If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
On Jul 2, 8:55 pm, Pat wrote:
[snip] Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually, there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away in time. I've used DNG for years. That is well supported and here to stay. As for the person who asked "why shoot jpg". Well if they can't figure it out, they should go and do so. RAW is not the answer to all questions all of the time -- and neither is JPG. I can figure it out. (As I said elsewhere, I shot 115 JPEGs in February because there was a good reason to). I posed the question to challenge the typical way many people discuss this in forums, which is "why shoot raw?" In an era when specialist tools were used, and there were all sorts of discussions about the nature of white balance and other technical stuff, it did appear that the default should be to shoot JPEG unless there was a good reason not to, and the photographer had the relevant tools and skills. But we are now seeing tools like Aperture and Lightroom and others which pretty well hide the differences between processing raw and JPEGs, (except for the extra flexibility and quality available from raw). And raw is easier in-camera, because there are fewer settings to get wrong. (I'm assuming that the extra size can be handled - for some photographers, this would be another good reason to shoot JPEG). I think it would be good for this alternative way of thinking about the raw versus JPEG question to become more common. And as tools improve, I think this will happen. After all - in fact we ALL shoot raw! What we are talking about is whether the raw converter is in the camera or on a separate computer. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
On Jul 3, 6:05 pm, Barry Pearson
wrote: I've used DNG for years without problems, so have others. Even if I didn't use CS3 and Lightroom, that would not be a problem for me. I don't know why you are having problems. That's great, except you threw the question out there for others to answer. The fact you are happy with your point of view is taken as a given. Expanding on why you are happy with it is somewhat redundant. You asked why others might choose to shoot jpeg, and I simply gave you a situation that has lead to me choosing that path. I don't give it out as a one size fits all answer, or the ultimate truth or anything like that. It is simply an answer to the question you asked. Whether I ever do find a solution or not is also kinda beside the point, because the process of getting RAW to work has been more complex than it needs to be... The perception has grown that shooting raw is hard, or needs special tools, or is perhaps only useful for special occasions, etc. But with modern workflow tools, like Aperture and Lightroom and probably others, the difference between shooting raw and shooting JPEG becomes minimal - except for the easier taking of raw photographs, and for post-processing the extra flexibility, and often quality, available with raw. Well I'd argue that Lightroom and/or aperture /are/ special tools, but I admit that's just niggling details I believe this trend towards making raw at least as easy as JPEG will continue. I agree. DNG is a big step towards this, and I would love to see that day when one uniform standard for RAW means widespread acceptance. Until then though, working with RAW can sometimes provide the odd speedbump Ray |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
And lo, Pat emerged from the ether
and spake thus: On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams wrote: Pat wrote: On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson wrote: On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat wrote I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner). The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting raw EASIER than shooting JPEG. For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?" Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not one of them. Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs. the RAW format? -- john mcwilliams I have no ax to grind. I think it's a useful format for some things and not very useful for others. It is a tool. Just like no lens is perfect for all circumstances, neither RAW nor JPEG are right under all circumstances. There are very few times in photography when "always" or "never" are the right answer. There are too many misinformed zealots in both (RAW and JPEGP) camps. I do find it funny, though, when people discuss shooting RAW through a P&S. Whatever floats your boat, but that's sort of like putting a racecar motor on a skateboard. Hey, but if it works for you.... Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually, there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away in time. As for the person who asked "why shoot jpg". Well if they can't figure it out, they should go and do so. RAW is not the answer to all questions all of the time -- and neither is JPG. "Always" and "never" are strong words. That said, I recently received a purchase request from an old and dear friend of the family who happened to have seen some of my photos from Chicago and took a liking to one. Back in those days (a few years ago), I had shot entirely in JPEG with my 10D. I thought it deserved to be re-edited to meet the more exacting standards I have today. Having imported all the photos into Lightroom when I bought it, I went back to the original JPEG and tossed it into the Develop module. Using the techniques I've been learning with my Yosemite and Santa Cruz, CA photos, I attempted to convert to grayscale and make some channel adjustments to darken the sky. The sky almost immediately posterized in a very ugly way. I wasn't able to get much latitude out of it at all and eventually gave up and decided that my previous edit (the one made right after that trip) was the best it could be. At that moment, whatever misgivings I might have had about RAW, about disk storage costs, about processing speed, and so on, were completely dissolved. With my RAW images I have been able to get enormous amounts of channel latitude when converting to grayscale and that just isn't the case with JPEG. I'm completely sold. -- Aaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
(Not sure who wrote this originally, but quoting from Aaron)
Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually, there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away in time. I'm not really qualified to comment on other aspects of the JPEG/RAW debate, but I just thought I'd chime in regarding archiving: Although I use Aperture to actually do my day-to-day workflow and processing, whenever I archive RAW files, I always toss a copy of the source code to the "dcraw" program onto the CD (http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/). It's very small, less than 1000 lines, written entirely in ANSI C, and is platform- and architecture-agnostic. It decodes the majority of camera RAW file formats in use today (not scanner RAW though, cameras only). It's what I call "bomb shelter software." Assuming you can read the media you've stored your pictures on, and can still find a C compiler, you don't have to worry too much about whether Apple or Adobe decide to maintain backwards-compatibility to long-dead file formats. Anyway, I think there's a place for both RAW and JPEG, but I feel a lot better archiving my RAW files knowing that I'm not dependent on the future success of the camera manufacturer or a software company to read them again. -Kadin |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams wrote:
Pat wrote: On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson wrote: On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat wrote I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner). The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting raw EASIER than shooting JPEG. For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?" Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not one of them. Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs. the RAW format? -- john mcwilliams John, actually I want to modify my answer a bit, if you don't mind. I want to add that I don't have an ax to grind re RAW or JPG, but I am sort of sick of having it an weekly topic. Everyone has their position, few are going to change, and it seems that NOBODY checks the archives before they ask a question. In reality, if the person had just checked the archives, he would have gotten 50,000 answers to his question -- and have gotten the answers instantly. People who have a problem or want someone to critique (or just show off) a website; that's what keep the NG interesting. But asking the same question as someone asked yesterday, well....... Okay, I am officially done ranting. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
Aaron wrote:
And lo, Pat emerged from the ether and spake thus: On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams wrote: Pat wrote: On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson wrote: On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat wrote That said, I recently received a purchase request from an old and dear friend of the family who happened to have seen some of my photos from Chicago and took a liking to one. Back in those days (a few years ago), I had shot entirely in JPEG with my 10D. I thought it deserved to be re-edited to meet the more exacting standards I have today. Having imported all the photos into Lightroom when I bought it, I went back to the original JPEG and tossed it into the Develop module. Using the techniques I've been learning with my Yosemite and Santa Cruz, CA photos, I attempted to convert to grayscale and make some channel adjustments to darken the sky. The sky almost immediately posterized in a very ugly way. I wasn't able to get much latitude out of it at all and eventually gave up and decided that my previous edit (the one made right after that trip) was the best it could be. At that moment, whatever misgivings I might have had about RAW, about disk storage costs, about processing speed, and so on, were completely dissolved. With my RAW images I have been able to get enormous amounts of channel latitude when converting to grayscale and that just isn't the case with JPEG. I'm completely sold. An important question is what degree of compression there was in the original jpeg. The effect you mention can also be seen when comparing the difference between a large low-compression jpeg and a smaller more compressed jpeg of the same image, even when you can't see any difference between them at the highest resolution of examination. There's just a lot more latitude flexibility left in the bigger jpeg when you start editing. I note that in cameras which produce jpeg output there's often setings which change the degree of processing and compression, and different cameras differ quite a bit in the least amount of jpeg compression and processing you can get out of them. In other words, you might need to go to RAW for something in one camera, which you wouldn't need to in another camera which let you turn off more processing and compression. -- Chris Malcolm DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0
And lo, Chris Malcolm emerged from the ether
and spake thus: Aaron wrote: And lo, Pat emerged from the ether and spake thus: On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams wrote: Pat wrote: On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson wrote: On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat wrote That said, I recently received a purchase request from an old and dear friend of the family who happened to have seen some of my photos from Chicago and took a liking to one. Back in those days (a few years ago), I had shot entirely in JPEG with my 10D. I thought it deserved to be re-edited to meet the more exacting standards I have today. Having imported all the photos into Lightroom when I bought it, I went back to the original JPEG and tossed it into the Develop module. Using the techniques I've been learning with my Yosemite and Santa Cruz, CA photos, I attempted to convert to grayscale and make some channel adjustments to darken the sky. The sky almost immediately posterized in a very ugly way. I wasn't able to get much latitude out of it at all and eventually gave up and decided that my previous edit (the one made right after that trip) was the best it could be. At that moment, whatever misgivings I might have had about RAW, about disk storage costs, about processing speed, and so on, were completely dissolved. With my RAW images I have been able to get enormous amounts of channel latitude when converting to grayscale and that just isn't the case with JPEG. I'm completely sold. An important question is what degree of compression there was in the original jpeg. The effect you mention can also be seen when comparing the difference between a large low-compression jpeg and a smaller more compressed jpeg of the same image, even when you can't see any difference between them at the highest resolution of examination. There's just a lot more latitude flexibility left in the bigger jpeg when you start editing. I note that in cameras which produce jpeg output there's often setings which change the degree of processing and compression, and different cameras differ quite a bit in the least amount of jpeg compression and processing you can get out of them. In other words, you might need to go to RAW for something in one camera, which you wouldn't need to in another camera which let you turn off more processing and compression. That's definitely true. I always had my 10D set to "large" JPEG, which has the least compression and best quality. Still, its limitations when compared to RAW, in this particular instance, became staggeringly clear. I am willing to deal with my 5-year-old computer's sluggish RAW processing to be able to do the kinds of tone adjustments RAW permits without much banding at all. -- Aaron http://www.fisheyegallery.com http://www.singleservingphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EOS 5D RAW files and Photoshop CS | Joe Bloggs | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | October 6th 06 04:12 PM |
Transferring RAW files from a Canon d10 to Photoshop CS | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | January 22nd 06 06:53 PM |
Canon Digital Rebel XT, RAW files, and Photoshop | G.T. | Digital SLR Cameras | 96 | May 24th 05 08:49 PM |
7D Raw files in Photoshop CS | stator | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | March 23rd 05 10:24 AM |
Photoshop and RAW Files | nk | Digital Photography | 3 | October 29th 04 01:55 AM |