Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW and Capture are for idiots

Go to last post
gthervey,

I don't think you used ther term "idiot" in an offensive manor. I understood your point and I agree. Like you said .NEF format saved you under the circumstances you were under. I think as much as it saved you under those circumstances is also how much you can enhance your photos that are shot correctly.

More often then ever I am now using raw. Once you start using it it is really hard to go back to jpg. You never now when you are going to take that outstanding shot and if it is shot in raw you can really make it shine (or make it acceptable if you really screwed it up) Plus batch processing in capture to convert your nefs to jpgs is a breeze.

nick
gthervey said:
CIASpook said:
gthervey said:
CIASpook said:
Idiots is pretty harsh of a term. If he's calling me an idiot, I'm
ready to point out what he can cram his camera up and take some new
pictures. --
Click to expand...
Nope. Not calling you an idiot. See my earlier post...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=9100972

GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Click to expand...
--
Nick
USA, OHIO
 
"I have NEF files from a D70 I can't open yet since the software is not yet released." © 2004 KenRockwell.com

haha! Talk about an outdated article.
 
I agree. In my experience, Capture is slow to open images. If you are a hobbyst, it is fine. I can see why pros with lots of images to process would find it too slow. That being said, however, I believe that some pros use batch processing features of Capture/View etc. to apply custom processing to many files at once. I have never tried this.
Zippy DooDah said:
I find Photoshop-CS is better and faster for processing large
batches of images than Nikon Capture. I guess if one is doing just
a few images, it makes no difference.

I did a wedding this weekend with 300 images, so, no time for
Capture. With a large batch, spending even 30 seconds extra per
image means I waste close to 3 hours of my time to process 300
images. Photoshop-CS, by itelf, without Nikon Capture, works fine
for me (and my clients).
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
 
Thanks, Nick. It really is addictive, I find. I agree that a good NEF shot can be made even better with Capture tweaks.

I was never a pro (semi-pro only, and that was many many years ago), so I have never had real deadlines to deal with (other than trying to get an image finished before the kids wake up). I used to spend hours in the darkroom working on a handful of pictures. With NEF, Capture and PS, I can do the same thing digitally.

The main reasons that I like NEF, Capture, etc., is that they are fun to use (at least for me) and because I think that they help me produce better results. This rationale clearly will not apply to everyone, but it works for me.
Nickn90 said:
gthervey,
I don't think you used ther term "idiot" in an offensive manor. I
understood your point and I agree. Like you said .NEF format saved
you under the circumstances you were under. I think as much as it
saved you under those circumstances is also how much you can
enhance your photos that are shot correctly.

More often then ever I am now using raw. Once you start using it
it is really hard to go back to jpg. You never now when you are
going to take that outstanding shot and if it is shot in raw you
can really make it shine (or make it acceptable if you really
screwed it up) Plus batch processing in capture to convert your
nefs to jpgs is a breeze.

nick
Click to expand...
-
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
 
Ken Rockwell webste is so popular here, more than, for the example, luminous landscape or Fred Miranda. As of shooting in RAW - I was, am and will be an idiot for a long time.
 
then I'm an idiot too for misunderstanding...damn it!

well, at least we're not alone, right?
gthervey said:
CIASpook said:
gthervey said:
CIASpook said:
Idiots is pretty harsh of a term. If he's calling me an idiot, I'm
ready to point out what he can cram his camera up and take some new
pictures. --
Click to expand...
Nope. Not calling you an idiot. See my earlier post...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=9100972

GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Click to expand...
 
CIASpook said:
"RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital
cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for." --Ken

Excuse me? I thought digital cameras were for taking pictures.
And since people take pictures of landscapes...2+2 still equals 4
right?
Click to expand...
I think Ken has also stated in other articles of his that "real" landscape photographers use medium- or large-format film, which is just another example of Ken taking a kernel of truth and exaggerating it to absurdity.

While it is true that shooting NEF can sometimes save you from mistakes made at shooting time (exposure, white balance); that's not the only to shoot RAW. Better resolution, no compression artifacts, reduced noise, etc, are all perfectly valid reasons for shooting RAW that I would think apply even to many "pros".

The only reason I can see for shooting JPEG is for certain types of photography where you're shooting lots of images and need a quick turnaround time with no post-processing overhead (journalism, sports, weddings). But there are a lot of people who do not fall into that category.

I didn't always use RAW on my old FujiFilm S7000 because there was no way to quickly view RAF files, you had to open them in a convertor which could be slow. But Nikon View can display NEF's quickly enough that I always shoot RAW unless I need more than 4 frame bursts when shooting action/sports/etc.
 
I agree. The Miranda and Luminous Landscape sites are really good. From one idiot to another!
Mikhail Bogdanov said:
Ken Rockwell webste is so popular here, more than, for the example,
luminous landscape or Fred Miranda. As of shooting in RAW - I was,
am and will be an idiot for a long time.
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
 
Idiot's have an IQ below 20, which make them slightly more intelligent than gold fish.

Moron (50-69), I believe is a better term because it implies an ability to conduct a minimal amount of rational thought.

I personally believe most of you are morons, and not idiots. I base this opinion on the fact you can turn on your computer and camera and then proceed to screw things up ;-) An idiot would have trouble inserting the battery in the D70 and would probably forget to put the memory card in.

Cheer up - most of you are simply morons and not idiots.

--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

P.S. - If you misunderstand the nature of this post - you are an idiot (maybe and imbecile (20-49)).
 
I resemble that remark....
Newcomb said:
Idiot's have an IQ below 20, which make them slightly more
intelligent than gold fish.

Moron (50-69), I believe is a better term because it implies an
ability to conduct a minimal amount of rational thought.

I personally believe most of you are morons, and not idiots. I
base this opinion on the fact you can turn on your computer and
camera and then proceed to screw things up ;-) An idiot would have
trouble inserting the battery in the D70 and would probably forget
to put the memory card in.

Cheer up - most of you are simply morons and not idiots.

--
Michael Newcomb, Temecula - CA

P.S. - If you misunderstand the nature of this post - you are an
idiot (maybe and imbecile (20-49)).
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
 
I have yet to crack my capture program. having too much fun with the camera!
gthervey said:
I have read heated debates as to whether "real" photographers shoot
in RAW. In his 2004 article, which has been widely cited in this
forum, Ken Rockwell essentially takes the position that those
photographers who know what they are doing shoot in JPEG and that
RAW is for those who don't know what they are doing. If you have
not seen it, here is the article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

In other words, only idiots use RAW. I absolutely agree. I agree
because I am absolutely the kind of idiot that needs the
flexibility offered by RAW and Capture to save myself from my
stupid mistakes. Last weekend I shot my daughter's ballet recital.
It was a large auditorium, I was about halfway back, and I used my
85mm 1.8 lens. (I also had to borrow a friend's D100 body because
my D70 is in for service to correct backfocus, but I won't get into
that here...)

At the last minute, I decided to shoot in NEF. I am SO glad that I
did. It has probably been 30 years since I shot a theatre/stage
production, and I was so nervous about my daughter's performance
that I completely blanked out on the fact that the performers, lit
by spotlights, would be much brighter than the background. In
other words, I should have applied anywhere from -1/2 to -1 EV,
which I failed to do. The result: great backgrounds and
overexposed dancers! Not to mention blown highlights. I was
crushed. Then, I brought up the images in Capture 4.1, and was
able to save the shots, much better than if I had just shot JPEG.
Moreover, I was able to fiddle with the white balance to get much
truer colors. The blown highlights were blown, of course, but I
was able to minimize the damage and get some pretty decent results.

So, because I used NEF, I ended up with shots that I can print and
share. Without, I would have had bad snapshots, and I would have
been very disappointed.

Mr. Rockwell is no doubt correct in his article, and I have great
respect for his contributions to photography. This and other
experiences, however, have shown me, yet again, that I am not in
his class, despite my efforts to convince myself otherwise. But, I
will keep trying and learning. And, for those really important
shots, I am sticking with RAW, at least until I become a real
photographer.

--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/nowhereatoll
http://www.nowhereatoll.com
 
I read Ken's article. I can understand where he is coming from. When I first got the camera (my first dslr... i am a poor techphoto grad) I was soooo excited I had all this power! Huge files!!! YES!!!

But now I avoid shooting raw... and when I do I still shoot a large fine JPG to go with it =)
but those shots don't happen all that much when your workin' 8-5 ;-p
hope I don't sound like an elitest sh*t if i ever make it as a "pro"
but there is truth to what he's sayin'

ok, that be my 2 cent
mark

ps. I'm sure I'll shoot my weddings in JPG this summer (and not because of his article... but I was thinking along the same lines)
 
I shoot in RAW/NEF. I do so because I am not perfect. I do so because the lighting is not perfect. I do so because my knowledge and expertise in digital is not perfect. And finally I do so because there's this tiny microprocessor that's the D70's brain...and we all know how perfect those things are.

rick
 
Lest there be any misunderstanding among the readers of my postings in this thread, I frankly do not have any quarrel with Mr. Rockwell's conclusions regarding the use of JPEG vs RAW. The point that I was really trying to make is that, despite my own delusions (not to mention 30 years of experience as an amateur photographer), I really do not know even a tiny fraction of what someone like Mr. Rockwell knows. Therefore, I do not satify the condition of his thesis. That is, he says, if you knew what you are doing, you would shoot in JPEG. I clearly DON'T know what I am doing (I know a lot, just not enough), so the rest of the analysis does not apply to me. Moreover, as my experience from the ballet shoot demonstrates, I am, in fact, an idiot (or perhaps a merely moron, as was also suggested).

Mr. Rockwell's analysis and advice, therefore, are merely academic to me, because I still need a lot of help. Therefore, I value the extra crutches that RAW offers. Plus, I have time to twiddle with it, and I enjoy it.

My post, therefore, was not intended as a criticism of Mr. Rockwell. I am quite unqualified to venture criticism in that regard. But, I am qualified to say why I like RAW, and to suggest that you might benefit from it, too.

Happy shooting.
RITphototech said:
I read Ken's article. I can understand where he is coming from.
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
 
I think you have summed it all up quite well!
rabsparks said:
I shoot in RAW/NEF. I do so because I am not perfect. I do so
because the lighting is not perfect. I do so because my knowledge
and expertise in digital is not perfect. And finally I do so
because there's this tiny microprocessor that's the D70's
brain...and we all know how perfect those things are.

rick
Click to expand...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top