jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
False analogy, Bill, RAW does not cost more than Jpeg. Having said that, I agree. Good enough is good enough and everybody chooses his own level.
I disagree, however, with "labor for hours". The conversion of a shot of normal standard from the M8, RAW conversion in ACR, crop, check levels and curves, check sharpening, reset to 8 bits and save takes less than two minutes.That is without batch conversion,which I would use for a family picknick; that would bring it down to a few seconds and five minutes for the lot. As I posted earlier, a worst case scenario,fit only for shots one realy wants to enhance or print large, less than ten minutes. Lightroom is even quicker and easier for most of us, even if it has a few less possibilities.
I disagree, however, with "labor for hours". The conversion of a shot of normal standard from the M8, RAW conversion in ACR, crop, check levels and curves, check sharpening, reset to 8 bits and save takes less than two minutes.That is without batch conversion,which I would use for a family picknick; that would bring it down to a few seconds and five minutes for the lot. As I posted earlier, a worst case scenario,fit only for shots one realy wants to enhance or print large, less than ten minutes. Lightroom is even quicker and easier for most of us, even if it has a few less possibilities.
rsl
Russell
I can agree that "good enough" is good enough for family snapshots. The really serious drawback to shooting jpeg is that if, in the course of shooting "good enough" stuff, you happen to come up with something that really should be exhibited, and you decide that "good enough" isn't good enough, your options are limited. If your exposure was dead on and your color balance was dead on, and you don't need the latitude raw gives you, then you may be okay. But very often that's not the case. If you can go back and re-shoot the picture in raw you may be all right, but that's rarely possible even with a static subject, unless the subject was in a studio under controlled lighting. But if you were in a studio under controlled lighting you probably weren't going for "good enough." You probably were going for "best of show."
And, as Jaap pointed out above, if you take a raw shoot into Photoshop or Lightroom you can do a batch conversion to "good enough" jpeg, if that's what you want, without having to do more than click a button and then have a cup of coffee while the thing runs.
And, as Jaap pointed out above, if you take a raw shoot into Photoshop or Lightroom you can do a batch conversion to "good enough" jpeg, if that's what you want, without having to do more than click a button and then have a cup of coffee while the thing runs.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Let X represent the amount of time it takes to process and convert a RAW file to a JPG file. I think we can agree that this number is always greater than zero.
Let Y represent the amount of time it takes to process and resave a JPG file, including the cases in which no processing is done at all. I think we can agree that if no processing is done, then Y equals zero.
Therefore, the value of X can be greater than the value of Y, but it is never less. The value of Y can be greater than the value of X, but it it can be less.
It can take less time to process JPG files if they do not need to be processed than it does RAW files, no matter what the actual values of X and Y happen to be in your case or mine.
Additionally - when I am shooting a moving subject or fast action, I can take more photos using JPG than I can using RAW, due to the speed of my camera writing to the card through the memory buffer.
I still submit that JPG is a valid option, and there are times when it is superior to RAW. I use each according to when I think it is best to do so.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree. I call it a compromise, and photography is chock-a-block full of compromises. I often choose to shoot available-light by pumping up my ISO or pushing my film, and the image quality suffers. If I later find a shot I really would have liked to have been less grainy - well, I'm out of luck. We pays our money and we takes our chances.
rsl
Russell
I agree with you about the f/64 group. I've never been particularly impressed by Edward Weston or Ansel Adams. I think that was a blind alley for photography though I know there are more people out there who will disagree with me than those who will agree. But I can't see how shooting raw can be a distraction. You don't have to push the shutter release twice and you don't have to put yourself into some sort of physical contortion to shoot raw. The only difference between shooting raw and shooting jpeg is that with raw you have what amounts to backup. If your photograph needs some work you often have enough information in the raw file to let you do what needs to be done. All editing is destructive. The difference between shooting raw and shooting jpeg is the difference between having a generous chunk of marble when you set out to do a sculpture and having a chunk that's barely adequate, and sometimes turns out not to be adequate. I think Jaap's example earlier in this thread illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. If he'd made that shot in jpeg he'd never have been able to come up with the result in the finished photograph.
JonR
Well-known
Very interesting discussion to follow and I guess the conclusion is that there is no "right" or "wrong" answer - it is all about what makes us spend time with our cameras and PC´s and what is most interesting.
It is very clear that if you have the interest you can get much better flexibility with RAW than JPEG. I will never argue that.
But to me the fun thing is to bring my camera with me, out in the field, take lot´s of photos and enjoy printing some of them to share with family and friends. I am more into "capturing" images and moments than producing the oustandning photo to exhibit and therefore I only use JPEG.
You can argue this forever and I admire those of you that have the time and energy to post process on the PC but for me JPEG is good enough...
Jon
It is very clear that if you have the interest you can get much better flexibility with RAW than JPEG. I will never argue that.
But to me the fun thing is to bring my camera with me, out in the field, take lot´s of photos and enjoy printing some of them to share with family and friends. I am more into "capturing" images and moments than producing the oustandning photo to exhibit and therefore I only use JPEG.
You can argue this forever and I admire those of you that have the time and energy to post process on the PC but for me JPEG is good enough...
Jon
jwhitley
Established
I concur. I've been going this route myself, shooting RAW from early on, and it was a great decision. The flexibility to go back to the original RAW file is great, especially as I improve my digital darkroom and printmaking skills. Picking an older image and doing a substantially different rendering has been both eye opening and highly rewarding. Fun stuff!
remegius
Well-known
Precisely. What is the difference between shooting jpg vs raw...nothing, if that's the way you want it. It takes 5 seconds to convert a raw file. But, if for some future reason you decide that you would like to spend some time with that image, sprucing it up, it will be there waiting for you, just like a negative.
Cheers...
Rem
rsl
Russell
In addition, the tools keep getting better. I have a couple borderline raw files from several years ago that earlier postprocessing tools couldn't quite bring around. CS3 can turn them into prints that are pretty close to "best of show." Had those files been jpegs that simply wouldn't be true.
But, of course, you might not care. Jon said:
Again, fair enough. But why "capture" images unless you intend to show them? Wouldn't you rather share really good photos with your family and friends than just "good enough" photos? Maybe not, and if not, that's a perfectly valid personal decision. I can't argue with it.
F456
Tom H
Exactly so; I've just logged in after reworking some shots I wasn't happy with - the colour was too yellow. It didn't take very long with the RAW files (as with most things it gets much easier with a bit of practice) and I'm pleased I had the 'digital negs' to go back to. Even if you don't have to do that too often, it's reassuring to have the dngs, nefs, etc for those times when the pictures don't look right after the first attempt.
The main thing I suppose is to enjoy our hobby - personally I can spoil it for myself by being too obsessive over the workflow! Tom
kuzano
Veteran
Time in post processing offset by camera time saved
Time in post processing offset by camera time saved
I think I read most of the posts, but do not recall seeing comments about the time saved (OK, not write time) in shooting RAW, insofar as learning and tweaking all the controls for in-camera processing.
RAW does not take that much more time when you consider that RAW takes less work to set up the camera in the first place for each image or set of images.
As regards streamlining the process, one of the best investments I made recently was Scott Kelby's Seven Point System for Photoshop. I know the book is getting mixed reviews for not being more explanatory on theory, but I don't give a rip for theory as long as a few certain steps get me to my goal.
The book starts every one of the 20 plus exercises with opening files in Camera RAW.
Time in post processing offset by camera time saved
I think I read most of the posts, but do not recall seeing comments about the time saved (OK, not write time) in shooting RAW, insofar as learning and tweaking all the controls for in-camera processing.
RAW does not take that much more time when you consider that RAW takes less work to set up the camera in the first place for each image or set of images.
As regards streamlining the process, one of the best investments I made recently was Scott Kelby's Seven Point System for Photoshop. I know the book is getting mixed reviews for not being more explanatory on theory, but I don't give a rip for theory as long as a few certain steps get me to my goal.
The book starts every one of the 20 plus exercises with opening files in Camera RAW.
arnulf
Registered User
The original post was about an M8, right? Well, I just remembered reading somewhere that the JPEGs on this camera actually get quite distorted, almost oversharpened because of the sharpness of the Leica lenses. Never tried an M8 myself, but it would be interesting to hear if anyone else has heard about this problem.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Absolute nonsense. The Jpegs were not all that great initially, mostly because of poor AWB, but since the last firmware they are as good -or bad
- as any camera on the market.This about the lenses and Jpegs sounds like a wiseass red herring....
- as any camera on the market.This about the lenses and Jpegs sounds like a wiseass red herring....
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If you are shooting like that, you'll probably will have lost focus by shot five. I would think an AF DSLR with a high fps and large buffer would be more suitable. I don't think the M8 was designed for that. But then, some of us use the M8 for the strangest kind of photographic applications
Of course, if one feels it is better in a given situation, by all means...
It just seems to me that spending 10.000$ plus on a Leica kit and using it routinely like a 500$ point and shoot, which is what some "no RAW" photographers seem to do, is a bit wasteful and not what one was looking for in the first place.
Last edited:
jarski
Veteran
jpg vs raw.. so where does the film scans fit in here ? "soup" the film by yourself, scan with high end film scanner to TIFF with max resolution, convert to digital negative, open with camera raw and photoshop, and start adjusting with curves etc.. pixel peeping at its best
edit: finally dumb down everything, by converting results to 800x600 pixel jpg, and upload it to flickr
edit: finally dumb down everything, by converting results to 800x600 pixel jpg, and upload it to flickr
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So true - it is a bit strange to limit yourself by scanning film. Better to capture everyting either digitally, OR really do film - chemically only
Not that digital B&W is that bad... This is *nearly* a Jpeg shot; opened in ACR, hit "auto",convert to CS3, convert by Aliens Skin Exposure2 and hit Jack Flesher's web saving action. It only remains to plonk my copyright brush and save... Twenty seconds flat. (Sorry - forgot I also added a border by two clicks in Bordermania)
Not that digital B&W is that bad... This is *nearly* a Jpeg shot; opened in ACR, hit "auto",convert to CS3, convert by Aliens Skin Exposure2 and hit Jack Flesher's web saving action. It only remains to plonk my copyright brush and save... Twenty seconds flat. (Sorry - forgot I also added a border by two clicks in Bordermania)
Last edited:
rsl
Russell
Adobe's DNG is an open standard that will be around at least as long as jpeg or TIFF. TIFF, for instance, designed by Aldus and bought out by Adobe, which used to be the linga franca of digital imagery, hasn't had an update since 1992. Leica and Hasselblad were smart enough to adopt DNG as their standard raw format. Eventually Canon, Nikon, and all the others will have to come around. In the meantime, you can convert virtually any raw format to DNG.
Last edited:
arnulf
Registered User
Ok, this might be a little off the original topic, but: converting TIFFs to DNG? How do you do that? (In CS3, I mean)jpg vs raw.. so where does the film scans fit in here ? "soup" the film by yourself, scan with high end film scanner to TIFF with max resolution, convert to digital negative, open with camera raw and photoshop, and start adjusting with curves etc.. pixel peeping at its best
arnulf
Registered User
Fair enough. So what does jarski mean when he says "convert to digital negative"?
arnulf
Registered User
rsl: Thanks. I knew about the possibility of converting other RAW files into DNG. My question was about jarski's post about converting scanned TIFFs into DNG. I have never heard about that before, and as far as I can see, the DNG converter doesn't do it. I was just wondering what that was all about..