What are your top reasons for shooting raw?

Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

1-5. Definitely not 6 (full size, unedited jpeg is as good as raw). Plus
one not mentioned above: the Canon software (DPP) will correct lens
aberrations (distortion, vignetting) only on RAW.

--
Bertrand

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:41:04 -0500, Rich wrote:

I've never seen an in-camera Jpeg that could look as good as a good RAW
conversion outside the camera. Nikon is probably the best at it.

You don't get out much, do you.

Humor. Because we all already know that you don't even own any kind of
camera. You're just a desperate usenet troll.

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-10 21:23:41 -0700, "BobS" said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

I miss the smell of the chemicals in the morning....

So digital developers, fixers and washes have become my substitute and
I get to work in the lab for awhile.

Bob S.

Just a dab of hypo behind the ear before sitting in front of that
monitor will work wonders in setting the atmosphere.

Also, a bit of developer in a spritzer bottle can be applied to the work
area.....

--
john mcwilliams

Wilba wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

1. Pose value - "Oh ya, I only shoot rawwww."

I'm a closet raw shooter. I know I need help. Maybe an intervention is
in order?

2. Control of white balance.
3. Exposure headroom.
4. Ability to produce "better" JPEGs than the camera.

N wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

Colour space.

That's a subtle distinction - what is it about the in-camera JPG colour
space that's not acceptable?

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

To savage the world's hard drive supplies :-)

Hmm, raw alone has probably driven down the price of hard drives by a
few percent...


Main reason is exposure latitude, highlights *and* shadows. That can my
errors or the camera's or just more of an HDR effect.

I edit a lot anyways so might as well have it come out well.

I burn jpegs after editing and off-load the raw and seconds. Send me
your hard drives, I'll fill em up.

Ofnuts wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

1-5. Definitely not 6 (full size, unedited jpeg is as good as raw).

I'm not convinced that's true as the JPG is derived from the original
raw in the camera. Is there something/anything about the JPG that
definitely shows it to be the unaltered original?

As you no doubt know the film analogy is that it is the film (negative
or positive) that is the most conclusive original - not prints made from
it in a darkroom where masking, dodging, burning, chemical choice and
control and the many other techniques of the dark arts will alter the
image from what was recorded...

John McWilliams wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-10 21:23:41 -0700, "BobS" said:


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

I miss the smell of the chemicals in the morning....

So digital developers, fixers and washes have become my substitute and
I get to work in the lab for awhile.

Bob S.

Just a dab of hypo behind the ear before sitting in front of that
monitor will work wonders in setting the atmosphere.

Also, a bit of developer in a spritzer bottle can be applied to the work
area.....


Channel No. E-6 Reversal Bath oil?

Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-10-10 21:23:41 -0700, "BobS" said:

I miss the smell of the chemicals in the morning....

So digital developers, fixers and washes have become my substitute and
I get to work in the lab for awhile.

Just a dab of hypo behind the ear before sitting in front of that
monitor will work wonders in setting the atmosphere.

Also, a bit of developer in a spritzer bottle can be applied to the
work area.....


Channel No. E-6 Reversal Bath oil?

That could be the one!

--
john mcwilliams

Alan Browne wrote:
Ofnuts wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Different people seem to have different reasons for shooting raw.

My most to least important reasons:

1. Lossless edit "headroom" v. log compressed JPG.
2. Colour, contrast, brightness, etc. adjustments in raw import.
3. Fine tuning light source (aka white balance)
4. Recovery from exposure errors (exposure range)
5. CA correction with raw is less lossy than from the JPG
6. Proof of copyright in having the digital original.

1-5. Definitely not 6 (full size, unedited jpeg is as good as raw).

I'm not convinced that's true as the JPG is derived from the original
raw in the camera. Is there something/anything about the JPG that
definitely shows it to be the unaltered original?

As you no doubt know the film analogy is that it is the film (negative
or positive) that is the most conclusive original - not prints made from
it in a darkroom where masking, dodging, burning, chemical choice and
control and the many other techniques of the dark arts will alter the
image from what was recorded...

If you don't make public the full-size JPEG or only publish a full-size,
but slightly cropped version of it, the original JPEG remains a
convincing proof. You will also often have other unpublished photos
taken at the same time/place, that noone else will have.

--
Bertrand