Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 24, 2004, 8:59 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

actually the current standard for journalism is JPG so i convert and send. pictures in newspapers and mags are stomped on all over the place. the amateur hobbiest is the one who likes to play with the image the one who is looking for the perfect image that he/she can hang with pride and dream of selling or the studio pro who must have it right raw is where they like it.

but your right you don't need RAW. those who use it though love it and embraced its capabilities. just those who want the best image they're willing to make.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 9:40 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

The reason I don't shoot in the RAW is because I hate using my computer. I don't have the patience to bring everything into photoshop or a standalone RAW conversion program.

I'd rather shoot jpeg's, let iPhoto import them and go outside and take more pictures. On the occasional time I need to post-process I'll bring my photo's into photoshop by that's the rare occasion.

It isn't as perfect, but I have better things to do than tweak each shot. For shots early in the morning with changing light, wouldn't batch processing would cause me more white balance issues then letting the camera handle it with periodic custom WB resets?

While RAW has it's good points the extra steps in the workflow ought to be included in the downside.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 9:57 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

thats jut fine if that works for you. i just bulk download mine via acdsee 6 and i'm on my way. its just as easy on both OS's. acdsee supports raw so i can see the thumbnails right away and go on shooting.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2004, 11:35 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I considered not posting more, but I found myself annoyed enough that I had just say this.

KaptinKABOOM
Please adjust your attitude. Raising your voice with CAPS is unnecessary and really unwanted here. You look like you know what you're talking about, so you don't need to do it. Just say what you think, please do not talk down to us by raising your volume. It doesn't help your point and if you were actually talking to me the way you type, I would have stopped listening and left.

You keep talking like you have to be a Pro to care about top quality. I have never sold a picture in my life, so I am not a professional photographer. But I care about top quality. I have just recently switched to using RAW for about 75% of my shots (whenever lots of burst firing doesn't matter) and it’s benefits are clear to me. So your continued instance that only a pro cares about RAW and high quality is just wrong. Anyone can care about making quality pictures. And that desire can lead them to the RAW format to give them that extra flexibility.

And your return comment to mrkryz was insulting, pointless, and below you. You clearly know something about photography but to belittle his statement (which is perfectly correct and makes the counter-point perfectly) was… uncalled for? Unrelated? Just wrong. You don't have to be a PJ or "Pro" to care about quality & his example is a perfect one. A shot of a baby's first steps is a once-in-a-lifetime event and he wants to capture them as best as he can... that includes, in his case, using RAW to allow for easier correction of any mistakes/flaws to produce the best he can. Your reference to the state/format of your baby pictures was stupid and insulting and only made you look dumb.

You can do better.

Reading this thread made me think I’d moved over to dpreview’s forums. I hope we don’t dip to that level. That would be truly sad.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 1:58 AM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

Would it be a correct to assume that most of the responces concerning post processing raw files that the software for the processing in question is Adobe Photshop CS ??

No to discourage anyone, but this software cost more than at least one of the digital cameras mentioned. Depending on the depth of ones pocket this might be something to take into account.
LewTwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 2:08 AM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

I apoligize for my typing style which implied yelling. and I honestly did not mean to seem like such a smart ass it just seems that every time I join a forum and someone asks a question involving weither or not a high end option is needed on something, is treated to a whole slew of statements which imply that the answer is a simple yes without taking into account who is asking it.

The case in point is RAW file format is a good thing IF and only if you need it. If you dont know how to work with photoshop or any other digital imaging software then you probally do not need the Raw file format. Instead of explaining this, people chime in recomending that the person spend 400 dollars on a digital camera!?

The tone of the posts before mine suggest that jpegs make it impossible to do any post processing what so ever.... this is totally untrue! So I guess I got a little carried away with my annoyance (long day at work... and finals coming up soon ... hah errrg).

It just seems to me that now a days people blindly jump to the best thing... the most expensive camera, the fastest computer... without asking the person who needs the piece of equiptment if they actually need it. People want to upgrade to the fastest computers ... yet they never used the one they had before to its fullest potential.

So in this same light people act when a new bit of technology comes out that everything before it is, was and always will be obsolete.... this is not true... becuase if it were nothing we have would ever be good enough to do anything.... Why use what you have if something better is coming out tomarow?

Recently I got a Kodak DX6440 Camera and I love it....(4.0 MP 4.0X optical zoom, 16 MB of internal memory and the smaller shutter speed lag in its class for $200 from buy.com with the 6000 dock).
Though is is crippeled with its jpeg compression I am most certian that I can adjust and tweek the image as needed in photoshop... and though I dont have all options that a RAW file format would allow me... I can still fix alot of errors in exposure and well just about anything with it. But it does what I need it to do and that is take pictures that I can mess with in my spare time when I am not in class/at work.

When I was a photography student I shot primarly with a Canon Elan II. I also ended up saving up a whole bunch of money and purchasing an EOS 1...... Which I ended up promptly selling at a bit of a loss.... why you ask? Becuase I didn't need it! The entire time I pondered buying one everyone only said "yeah wow yeah that is a nice camera yupp yupp sure is a nice camera yeah I would like one of those".

Personally I think its better to start off with a lower end camera and work your way up... it will help you learn how to take pictures and in the very least it will make you appricate the higher end stuff when you get there. Basically dont let the cameras ability to output raw files be a deciding factor.

There is alot you can do with a RAW file in photoshop.... and consequently you can do alot all of the same things with a jpeg in the Gimp (open source image editor www.gimp.org ). The only real big difference is that you basically get to decide how the camera intprets information from its sensor (color balcing, tonal adjustments), where as with jpeg some of this has already been done for you. Acting as if nothing can be done without raw file format is misleading.

My point about the babys first steps was not that the situation did not matter, or that you shouldn't care about a once-in-a-lifetime event , Its just that pictures of your kids first steps are great (well I assume... I dont have kids yet)... no matter if you took them with a disposable camera or with a Leaf pro Medium format 22 MP digital back. Pictures like those are memories, and personally all of the pictures that I have like that are to remind me of the event... keepsakes of those I hold dear; for those its not the quality of the picture that is important ... its the quality of the memory.

So eric s....I wasn't really trying to talk down to everyone in this forum... just those who try to pigeon hole others into thinking that something like raw file formats are a necessity. but your right it was beneath me...... But oddly enough you reply to what you percieved as getting talked down to ... by talking down to me. This makes you seem like a hypocrite.

So dont ask me to do better then you do your self there buddy...
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 8:39 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Having to work today (sigh) I'll read your post in depth later today. I've skimmed it, thought, and had a thought. I just wanted to say that I'm happy you really didn't go crazy at my post. The forum is enriched when knowledgeable people join.

I'd like to think that I was trying to raise you up instead of talking down. But I can see (once I read your last paragraph) how it could be seen that way. I've just lurked on too many forums that have useful information while at the same time get dragged down into yelling and screaming and person attacks (you didn't do this, I'm just saying what I've seen) with little actually said. I joined this forum not because it has the most knowledgeable people (which it doesn't) but because in about a year of daily visits I've seen it happen exactly once. And I'd like it to stay that way.

It was not my intent. I just did (and truly still do) feel that several of your comments were way out of line. Dismissing people with extreme examples that no one would agree with (equating using raw files to burning your childhood pictures! Oh my god!) is a classic debating technique that is actually bad. It doesn't make your point, but instead is a method of actually discrediting a person without discrediting their argument. You did a good job of explaining why you felt using JPG can yield good results (which I agree with, I've got about 8000 JPGs in-which there are many "good" pictures...) but that comment (accompanied with your tone) was to me inappropriate.

Quote:
My point about the babys first steps was not that the situation did not matter, or that you shouldn't care about a once-in-a-lifetime event , Its just that pictures of your kids first steps are great (well I assume... I dont have kids yet)... no matter if you took them with a disposable camera or with a Leaf pro Medium format 22 MP digital back.
And that I'll fully agree with.

The bottom line for me with RAWs is that I can do white balance so much easier. I dislike having gray mushy skies and off-white whites. Since I shoot outdoors I can't use custom white balance... but being able to change it with a few mouse clicks is just so nice... it’s worth it. And if I have to, I'll convert it to a compressed TIFF and delete the larger RAW... Sure, I'll loose the "negative" but I'll still have a good low level place to start future editing while still saving some disk space. But RAW certainly isn't the end-all-be-all of formats and is overkill for most pictures… but I find it makes my life easier.

Back to work.... I wrote more than I intended.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 9:53 AM   #28
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 21
Default

Yeah Point taken, the burining baby pictures was a bit much... but it was kind of eluding to the eailer post in which someone made an analogy to "burning negitives and keeping prints" with a jpeg format.


Now that I have posted way too much to this thread ......
I need to get back to homework.

... and jnrob if your still reading this thread after I caused such a stir in it (heh my bad), Check out www.fatwallet.com and www.anandtech.com for great deals on digital cameras IF you havent already purchased one.
KaptinKABOOM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 10:10 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

lewtoo

just as a point of info. generally all cameras that have the ability to capture a RAW image and save it too (because all cameras shoot raw and then convert it to the appropriate image format of your choice in camera) include with the camera an at least baseline RAW converter utility program. all 3 of my digi's are raw capable and have such programs included. there are also a few 3rd party converters on the market that vary in price from $0-$400 none of which i own. yes i do own PSCS i've used PS since v5. it is the best (unfortunately) digital darkroom at this point in time. adobe sets the standards. in fact adobe is calling for a RAW standard be produced. one RAW for all.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2004, 10:23 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

KaptinKABOOM

i apologize for my manners. there are many levels of photographer. all are equal in my eye just for the love of the art and science.

the origin of this thread was asking is raw nesessary. how i should have answered it was to what level do you want to shoot. the point of raw is giving back total control of the image to the photographer(it bypasses any in camera processing). some neither need or want that control and accept what the camera produces. so my revised answer is- only if you want it.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:12 AM.