Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Don Hoey
Ruchai,
The purpose behind this thread was not to say how members should be working, but to try and put forward unbiased information. I have seen a lot on the net that RAW is the only way to go. Generally these views are not supported with pictures to demonstrate the reasoning, rather authors use the fall back position that JPG is for amateurs and if you care about photography RAW is the only way to go.
While I do not deny that RAW allows you to manipulate the image for exposure and white balance the question here is. Is RAW the magic bullet it is porported to be as far as pure image quality is concerned.
A lot of people getting their first camera may not have the latest ALL POWERFULL pc and may be like me on 800hz. 128mb ram. Under those circumstances RAW can be a positive pain in the neck !!
We know that different camera's have different processing algoithms and some may well produce better files from RAW whilest others are cabable of excellent JPG's. These test have shown that with a D100 and well exposed image there is NO benefit to RAW. On the other hand I have read that the D200 does not process JPG's as well in camera, but with no pictures to support that statement. The D50 on the other hand is reckoned to produce superb JPG's straight from the camera.
So if we can get rid of the hype and show with images, readers of the thread can make a better judgement as to which method would best suit them.
Don
|
During the short time I have been a subscriber to this forum, I have kept a watchful eye on this thread, and though I may not have read every post I feel I understand the gist of what its about and why Don originally started it, indeed his summary above somewhat negates the need to go read all the thread
At the end of the day though I can't help feeling that its only a variation of the long standing discussion RAW v JPEG.
I'm no 'pixel peeper' and so am not about to start setting my camera up to take images of a subject in both RAW and JPEG. I'm happy to let others do that
and FWIW in the test shown yesterday the first image, the RAW one, was unquestionably the best IMO.
I was a JPEG only user for several years with digicams and the Nikon D1. At the time I felt the differences were not significant and the extra time it involved in the workflow could not be justified, especially when I had a lot of images to process. Not to mention the fact that at the time I did not have the benefit of the software that would enable me to use RAW in an efficient sort of way. Raw files from the D1 were not as easily handled then as NEFS are today.
It is a fact however that my approach to these matters has matured and developed over time and as new software develops. I am now a 100% user of Raw. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that for me it is the best method to use. From a software point of view, I use CS2 and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which in conjunction with Adobe Bridge has made processing images a breeze. I have also used Raw Shooter Essentials (RSE) which has made a quality RAW converter available to everyone. I would have bought the Premium version except for the fact I had made a concious decision to use ACR.
For me, its not about comparing images on the screen and pixel counting. The fact is I always SAVE to JPEG which as we all know is a 'lossy' format. For my own purposes saved in Photoshop at highest quality (12) its perfectly adequate for my needs, even though I know the data in the file has been reduced from 23mb down to around 5-8mb. If in the rare situation that I ever notice a loss of quality, I always have the RAW file to return to, its my 'negative'
RAW mode offers me the versatility I require, but most importantly I have the option to make the decision on how the data is processed rather than letting the camera do it all. Do you all take photos in full Auto mode even just P mode. Most serious photographers like to have the creative input to adjust the camera exposure to what they want, they like to be in control. Using RAW is simply an extension of that.
Then of course there is the fact that RAW has more dynamic range than JPEG. However I am not convinced about this 12bit red herring mentioned earlier. To the best of my knowledge the 12bit RAW image is always processed into either an 8 or 16bit image. Saving to TIFF has no bearing on this. However I will stand corrected on this I'm not familiar with all conversion software. The fact is though that PS only works in 8 or 16bit. Frankly unless asked to do so I would never use 16bit
Finally, I have often used the image below to illustrate how a duff exposure can be retrieved in the RAW converter. The left side was straight out of the camera, and the right side is the same shot after adjustment. It was one of the situations that did it for me
I would have struggled had it been an in camera JPEG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...s/IMG_8580.jpg