Why you should shoot RAW: an example

Started Feb 13, 2009 | Discussions thread
OP Docno Veteran Member • Posts: 4,874
RE: "Silly debate..."

I'm not sure it's that simple, Walt. On my A700, I found that the RAWs batched in Bibble were perceptibly superior to in-camera jpegs, esp before the v4 firmware for that camera. Also, one of the big 'complaints' of the a900 is about the jpeg engine, especially what it does at high ISOs. I would bet -- though I haven't tried it -- that batched jpegs in a RAW converter would give you better output (also consider that Bibble, for instance, has noise-ninja built in). And don't forget, if you batch process, you can go back to tweak any conversions that didn't work out to your satisfaction (eg if there was something unusual about the photo in terms of lighting or you want to achieve a special effect).

WaltKnapp wrote:

Ken is flat out wrong on that by a bunch of orders of magnitude.
Assuming you shoot with the appropriate settings for that shot at
best occasionally RAW shooters might be able to claim 0.01% or less,
not 50%. For all the extra time it takes to individually process each
shot. If you process your RAWs with a batch process on the same
setting for all, it's probably negative on the average improvement.

Especially as RAW shooters tend to learn more and more bad shooting
habits the longer they shoot RAW. Because "I can fix it in RAW"


-- hide signature --

Galleries: http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glennjude
Sony A700, KM 11-18mm, CZ16-80mm, SAL70-300mm G, SAL18-250mm, 50mm F1.4

 Docno's gear list:Docno's gear list
Sony RX1 Sony RX100 IV Sony a7R II Sony 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G SSM Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow