for commercial reason (along with private reasons) and they are acceptable in prints to my eyes and many others eyes.

If they are acceptable in prints to my eyes and other eyes what else is needed?
I have also printed raw and jpeg side by side and honestly I and others didn't see the difference in prints, from a number of different printers (ink jets, color laser & dye sub).

Pekka wrote in post #4021318
RAW is not same as film. When you buy film you choose what the film is capable of. You put that film in camera and shoot. Then you develop that film. RAW is equivalent of being able to select film you want to use after exposure, plus all the steps to final product

I don't agree with your statement here. In development to paper many things can be altered, changed, added, subtracted and manipulated from negative/slide to print in the darkroom.

I don't knock someone for using RAW, but I don't need to use it to be happy (or others to be happy) with prints from my photos (or for online display) However I do find it wonderful that there are options to make us all happy.

John_B wrote in post #4021996
Pekka,
Maybe you should read my reply again.

If they are acceptable in prints to my eyes and other eyes what else is needed?
I have also printed raw and jpeg side by side and honestly I and others didn't see the difference in prints, from a number of different printers (ink jets, color laser & dye sub).

I've printed A2 size poster from D30 image for Frankfurt Music Messe and no one saw any problems with it - that still does not prove 3mp is better than 10mp . Prints are much less capable vs. image storage formats so they tend to forgive the original quality.

Yes, but every processing step posterizes, granulates, simplifies, kills bits. So why not start with better quality (bitwise) original, so after all that bit torture you might have more preserved?

Well said.

i never used raw...

Ves wrote in post #4021811
I can't stand RAW because I have to open them in Photoshop individually to see the shots. I like to open them in the regular Windows viewer and flip through the shots quickly, and I can't do that with RAW.

If there's a plugin or something so I can see my shots without opening them individually in Photoshop then please tell me.

Here's the answer to your problem...works like a charm with XP and the 20D.

https://www.microsoft.​com …66FD4A3286&disp​laylang=en

It has made my use of RAW a lot more enjoyable.

I shoot in JPEG exclusively with my 20D. I am satisfied with the ease of editing and the final quality. Maybe I'll try RAW someday, it sounds good.

ForumForker wrote in post #4022505
I shoot in JPEG exclusively with my 20D. I am satisfied with the ease of editing and the final quality. Maybe I'll try RAW someday, it sounds good.

So, the thing to bear in mind is what is important about your work: convenience/speed of workflow first, or quality/control of your output first?

Jpegs are convenient. Point and Shoot cameras are convenient. Auto settings are convenient. These are not "bad things" -- I carry a point-and-shoot camera wherever I go and I do in fact take pictures with my pocket camera that I am happy with. In fact, many pictures that I proudly display were taken with point-and-shoot cameras of various types.

Why then did I buy into the DSLR paradigm? It's because I wanted the best quality and the best latitude of control of my images. It's like why would I want my own darkroom rather than just send my film to Walmart? If I was shooting film I would value the range of adjustments to my processing of film developing and printing, and when you shoot in RAW this is exactly what you get: you take the RAW data and you are free to interpret it. If you take a jpeg, it is like taking a print and scanning it, then trying to adjust it: you just run into limits. Take the negative and you have more latitude. Working with RAW is similar, but with even more latitude.

It's hard to get the concept across, but try this: take a RAW image and tweak it in some way: alter exposure or white balance, for instance, and then save it as a jpeg. Now, open the jpeg and you will probably be able to tweak it back to your original setting, but that's it. You will lose half of the range of adjustment possibilities.

In the school of "get it right in the camera" (which I do try to adhere to) this may not matter because we try to get an image realistic from the start. So, why shoot in RAW? To me, it's first of all where I actually need to make an adjustment, such as when I see something in low light that I need to capture without a flash. Second, it's when exposure is not enough: I need to work with a higher dynamic range than is possible with the out-of-camera jpeg. Here is one place where RAW shines: you can use one copy that brings out highlight detail and one copy that brings out shadow detail, and merge them in an app like Photoshop. If you've never tried that, I would suggest you take a shot -- the results can be pretty impressive in a high-contrast shot and you would not be able to get the same dynamic range with one jpeg: jpegs throw away image data and only keep one rendering (as do tiffs in fact).

Hope this helps a little,

Tony

Tony Long Photos on PBase

I might have pointed this out earlier in this thread, but I still don't understand the vilification of RAW's extended dynamic range; as though it were a dubious cheat. Honestly, when digital sensors attain a range of 10 to 12 stops, if not more, will traditionalists shun them as well?

Yes, those who use RAW can cop an elitist attitude, but I do not detect any palpable humbleness when I hear the argument, 'I don't need RAW, I get it right in the camera." On too many levels is that a spurious rejoinder. Legitimate arguments for JPEG include its convenience and quality, which for many professionals, is more than adequate.

I use RAW. I have the time to post process, and I even enjoy it, viewing it as an integral part of the creative process. Plus, frankly, I'm retentive; I'll never buy compressed music…I'll use it on a portable device, but the original source needs to be lossless…Likewise, I just feel more comfortable knowing my photo file contains as much information as possible, potentially benefiting even further from future software. But once again, I'm an amateur, I have the time to mess with this stuff.

ed rader wrote in post #3957984
there's nothing wrong with JPEG especially if you do a little post processing...

but the big advantage of raw is being able to correct wb balance and exposure after the fact, and that may not be important to you now or ever.

plenty of pros don't use RAW. just get the camera you want and use it how you want. you never know where it will lead you .

ed rader

Unless you want to zoom into 500% and compare, for fun I took a horrible WB shot tonight in RAW and one in JPG. Through lightroom, both were able to be corrected to a desirable and similar ( by similar, I mean exact to my eye... ) WB with Lightroom.

FWIW, Ive had a 20D, 30D, and now a MkIII and I never mess with RAW. Learn to properly expose and youll never need it IMO.

AdamLewis wrote in post #4023355
I never mess with RAW. Learn to properly expose and youll never need it IMO.

How does exposure affect a proper sharpness setting? I'm not sure how it would apply to saturation either now that I think about it.Contrast, yeah I suppose.