Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Photos thread
sybersitizen
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,590
Like?
Said more accurately ...
In reply to sybersitizen, Jun 30, 2013

sybersitizen wrote:

realgeek wrote:

It's certainly convenient to let the camera do it. That's JPEG's big (and only) advantage...The only argument is that they are more convenient and good enough.

More inaccuracy. There are other advantages that some RAW shooters are not aware of or are forgetting about.

Maybe that's good enough for you.  But it shouldn't be.

People shouldn't be telling people what they shouldn't do. But the other stuff you wrote about RAW is accurate, so that part is fine.

For anyone who might be wondering what the other advantages of JPG are...

JPG files are processed and stored internally by your camera faster than RAW files are. This typically provides a dramatic improvement in responsiveness - things like a faster frame rate and improved buffer clearing time.

JPG files take up less storage space than RAW files. This means... a) you can own and carry fewer and/or lower capacity memory cards, which can be a money saver and reduce card swapping; and b) you can work effectively with less RAM, less computer storage space, less backup space, and less disaster recovery space. This can save you not only money, but time as well during file transfers, backups, and restores.

JPG shooting allows you to scale down your in-camera images when the sensor's full resolution isn't needed. This again improves responsiveness throughout the entire shooting and processing chain, and reduces storage requirements even further. (A couple of our A-mount cameras allow scaling down RAW files as well, but the majority do not.)

JPG files load into memory faster and process faster than RAW files, making all your software more responsive for viewing, editing, and managing.

JPG files are compatible with everything. There are no concerns about them not being properly supported by computer software or other devices, either today or in the future. There are in fact a geat many nice cameras that don't even offer RAW format; but few cameras that don't offer JPG format.

JPG files are understood by everybody. When you yourself are not available (dead, for example) others with access to your images but without an understanding of the RAW format will have no difficulty accessing and enjoying them.

One more possible factor is that shooting JPG teaches some things about photography that shooting RAW does not teach. JPGs provide an incentive to consider everything that's going on and everything you're doing before the shot. Lighting, exposure, white balance, etc. are best addressed and dealt with before you press the shutter button. You can't always rely on fixing every mistake in post, so you eventually learn to make fewer mistakes when behind the camera. I personally learned about all that as a young man shooting Kodachrome, which was far less forgiving than modern JPG files, and definitively 'set in stone', unlike JPGs. Working with slides - not negatives - for decades set me on a particular path, with the result that I personally am not very interested in the digital negatives provided by the RAW format.

I'm sure that many of you will be tempted to say these factors are not important to you, so you personally disregard them - 'Memory is cheap' is one favorite so-called counterargument - but don't bother doing so, because I won't argue points of view. Factors are factors, and they may very well be important to somebody. Many of the RAW workflow's known advantages are not important to me personally, but I don't deny they exist.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
+1New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow