B
Bob Williams
Guest
The problem in all of these things being done in camera, is this.
They get done the same way everytime. The sharpening
gets done the same. Interpolation gets done the same. The
compression gets done the same.
Taking the case of the jpeg compression. Years before anyone
with less money than NASA could afford a CCD of any kind, all
of the better editors had already included variable jpeg
compression settings, and the best had included a preview
window that allowed you to see the effects of the compression
on the image. They also offered lossless compression methods
for the times when Jpeg was unacceptable. Warnings about the
change to the image are still displayed in my primary editor. There
was no single compression setting that covered all of the images
you might work with. There still isn't, just like no single set of
sharpening settings are useful for all of the images you process.
This is one of the primary strengths of the RAW format. In use,
it allows the white balance to be set after capture, in case the
logical choice for that shot turned out wrong. It allows the
sharp settings to be set post capture, for the best quality, just
like editing in a good editing program. It allows you to choose the
storage option that is best for that image. I regularly process
whole directories of RAW images to tiff files, using the in camera
settings. I then look at the tiffs. If the image is good, I erase
the tiff, and keep the RAW for a more controled conversion using
my settings. If the image is junk, I delete both the RAW and the
tiff. When I am done going thru the directory, the RAW files
that are left get converted one at a time using the best settings
for each one. The newer D60 option of having a jpg file the size
of a G1 file included, makes the first conversion a moot point.
This is why I think that the Sigma did not include a jpg option
in the original specs. The designers understood the advantages
of having RAW. After having all of the discussions about this one
point, I still think they are correct, but my point of view is
strictly influenced by image quality. From the number of posters
that have complained about this, from a marketing standpoint,
it is most likely a mistake. For those that edit in high bit spaces,
and then convert the images back to 8/24 bit for printing and
web display, having the RAW only option has no impact, as that
is all they would use anyway. For everyone else, the RAW only
option seems to be a limitation.
They get done the same way everytime. The sharpening
gets done the same. Interpolation gets done the same. The
compression gets done the same.
Taking the case of the jpeg compression. Years before anyone
with less money than NASA could afford a CCD of any kind, all
of the better editors had already included variable jpeg
compression settings, and the best had included a preview
window that allowed you to see the effects of the compression
on the image. They also offered lossless compression methods
for the times when Jpeg was unacceptable. Warnings about the
change to the image are still displayed in my primary editor. There
was no single compression setting that covered all of the images
you might work with. There still isn't, just like no single set of
sharpening settings are useful for all of the images you process.
This is one of the primary strengths of the RAW format. In use,
it allows the white balance to be set after capture, in case the
logical choice for that shot turned out wrong. It allows the
sharp settings to be set post capture, for the best quality, just
like editing in a good editing program. It allows you to choose the
storage option that is best for that image. I regularly process
whole directories of RAW images to tiff files, using the in camera
settings. I then look at the tiffs. If the image is good, I erase
the tiff, and keep the RAW for a more controled conversion using
my settings. If the image is junk, I delete both the RAW and the
tiff. When I am done going thru the directory, the RAW files
that are left get converted one at a time using the best settings
for each one. The newer D60 option of having a jpg file the size
of a G1 file included, makes the first conversion a moot point.
This is why I think that the Sigma did not include a jpg option
in the original specs. The designers understood the advantages
of having RAW. After having all of the discussions about this one
point, I still think they are correct, but my point of view is
strictly influenced by image quality. From the number of posters
that have complained about this, from a marketing standpoint,
it is most likely a mistake. For those that edit in high bit spaces,
and then convert the images back to 8/24 bit for printing and
web display, having the RAW only option has no impact, as that
is all they would use anyway. For everyone else, the RAW only
option seems to be a limitation.
