Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       end
  

Archive 2005 · I don't shoot raw!
  
 
steve_t
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · p.6 #1 · I don't shoot raw!


Adobe's new proposed standard format for RAW is .DNG = digital negative


Apr 08, 2005 at 03:41 PM
EOS20
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #2 · p.6 #2 · I don't shoot raw!


Adobe has also created a new RAW format known as "Digital negative" (DNG) Which they hope to make Universall. Its already available on Photoshop Elements 3 and will be available on CS2.


Apr 08, 2005 at 03:44 PM
Jim Sykes
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · p.6 #3 · I don't shoot raw!


The arrogance and elitist attitude is not Teriba saying that "real pros shoot jpges" or that in saying that "if you are good enough to get it right in camera then you dont need RAW."

The arrogance is found in many RAW shooters that insinuate or flat out imply that anyone shooting jpeg is not as good as they are and doesnt care about quality like they do or are not getting the most out of their photography like the RAW shooter does.

I have come on this board for awhile now and it seems to crop up more than ocassionally that RAW is just the greatest thing known to man and that if you are not shooting it you are an idiot.

I think that moondigger, Teriba, others and myself would argue that as the elitist attitude and that it sounds like RAW shooters trying to be above all others because they have "seen the light" and are at the epitome of digital post processing.

Fact - RAW does provide and capture more data than jpeg
Fact - You can 'save' more photos shot in RAW than you can in jpeg
Fact - That even if you capture a 12 bit RAW file, before its printed on 99% of the printers is converted bacy to 8 bits, thereby losing some of the benefits of your original RAW file.
Fact - A well exposed jpeg file taken with all the right settings and compared against a print of a RAW file that was processed with the same settings will look virtually identical in print and I would put money on the fact that no one here could tell the difference.

I've argued this same argument with people that insist that an 8mp camera is better than a 6 or a 4. If in the end, when that photo is put into its final form, be it print, web, billboard, whatever, if the client and the viewers cannot tell whether it was captured in RAW, jpeg, on a 16mp camera or a 4, then none of that really matters at all.

There are certainly benefits for shooting RAW, not going to argue that. There have been more than a couple times when I screwed up a wb and wished I had shot it in RAW. But I have done the tests and I know many other very well paid photographers that have done the same. When I put a properly taken jpeg next to a properly taken RAW file, the differences are neglibable at very best. I have found that the ONLY advantage to RAW is saving files not shot right to begin with. I dont see any difference in what RAW can do if they are shot well to start with. So it comes down to RAW being solely to save images, imo. For me, to be able to salvage one or two shots in 10,000 is not worth the hassle of working with RAW.

Also this BS about a digital negative is just that BS. My jpeg files are also digital negatives and I can go back and re-process them however I might need to as many times as I might need to, just as you can re-print a film negative as many times as you need to. And every time I can adjust contrast, sharpness, burn, dodge, color, and even adjust slight WB issues, just as I could do it with RAW or with film. RAW is no more of a digital negative than a jpeg is, the neg is what comes out of your camera and if its a jpeg so be it, if its RAW great. Its the same as using Velvia vs. Portra vs. Tri-X, vs. Superia 400. All come out of the camera differently than the other, but all are the negative you are left with after its out of the camera. Just like digital, if its sRGB, Adobe RGB, jpeg, RAW, 0 sharpening or 4 sharpening. All come out of the camera differently and all are the resulting negative you are left to work with. Its how you work with them and what you put on paper that matters in the end.

In the end my decision has to do with the quality of the images I provide. I have just as high a standards as many RAW shooters, maybe higher than some. Its not about choosing to not provide the best for me or my client, its about providing them he best and not wasting time or space on something that I do not believe will allow me to provide them with anything better than I already do.

That is not being elitist, that is not going along with another pro, that is a decision based on experience and I am no lesser of a photographer or less concerned with quality than anyone else that shoots RAW. The only thing that has bearing on a lesser or greater photographer is what comes out in that final print. If RAW makes that print better for you, great, if you can do it just as well with jpeg, why the hell not?



Apr 08, 2005 at 04:28 PM
Jim Sykes
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · p.6 #4 · I don't shoot raw!


EOS20 wrote:
Adobe has also created a new RAW format known as "Digital negative" (DNG) Which they hope to make Universall. Its already available on Photoshop Elements 3 and will be available on CS2.


Its also available now for CS, you just need to download the update and the converter.



Apr 08, 2005 at 04:28 PM
MyersPhotography
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #5 · p.6 #5 · I don't shoot raw!


Ben Horne wrote:
I have already owned one early canon digital camera which I can no longer convert the RAW files. I don't have the original software anymore, and canon does not support this format. If you want to archive your shots for future use, convert a TIFF and save it alongside your RAW file.


Ben, What camera did you use to create the RAW files you can no longer convert?





Apr 08, 2005 at 10:30 PM
Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #6 · p.6 #6 · I don't shoot raw!


MyersPhotography wrote:
Ben, What camera did you use to create the RAW files you can no longer convert?



If you loose your software, you can get it or buy it again from Canon......



Apr 08, 2005 at 10:45 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



teriba
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #7 · p.6 #7 · I don't shoot raw!


Guy Mancuso wrote:
VWpilot we do not all print on inkjets my friend. Thanks for calling me a elitist , I like that term . I will put that on my website. This conversion is pathetic .


Hopeless is an absolute understatement. Some people will just not listen even when pure fact is displayed to them. They will, wrongly, attempt to point out one flaw and dismiss the entire post. Even a Fuji Frontier prints using 8-bit colour.

Yes, you are an elitist.

It's conversation, not conversion.



Apr 08, 2005 at 10:53 PM
FretNoMore
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #8 · p.6 #8 · I don't shoot raw!


OK, it's been interesting, but now it's apparently time to unsubscribe this thread. Bye.


Apr 08, 2005 at 11:19 PM
teriba
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #9 · p.6 #9 · I don't shoot raw!


When somebody swears at me and threatens me in one, I take it a little personally, yes.


Apr 08, 2005 at 11:20 PM
Bobster2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #10 · p.6 #10 · I don't shoot raw!


Q: How are discussions of raw vs. jpg like dvd's in the "Rocky" boxed set?

A: Each one ends with a fight.



Apr 08, 2005 at 11:28 PM
mudlake
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #11 · p.6 #11 · I don't shoot raw!


Wow. I didn't know people were using language like that in PM's. Threats too. It makes me sick.


Apr 08, 2005 at 11:51 PM
1       2       3              5      
6
       end






FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password