RAW vs tif vs jpg (was Double Exposure)

Okay, I think I have this figured out. It seems to boil down to a
difference in approach. At least some of us who come from film,
especially large format, follow the approach of getting everything right
in the camera. At least some of those who grew up with (or were early
adapters of) digital and Photoshop seem to follow the approach of
getting the shot and cleaning it up later. I can accept that.

If potentially there is a lot to fix in an image then you are going to
need all the help you can get. RAW makes a lot of sense.

OTOH, if you have taken the time, assuming you have the time (!), to set
up your shot, it should only require the minimum of post-processing.

For me, post-processing is almost always no more than correcting white
and black points, cropping to fit the desired paper size and doing some
corner burning, pretty much the same thing I used to do in the darkroom.
Sometimes I have to adjust the contrast or the color balance a little,
ditto. That is probably why I like LightZone and can't stand Photoshop.

So far I have been doing this, non-destructively in LightZone, in tif
and jpg without any problems, and that is why I have been wondering what
RAW is good for. Now I know. Those who need it, need it. For those
who don't, it may be nice to have, but the world will not come to an end
if it isn't used.

Did I get that right or am I still missing something?

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

"Robert Peirce" schreef in bericht
...
Okay, I think I have this figured out. It seems to boil down to a
difference in approach. At least some of us who come from film,
especially large format, follow the approach of getting everything right
in the camera. At least some of those who grew up with (or were early
adapters of) digital and Photoshop seem to follow the approach of
getting the shot and cleaning it up later. I can accept that.

If potentially there is a lot to fix in an image then you are going to
need all the help you can get. RAW makes a lot of sense.

OTOH, if you have taken the time, assuming you have the time (!), to set
up your shot, it should only require the minimum of post-processing.

For me, post-processing is almost always no more than correcting white
and black points, cropping to fit the desired paper size and doing some
corner burning, pretty much the same thing I used to do in the darkroom.
Sometimes I have to adjust the contrast or the color balance a little,
ditto. That is probably why I like LightZone and can't stand Photoshop.

So far I have been doing this, non-destructively in LightZone, in tif
and jpg without any problems, and that is why I have been wondering what
RAW is good for. Now I know. Those who need it, need it. For those
who don't, it may be nice to have, but the world will not come to an end
if it isn't used.

Did I get that right or am I still missing something?

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

I think you've missed the part on bitdepth.
Once gone, never back.
Google on that.
kr
Aad

Robert Peirce wrote:

Okay, I think I have this figured out. It seems to boil down to a
difference in approach. At least some of us who come from film,
especially large format, follow the approach of getting everything right
in the camera. At least some of those who grew up with (or were early
adapters of) digital and Photoshop seem to follow the approach of
getting the shot and cleaning it up later. I can accept that.

If potentially there is a lot to fix in an image then you are going to
need all the help you can get. RAW makes a lot of sense.

OTOH, if you have taken the time, assuming you have the time (!), to set
up your shot, it should only require the minimum of post-processing.

For me, post-processing is almost always no more than correcting white
and black points, cropping to fit the desired paper size and doing some
corner burning, pretty much the same thing I used to do in the darkroom.
Sometimes I have to adjust the contrast or the color balance a little,
ditto. That is probably why I like LightZone and can't stand Photoshop.

So far I have been doing this, non-destructively in LightZone, in tif
and jpg without any problems, and that is why I have been wondering what
RAW is good for. Now I know. Those who need it, need it. For those
who don't, it may be nice to have, but the world will not come to an end
if it isn't used.

Did I get that right or am I still missing something?

Post processing is just like the darkroom and RAW conversion offers more
possibilities. The Ansel Adams approach has been mentioned before in
past reincarnations of this debate: he spent tons of time getting
exactly the right capture then tons more time in the darkroom making it
even better.

Digital does have a problem with blown highlights more than film but
shooting RAW eases that weakness.

For high dynamic range scenes, using multiple converversions of a RAW
file expands the dynamic range of the camera. You might argue that it's
better to wait till there's softer light but it's just another
possibility that opens up when shooting RAW so why not take advantage of
all the camera has to offer? ...unless you just don't like fiddling on
the computer... and if that's the case, that's perfectly fine too. There
are more than one way to operate & still produce good results.

If memory card space isn't an issue, it's just prudent to shoot RAW plus
jpeg 'in case' even if you rarely need it. Anyone that hopes to produce
a few spectacular large prints in their lifetime will be thankful to
have that RAW file, even if it's only used once in 300,000 exposures
over many decades. Probably my favorite shot ever, I had not begun using
RAW and while it makes a nice 13x19 print, I would love to be able to
print it at 24x36 but it's just not good enough for that size enlargement.

If you don't mind tinkering on the computer, RAW conversion is capable
of producing technically superior results. For normal lighting
conditions well exposed and reasonable sized prints, the difference is
trivial but RAW conversions are actually better and it's noticeable when
making extra large prints.

In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote:

Did I get that right or am I still missing something?

Not missing anything, setting up and doing a first rate first time job
save time,ultimately money...if doing a pro job.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
"Aad" wrote:

I think you've missed the part on bitdepth.
Once gone, never back.
Google on that.
kr
Aad

If doing raw you get it.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

You might argue that it's
better to wait till there's softer light but it's just another
possibility that opens up when shooting RAW so why not take advantage of
all the camera has to offer? ...unless you just don't like fiddling on
the computer... and if that's the case, that's perfectly fine too. There
are more than one way to operate & still produce good results.

Nothing compares to studying and making the best exposure. I have spoken
with other perhaps more proficient photographers than little ole me and
they state one can always light the subject using portable flash or
otherwise to gain more lattitude.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Although this will likely not be read:
No one who knows what they are doing fools themselves into thinking they do
it all "in the camera" unless their end purpose is a directly viewed
negative or positive transparency. If you make a print you have not done it
all "in the camera." Whoever made the print has made all kinds of decisions
for you that were not made "in the camera."
Familarize yourself with Ansel Adams' techniques.
Once you understand what you are doing you will shoot exclusively in raw
format if your purpose is to create an image that is technically optimal and
suits your aesthetic purposes.
Digital is not film: repeat this to yourself until you understand that
digital is a different medium than film. If you shoot jpeg you are deferring
to a rigid in-camera program algorithm that has been crafted with arbitrary
and immutable decisions about the end image. I suppose this is "in the
camera" but it is like having the kid who runs the drugstore film processor
make all your aesthetic decisions.

On Feb 25, 11:58 am, Robert Peirce
wrote:
Okay, I think I have this figured out. It seems to boil down to a
difference in approach. At least some of us who come from film,
especially large format, follow the approach of getting everything right
in the camera. At least some of those who grew up with (or were early
adapters of) digital and Photoshop seem to follow the approach of
getting the shot and cleaning it up later. I can accept that.

If potentially there is a lot to fix in an image then you are going to
need all the help you can get. RAW makes a lot of sense.

OTOH, if you have taken the time, assuming you have the time (!), to set
up your shot, it should only require the minimum of post-processing.

For me, post-processing is almost always no more than correcting white
and black points, cropping to fit the desired paper size and doing some
corner burning, pretty much the same thing I used to do in the darkroom.
Sometimes I have to adjust the contrast or the color balance a little,
ditto. That is probably why I like LightZone and can't stand Photoshop.

So far I have been doing this, non-destructively in LightZone, in tif
and jpg without any problems, and that is why I have been wondering what
RAW is good for. Now I know. Those who need it, need it. For those
who don't, it may be nice to have, but the world will not come to an end
if it isn't used.

Did I get that right or am I still missing something?
Well I do believe you are missing something, you are doing enough post
processing that raw should make you life easier not harder. I find it
far easier to get the WB I want using raw compared to jpeg. And it is
a pretty rare photographer who never blows out a highlight when
shooting jpeg, and if you never blowout a highlight likely you tend to
underexpose and are losing more shadow detail then you really need to.

No the world will not come to an end is you don't shoot raw, but you
are making your life needlessly harder.

Scott

Robert Peirce wrote:
[snip]
If potentially there is a lot to fix in an image then you are going to
need all the help you can get. RAW makes a lot of sense.
[snip]

RAW is not about how much there is to fix. A photo editor does not care
if it's RAW, tif or jpeg. It's more about starting your editing with a
negative (RAW) or start by scanning a print that has been pre-processed
(in-camera jpg).

So far I have been doing this, non-destructively in LightZone, in tif
and jpg without any problems, and that is why I have been wondering what
RAW is good for. Now I know. Those who need it, need it. For those
who don't, it may be nice to have, but the world will not come to an end
if it isn't used.

Did I get that right or am I still missing something?


Experiment with RAW vs jpg. I did years ago on my 300D. I found the
images converted from RAW to have better, more accurate color and
sharper. The effort to convert was minimal and well worth a minute of
so. However, to each his own.

--

Len

In article ,
"babaloo" wrote:

Although this will likely not be read:
No one who knows what they are doing fools themselves into thinking they do
it all "in the camera" unless their end purpose is a directly viewed
negative or positive transparency. If you make a print you have not done it
all "in the camera." Whoever made the print has made all kinds of decisions
for you that were not made "in the camera."
Familarize yourself with Ansel Adams' techniques.
Once you understand what you are doing you will shoot exclusively in raw
format if your purpose is to create an image that is technically optimal and
suits your aesthetic purposes.
Digital is not film: repeat this to yourself until you understand that
digital is a different medium than film. If you shoot jpeg you are deferring
to a rigid in-camera program algorithm that has been crafted with arbitrary
and immutable decisions about the end image. I suppose this is "in the
camera" but it is like having the kid who runs the drugstore film processor
make all your aesthetic decisions.

I think I may have given the impression that I make an image and send it
out to be printed. That is not the case.

My serious work is done on a 4x5 view camera. I did read this and
Adams' books. When I shot negative film I processed my own negatives
and prints. When I took the shot I recorded what film processing was
required and what zones various parts of the image were to fall on.
This information allowed me to develop a printable negative and a
correspondingly good print. That is what I mean by doing it in the
camera.

Now, transparencies are the only way to go because I don't have a
darkroom and I don't want to trust my work to commercial labs unless all
the work is carefully controlled, as E-6 is. I can scan these into my
computer which allows me to still print them the way I think they should
be printed.

I don't use my digital camera for this kind of work. I edit the image,
and I still do my own printing. I want good quality, but these shots
are more action oriented. So far I have had no problem in compressing
or expanding the scale to get a full range print. That's the nice thing
about digital. It is actually easier to do this than it was with film.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]