Question concerning RAW format

[P00h]

This is a big departure from you original post



You made it seem like an "inexperienced user" could not produce acceptable results, I pointed out that they could. Now your stance changed to that it is of little benefit...

How is that a big departure from my original post? They go hand in hand. An inexperienced user who does not know software will probably get worse results than a properly exposed jpeg out of the camera. If you're going to stick a RAW converter to "Auto" then you are defeating the purpose and realizing the benefit of RAW; best to stick with jpeg. Processing RAW files is an extra step. Most casual shooters don't want to bother. Most people I've bothered to explained RAW to, inevitably switch back to jpeg. There are a few that stick with the process (those who are technically inclined in the first place) but the majority I've come across just don't want to bother.

If you do not feel archiving the digital negative is a benefit, well there is no debate here.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

I agree, I just dont see what that has to do with shooting RAW vs JPEG.

My point is that people often use software and technology as a crutch. Most people on these types of forums see someone else's photos and they ask what camera they were using and what technique was used in post processing, without realizing that in the end it doesn't really matter. I've seen great photographs taken with point-and-shoots that were actually better than quite a few I've seen taken with dSLR's. With RAW files you still need to consider exposure, lighting, composition, etc. Just because someone is shooting in RAW will not make them a better photographer. The skill comes from the photographer not the software or the equipment. Learn the basic skills before all else.

 

[P00h]

I would agree that a casual photographer may not find any benefit in RAW, but one day they may decide to be more than casual, only to find all they have are JPGs. Better to start with RAW (+ JPG) now and know you have them for the future. Even if the photographer does not care to work on the RAW files they may want someone else to help with them.

Custom white balance is actually not a function of "in", it is processed in the camera after the exposure has been made. RAW has no white balance so it could be set later, even if the light has changed after the white balance was set. It is much more flexible than JPG.

No disagreement here. I'm not against the RAW format at all. I use it and definitely enjoy the flexibility it offers. Although, if a casual photographer doesn't know why they should be shooting RAW in the first place then maybe it's best that they stay away from it initially. RAW format will not make up for bad exposure or poor lighting. I just don't want to see anyone using RAW as a crutch and disregarding proper techniques because they think they can "fix" it later in post processing. IMHO, not a good idea. I've had countless people send me RAW files of badly exposed photographs asking me why their software can't "fix" it. Better to shoot jpeg and be forced to be mindful of exposure and lighting.

 

[MICKEY88]

The skill comes from the photographer not the software or the equipment. Learn the basic skills before all else.

this is true to a point,, a camera that allows full manual control will yield better results in tricky lighting situations, in the hands of an experienced photographer, than a fully auto camera....


raw will allow more adjustment to pics with poor exposure and bad lighting...

it's better to shoot raw and jpeg, so if one is ever so inclined to be more creative or have more control, the option is there...

to say that most people shouldn't shoot raw, because many will not benefit, is like saying most people shouldn't use more than a 3 megapixel camera, because many will not benefit from the extra info, nor have pictures printed larger than 4x6

 

[Groucho]

to say that most people shouldn't shoot raw, because many will not benefit, is like saying most people shouldn't use more than a 3 megapixel camera, because many will not benefit from the extra info, nor have pictures printed larger than 4x6

Actually, I'd go along with that one. The megapixel race is silly and counterproductive. We have tiny PnS cameras with 7mp sensors that are just big image noise machines. All the megapixels in the world don't matter if there's no detail because it's obscured by noise.

I'd have been a lot more likely to have kept my last PnS if it was a 2mp sensor instead of a very noisy 5mp one. Noise was very rarely an issue in the 2mp camera I had before that, and the fact is, most digital pictures live only on the computer, where they are usually displayed on 1024x768 screens, or maybe 1280x1024 - and 2mp's 1600x1200 gives plenty of picture, enough to crop off edges and still have it larger than most displays.

 

[fitzperry]

RAW format will not make up for bad exposure or poor lighting. I just don't want to see anyone using RAW as a crutch and disregarding proper techniques because they think they can "fix" it later in post processing. IMHO, not a good idea. I've had countless people send me RAW files of badly exposed photographs asking me why their software can't "fix" it. Better to shoot jpeg and be forced to be mindful of exposure and lighting.

You're contradicting yourself, just like the other poster in this thread who has been arguing about RAW being a crutch. How exactly is RAW a crutch if it won't make up for bad exposure or poor lighting? And how exactly is a .jpg preferable in the case of that badly exposed image?

 

[Anewman]

How is that a big departure from my original post? They go hand in hand.

Your original post implied that one needed knowledge of processing to be able to obtain acceptable images from RAW files, this was not a debate just missinformation.

Once corrected you have tried to make it a debate about the benefits or lack their of...

They do not go hand in hand.
1. States that a newb can not get good images out of raw.
2. Admits that they CAN(using auto) but now the debate becomes that it is NOT beneficial...

An inexperienced user who does not know software will probably get worse results than a properly exposed jpeg out of the camera.

Dissagree and have already stated how an inexperienced user can EASILY put the software on AUTO and get results at least equal to out of camera jpegs.

If you're going to stick a RAW converter to "Auto" then you are defeating the purpose and realizing the benefit of RAW; best to stick with jpeg.

Again That is your opinion and I choose not to debate this. I am not trying to convince anyone to use RAW or jpeg just stating HOW that casual/newb/inexperienced/etc... photographer can get decent results out of RAW files, contrary to what your original post had stated.

Processing RAW files is an extra step. Most casual shooters don't want to bother. Most people I've bothered to explained RAW to, inevitably switch back to jpeg.

Yes RAW files require the shooter to execute an addtional step.

And since we have all seen how accuratly you "explain" the RAW process and lack of benefit, I am not surprised that most of them have switched to back to jpeg.

If you do not feel archiving the digital negative is a benefit, well there is no debate here.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

Your words.
"If you're going to set a RAW converter to AUTO then you're actually defeating the whole purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place."
"I just don't believe that the casual shooter will really find any benefit to shooting RAW."
"If you're going to stick a RAW converter to "Auto" then you are defeating the purpose and realizing the benefit of RAW"

So would the casual shooter have any benefit or not?????
If you say no, my last comment stands.
If you say yes, then we agree that archiving digital negatives would be of benefit.

My point is that people often use software and technology as a crutch. Most people on these types of forums see someone else's photos and they ask what camera they were using and what technique was used in post processing, without realizing that in the end it doesn't really matter. I've seen great photographs taken with point-and-shoots that were actually better than quite a few I've seen taken with dSLR's. With RAW files you still need to consider exposure, lighting, composition, etc. Just because someone is shooting in RAW will not make them a better photographer. The skill comes from the photographer not the software or the equipment. Learn the basic skills before all else.

YES it is best to start with the best exposure possible regardless of the file captured.
Now back to the ORIGINAL point.

If your original post would have stated an OPINION that casual shooter may be uncapable of seeing any real benefit from RAWs until they gather more knowledge of processing, I would not have interjected.
BUT instead you stated as a fact that newbs would not be able to get decent conversions, and that it takes mucho knowledge to do so...

Turning it into a debate about RAWs benefits, talk of addtional steps or using RAW as crutch does not make that original post any more correct.

 

[pxlbarrel]

Up until recently I shot only jpgs....mainly because I'm cheap and wanted to maximize the amount of compact flash memory. I've recently switched to shooting both raw and jpg (the camera will store both). The raw so I can play around with the post processing and the jpg in case I just want to email a photo to somebody quickly...and not have to do a lot of post processing.

Unfortunately, shooting this way means I have to go out and buy more compact flash cards to complement the many i already have.

I also need a better raw image editing software or plugin than I have right now...perhaps invest in plug-in for Photoshop.

It's interesting to see the differences between the RAW and the JPG. For the OP, if your camera is capable of taking both at the same time, try that and see the difference in images. It may be slight but it might enlighten you a bit more as to what's really involved.

 

[Anewman]

I also need a better raw image editing software or plugin than I have right now...perhaps invest in plug-in for Photoshop.

Do you have Pixmantecs Rawshooter Essentials???

It is free while it lasts, ADOBE purchased Pixmantec and they are integrating the engine into LIghtroom once they go out of BETA they will stop distributing RSE so download ASAP. My buddy has it running on an old laptop that is to slow to run Photoshop elements, it runs great and he can actually multi task while it batch converts in the background.

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

Also highly reccomended is a program called Silkypix, never tried it but it is growing in popularity. Do a google search, they also have a free license.

Any questions or issues feel free to start a thread, plenty of RAW shooters around to help you.

 

[pxlbarrel]

Oooooo...thanks very much! I downloaded RawShooter Eseentials 2006 just now. It looks great. I'll have to take a look at it more closely in the morning. I'll look at that other software too.

 

[pyrxtc]

I'm just glad to see someone is getting bashed besides me. I found it no use to argue as long as I got my point across. Whch was, that I don't want everyone to think they should run out to buy a new camera that will shoot in RAW when they ahve a perfectly good camera in hand. If you area casual shooter then what you ahve is fine. Be happy with it like you have been and don't worry about anythig that has been said in these RAW posts. If your happy with your pictures then just be happy. The grass is always greener ...........

 

[pxlbarrel]

I'm just glad to see someone is getting bashed besides me. I found it no use to argue as long as I got my point across. Whch was, that I don't want everyone to think they should run out to buy a new camera that will shoot in RAW when they ahve a perfectly good camera in hand. If you area casual shooter then what you ahve is fine. Be happy with it like you have been and don't worry about anythig that has been said in these RAW posts. If your happy with your pictures then just be happy. The grass is always greener ...........

Absolutely! I "survived" on jpgs for years. LOL Absolutely nothing wrong with jpgs. If you've got time, the inclination and the curiosity...you can move into RAW images later.

 

[MICKEY88]

. The grass is always greener ...........

especially when working with raw files.....


sorry someone had to say it....LOL

 

[Anewman]

I'm just glad to see someone is getting bashed besides me. I found it no use to argue as long as I got my point across. Whch was, that I don't want everyone to think they should run out to buy a new camera that will shoot in RAW when they ahve a perfectly good camera in hand. If you area casual shooter then what you ahve is fine. Be happy with it like you have been and don't worry about anythig that has been said in these RAW posts. If your happy with your pictures then just be happy. The grass is always greener ...........

No one is being bashed(imo), but why would you be glad?
Just seems odd to me.

If I recall correctly you are one that said something like "only reason one should shoot RAW is if they do not know how to set their camera functions", I assure you if somebody said the same thing about JPEGS they would have gotton the same exact response as you.
It is and never was personal, as it is not in this thread.

Yes JPEGS are great and they serve MILLIONS of photographers very well, so there is no need to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about RAW. Stick to the FACTS about JPEG and nobody can call anyone out, its merits are very clear and stand on their own.