I Will Not Shot in RAW

Started May 19, 2013 | Discussions
jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,875
"If you're happy with..."

is a quote often used to look down just a bit at what others are doing, or "happy with".  lol.

Another side to that picture is that the Q could be asked, Are you happy with...heavier/larger gear, or with...spending more time on computer....or...reduced buffer/fps...or, missed opportunity since the cam one uses most was not with me at the time.  etc.

They too are valid questions.  Maybe not for all, but for many.

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100
Don_Campbell Senior Member • Posts: 2,737
Re: I Will Not Shoot JPGs

DonA2 wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

I apologize in advance for being repetitive. Raw capability is more of an aid in small sensor cameras than it is in large sensor DSLRs. That's because it can give you greater control over noise reduction which is more of a small sensor problem. It can also let you control sharpening better than the in-camera processing and it gives you more ability to get the most out of the limited dynamic range of the small sensor.

If you're happy with your results without those advantages, as you seem to be, that's totally fine with me. However, it is not true that raw capability is more important for larger sensor cameras. Those large sensor cameras have far less need for customized noise reduction and customized sharpening and they have far less of an issue with dynamic range.

Don

Don, I got the message on small sensors benefitting more than larger sensors when it comes to DR and noise. However my take is that people who buy small sensor cameras do not go for absolute perfection.  No doubt that RAW allows for greater processing range and one should try for the best end game possible.

Hi Don,

I've looked at your gallery. You clearly are an accomplished photographer and you get stunning and interesting images with your tools. Your gallery illustrates the idea that well-exposed images from advanced P&S cameras produce terrific images in the right hands.

Right now my 3 cameras haven't allowed (without add-ons) for raw and Canon is right that 98% of P&S shooters only use JPEG.  So that is what I refer to when I state that small sensor cams = JPEG shooters.  Personally I will accept some limitations to gain the advantages.  But hey, that's just me.

Small sensors interestingly make for a wide variety of cameras from snapshooters to sophisticated image makers. In the latter category, we have such cameras as the SX50--the camera used by our original poster. I say interestingly, because the small sensor is not just a limitation--it also lends some particular advantages to camera design. Only a small sensor camera permits me to have a 24mm to 1200mm equivalent zoom range in a package that weighs slightly over half a kg.

A short time ago I stood next to a guy who was far more expensively equipped than I, shooting falcons high above us on a cliff. He had a 600mm Canon lens on his DSLR. That rig was mounted on a tripod that was both heavy and by itself was probably more expensive than my SX50. All told he probably had an investiment north of $16K in gear. Clearly that gear is exceptional and highly capable but it is also massive and time-consuming to setup break down. It also has a "reach" of about 1/2 that of my SX50. In addition, I get to quick-release my camera and virtually instantly switch from shooting at 1200mm equivalent to shoot at 24mm equivalent.

My little camera gives me the range to compete in some ways with the $16K kit and still use it for snapshots of grandchildren. Some folks call it a "bridge camera" which I find skips some points in oversimplifying a complex tool. It is an incredible machine capable of terrific images and sometimes it is useful to some of its users to squeeze a little more out of those images than the SOOC JPG gives them.

This all is not my message to you, Don, because you clearly know it without my saying it. You are clearly getting superb results from your cameras and show what can be done with care and skill. It is my message for those like the OP are making the trade-off without knowing exactly what they're trading.

Regards,

Don

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: "If you're happy with..."
1

jonrobertp wrote:

is a quote often used to look down just a bit at what others are doing, or "happy with".  lol.

Another side to that picture is that the Q could be asked, Are you happy with...heavier/larger gear, or with...spending more time on computer....or...reduced buffer/fps...or, missed opportunity since the cam one uses most was not with me at the time.  etc.

They too are valid questions.  Maybe not for all, but for many.

Yeah, I can see it being interpreted that way.  I think there are definitely ways of wording statements like that so they have a much more negative connotation.  For example, "if you're okay with the minimum" or "if you don't need better image quality" or something else that implies you're working with an inferior format that is not worth using.  I have tried to avoid that tone by stating very clearly that very often I use JPEGs as I almost always shoot in RAW+JPEG mode.  I fly through the JPEGs to quickly view my work, transmit files I want through email or post online quickly, but I never make very large prints from JPEG if I can help it.  Mind you, I do have a 16X24, 15X40 panorama, and two 11X14's framed and hanging in my home that were originally shot in JPEG only.  Those were shot back when I believed all the nonsense about how RAW was a waste of time, and even if I didn't buy that garbage memory was expensive and I was looking for any reason to avoid spending money and learning a new and intimidating skill.

Now that I know the truth about RAW I kick myself for not taking advantage of it more often in the past.  I may still have gone with JPEG some of the time and reserved RAW for shots I knew were going to become large prints.

Fortunately the 7D has a relatively deep RAW buffer, and switching to JPEG for events where the depth is definitely going to be used makes perfect sense.  Also, the G1 X doesn't have much of a buffer to speak of anyway so using RAW doesn't cause undue inconvenience.  This is exactly why no one tool is good for everything.  Trust me, if I could buy a G2 X that focused like my 7D with the same frame rate and butter depth along with a lens matching or exceeding the 15-85 in IQ that was more like 15-200 it might very well be the only camera I'd ever carry.  It doesn't exist and probably never will....optics are slower to come along than digital technology.

Just as there isn't a singe best tool for carrying, there isn't a single best tool for file types.  They both have distinct advantages and disadvantages.  However, there is no need whatsoever to sit down and discuss in excrutiating detail only the disadvantages of either one.  If I discussed only how JPEG files are created and then simply said "but there is another format that is exactly what the sensor originally captures and it has X times more information to work with" I think the uninitiated might act on that information without knowing the full story.

DonA2
DonA2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,187
Re: I Will Not Shoot JPGs

Don_Campbell wrote:

Small sensors interestingly make for a wide variety of cameras from snapshooters to sophisticated image makers. In the latter category, we have such cameras as the SX50--the camera used by our original poster. I say interestingly, because the small sensor is not just a limitation--it also lends some particular advantages to camera design. Only a small sensor camera permits me to have a 24mm to 1200mm equivalent zoom range in a package that weighs slightly over half a kg.

A short time ago I stood next to a guy who was far more expensively equipped than I, shooting falcons high above us on a cliff. He had a 600mm Canon lens on his DSLR. That rig was mounted on a tripod that was both heavy and by itself was probably more expensive than my SX50. All told he probably had an investiment north of $16K in gear. Clearly that gear is exceptional and highly capable but it is also massive and time-consuming to setup break down. It also has a "reach" of about 1/2 that of my SX50. In addition, I get to quick-release my camera and virtually instantly switch from shooting at 1200mm equivalent to shoot at 24mm equivalent.

My little camera gives me the range to compete in some ways with the $16K kit and still use it for snapshots of grandchildren. Some folks call it a "bridge camera" which I find skips some points in oversimplifying a complex tool. It is an incredible machine capable of terrific images and sometimes it is useful to some of its users to squeeze a little more out of those images than the SOOC JPG gives them.

This all is not my message to you, Don, because you clearly know it without my saying it. You are clearly getting superb results from your cameras and show what can be done with care and skill. It is my message for those like the OP are making the trade-off without knowing exactly what they're trading.

Regards,

Don

Thanks for the comment on my gallery.  To some they may well be gussied up 'snapshots' and in many ways that could be true.  I tend, when possible, to fire off multiple shots for each subject, pick the best, dress it up in Picasa then catalogue.  Works well enough for me.

You covered it well on the limitations of bridge cameras (SZs) and the exceptional benefits.  Many people are now leaving the heavy gear at home and going the 'one pac' route.  These SZs, such as the SX40/ 50 are in a class by themselves when all the plusses and minuses are considered.  The subject of RAW vs JPEG will go on but in the end there will be a melding of the 2.  Maybe then all will be happy.

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

 DonA2's gear list:DonA2's gear list
Canon PowerShot S2 IS Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Canon PowerShot S100 Canon PowerShot SX40 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: I Will Not Shoot JPGs

DonA2 wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

Small sensors interestingly make for a wide variety of cameras from snapshooters to sophisticated image makers. In the latter category, we have such cameras as the SX50--the camera used by our original poster. I say interestingly, because the small sensor is not just a limitation--it also lends some particular advantages to camera design. Only a small sensor camera permits me to have a 24mm to 1200mm equivalent zoom range in a package that weighs slightly over half a kg.

A short time ago I stood next to a guy who was far more expensively equipped than I, shooting falcons high above us on a cliff. He had a 600mm Canon lens on his DSLR. That rig was mounted on a tripod that was both heavy and by itself was probably more expensive than my SX50. All told he probably had an investiment north of $16K in gear. Clearly that gear is exceptional and highly capable but it is also massive and time-consuming to setup break down. It also has a "reach" of about 1/2 that of my SX50. In addition, I get to quick-release my camera and virtually instantly switch from shooting at 1200mm equivalent to shoot at 24mm equivalent.

My little camera gives me the range to compete in some ways with the $16K kit and still use it for snapshots of grandchildren. Some folks call it a "bridge camera" which I find skips some points in oversimplifying a complex tool. It is an incredible machine capable of terrific images and sometimes it is useful to some of its users to squeeze a little more out of those images than the SOOC JPG gives them.

This all is not my message to you, Don, because you clearly know it without my saying it. You are clearly getting superb results from your cameras and show what can be done with care and skill. It is my message for those like the OP are making the trade-off without knowing exactly what they're trading.

Regards,

Don

Thanks for the comment on my gallery.  To some they may well be gussied up 'snapshots' and in many ways that could be true.  I tend, when possible, to fire off multiple shots for each subject, pick the best, dress it up in Picasa then catalogue.  Works well enough for me.

You covered it well on the limitations of bridge cameras (SZs) and the exceptional benefits.  Many people are now leaving the heavy gear at home and going the 'one pac' route.  These SZs, such as the SX40/ 50 are in a class by themselves when all the plusses and minuses are considered.  The subject of RAW vs JPEG will go on but in the end there will be a melding of the 2.  Maybe then all will be happy.

When processor speed is extremely fast and extremely cheap along with extremely fast and cheap memory, RAW will be the only file anyone will shoot with.  Maybe a newer JPEG standard will be adopted or a universal RAW format.  Who knows, but a compressed file format isn't nearly as relevant as it used to be.

panamforeman
panamforeman Senior Member • Posts: 1,210
Re: I Will Shoot JPGs

jonrobertp wrote:

Isn't it cool to have a diversity of views ?   Now if only the political leaders of countries could be as civilized as the raw/jpg debate is....it is, isn't it ?   lol...haven't read all the posts...don't have to anymore.

If you really want to get a vitriolic thread going....just start one with the title:

"Film is dead - Digital is King!"

Civility is out the window on that one. And you will be excoriated, have your parentage maligned, your sanity questioned, and probably get a few veiled death threats!

 panamforeman's gear list:panamforeman's gear list
Canon PowerShot S120 Panasonic ZS100
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,136
No, it really doesn't
5

Barry Pearson wrote:

howardroark wrote:

There's nothing wrong with shooting JPEG.  To say RAW has no meaningful advantages or downplaying the fact that they are important differences is either ignorant or self-deluding.

One feature of JPEG that I haven't spotted in this thread,

You can't spot things that don't exist.

(but it may be here), is that JPEGs use sRGB color space, which has a small gamut.

JPEG does not use any color space, at all. That's not part of the standard.

There are visible colours that cannot be represented in JPEG, but can be represented in larger-gamut color spaces such as Adobe RGB or (bigger) Pro Photo RGB.

You can tag a JPEG file Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB at will.

I agree with what you said here.

Poor Howard.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Don_Campbell Senior Member • Posts: 2,737
Re: I Will Not Shoot JPGs

DonA2 wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

Small sensors interestingly make for a wide variety of cameras from snapshooters to sophisticated image makers. In the latter category, we have such cameras as the SX50--the camera used by our original poster. I say interestingly, because the small sensor is not just a limitation--it also lends some particular advantages to camera design. Only a small sensor camera permits me to have a 24mm to 1200mm equivalent zoom range in a package that weighs slightly over half a kg.

A short time ago I stood next to a guy who was far more expensively equipped than I, shooting falcons high above us on a cliff. He had a 600mm Canon lens on his DSLR. That rig was mounted on a tripod that was both heavy and by itself was probably more expensive than my SX50. All told he probably had an investiment north of $16K in gear. Clearly that gear is exceptional and highly capable but it is also massive and time-consuming to setup break down. It also has a "reach" of about 1/2 that of my SX50. In addition, I get to quick-release my camera and virtually instantly switch from shooting at 1200mm equivalent to shoot at 24mm equivalent.

My little camera gives me the range to compete in some ways with the $16K kit and still use it for snapshots of grandchildren. Some folks call it a "bridge camera" which I find skips some points in oversimplifying a complex tool. It is an incredible machine capable of terrific images and sometimes it is useful to some of its users to squeeze a little more out of those images than the SOOC JPG gives them.

This all is not my message to you, Don, because you clearly know it without my saying it. You are clearly getting superb results from your cameras and show what can be done with care and skill. It is my message for those like the OP are making the trade-off without knowing exactly what they're trading.

Regards,

Don

Thanks for the comment on my gallery.  To some they may well be gussied up 'snapshots' and in many ways that could be true.  I tend, when possible, to fire off multiple shots for each subject, pick the best, dress it up in Picasa then catalogue.  Works well enough for me.

You covered it well on the limitations of bridge cameras (SZs) and the exceptional benefits.  Many people are now leaving the heavy gear at home and going the 'one pac' route.

When we took a vacation to Bryce Canyon, I was up with the sun to catch some very special lighting that I couldn't control except by being there at the right time. I talked with a guy who had a huge tripod, a huge lens on his DSLR and a medium sized suitcase of other lenses. He was pretty much chained by the magnitude of his gear to the edge of the canyon while my wife and I walked a few miles and came up the side of the canyon a couple of miles away. I found the same guy within a few yards of where he'd been. I asked him if he'd been down the trail and he said he had gone a few hundred yards down and then back up. He seemed quite satisfied as was I. Later, we were both a little ways away to catch the interesting evening light. Different strokes for sure.

These SZs, such as the SX40/ 50 are in a class by themselves when all the plusses and minuses are considered.  The subject of RAW vs JPEG will go on but in the end there will be a melding of the 2.  Maybe then all will be happy.

-- hide signature --

Don V. Armitage

A great many photographers take dozens or hundreds of images to capture their best photos. In recent days gone by, that meant lots of money spent on processing film. Now the per-image costs are minimal and it only means more cheap disk space and more cheap memory. Truly liberating I think.

Actually, it appears that you and I are happy now and will continue to be so as cameras advance.

Regards,

Don

(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: No, it really doesn't

I don't know that I've ever seen a camera that shoots exclusively in JPEG that also offers AdobeRGB as an option.  Usually if they offer RAW they include AdobeRGB.  JPEG is either always or by default encoded into sRGB colorspace precisely because it follows the philosophy of the format:  eliminate information that is not required for display.  Since sRGB is a smaller gamut it makes JPEG files that much smaller.  Perhaps sRGB isn't the rule, but it certainly is the default.

jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,875
Re: "If you're happy with..."

Howard...that is one of your best posts.      Have a great day !

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100
I2K4 Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Re: RAW is not Future Proof...

I'm not much into another debate about image quality of RAW vs JPG output but the question of longevity is a serious one.  There is a lot of googlable opinion, but for the time being I'm convinced that anything one considers "archival" in the sense that I  want it to be there fifty year or more years down the road ought to be in DNG format:

www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

Most non-pros are so used to having print family snapshots or even some professional prints from the last century, we forget how new it is and how quickly this digital medium is moving. Many of us are taking so many photos because it's now cheap to "develop" them, but it's still relatively pricey to print them.  So what makes anybody think JPEG will be convertible and useful to our great-grandchildren in the way Mom's Kodak Brownie prints are to us right now?  I think there are photographers who shot proprietary RAW early in the 2000s who will have trouble finding software to deal with their images now, only ten years later.

I take nothing for granted in terms of storage devices (CD-ROM, hard drive, USB drive, online cloud) or in terms of converting digital file formats.  The good thing is that so far, technology has been providing useful "windows" of time to move important digital images into different media or formats before they become useless and lost forever, but I would not bank on it.  At least Adobe with DNG has turned its mind to the problem in a serious way to create an archival standard.  If others have better solutions I'll certainly listen.

 I2K4's gear list:I2K4's gear list
Canon PowerShot S5 IS Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS +1 more
brianj Forum Pro • Posts: 14,657
Re: RAW is not Future Proof...

I2K4 wrote:

I'm not much into another debate about image quality of RAW vs JPG output but the question of longevity is a serious one.  There is a lot of googlable opinion, but for the time being I'm convinced that anything one considers "archival" in the sense that I  want it to be there fifty year or more years down the road ought to be in DNG format:

www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

Most non-pros are so used to having print family snapshots or even some professional prints from the last century, we forget how new it is and how quickly this digital medium is moving. Many of us are taking so many photos because it's now cheap to "develop" them, but it's still relatively pricey to print them.  So what makes anybody think JPEG will be convertible and useful to our great-grandchildren in the way Mom's Kodak Brownie prints are to us right now?

I take nothing for granted in terms of storage devices (CD-ROM, hard drive, USB drive, online cloud) or in terms of digital file formats.  The good thing is that so far, technology has been providing a useful "window" of time to move important digital images into different media or formats before they become useless and lost forever, but I would not bank on it.  At least DNG has turned its mind to the problem in a serious way.

The only thing I think will be useful to the future generations of non professional people is a print on paper.  Anything else will be discarded by future ignorant family members when you are gone unless you go to great lengths to train someone and pass the stock on to them.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
flektogon
flektogon Veteran Member • Posts: 3,028
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW
1

In my opinion all the modern digital cameras have pretty good JPEG engines and they generally do not have problems with the WB, exposure control and so on, so shooting the RAW won’t increase the IQ of your pictures. However, under the harsh light conditions, when the straight tone curve will not suffice (and the JPEG engine use them straight), then the shooting the RAW makes sense. You can see what a difference it makes at the latest DP review of the Olympus e-pm2:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-e-pm2/5

brianj Forum Pro • Posts: 14,657
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW

flektogon wrote:

In my opinion all the modern digital cameras have pretty good JPEG engines and they generally do not have problems with the WB, exposure control and so on, so shooting the RAW won’t increase the IQ of your pictures. However, under the harsh light conditions, when the straight tone curve will not suffice (and the JPEG engine use them straight), then the shooting the RAW makes sense. You can see what a difference it makes at the latest DP review of the Olympus e-pm2:

You don't need to use the jpg straight tone curve anymore, I agree that it is really pathetic, that is why I turn on canon's Icontrast and get the enhanced DR and AUTO control of contrast based on the scene being taken.  Many companies have tried to provide extended DR but mostly it has problems in one situation or another, but the Icontrast is amazing, it alone would make me buy another canon camera with this feature.

My jpg album: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5128303546/albums/sx260hs

Some difficult light

Morning Mist

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
flektogon
flektogon Veteran Member • Posts: 3,028
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW

brianj wrote:

flektogon wrote:

In my opinion all the modern digital cameras have pretty good JPEG engines and they generally do not have problems with the WB, exposure control and so on, so shooting the RAW won’t increase the IQ of your pictures. However, under the harsh light conditions, when the straight tone curve will not suffice (and the JPEG engine use them straight), then the shooting the RAW makes sense. You can see what a difference it makes at the latest DP review of the Olympus e-pm2:

You don't need to use the jpg straight tone curve anymore, I agree that it is really pathetic, that is why I turn on canon's Icontrast and get the enhanced DR and AUTO control of contrast based on the scene being taken.  Many companies have tried to provide extended DR but mostly it has problems in one situation or another, but the Icontrast is amazing, it alone would make me buy another canon camera with this feature.

My jpg album: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5128303546/albums/sx260hs

Brian

Hi Brian,

Your pictures are simply amazing. And your camera even doesn't have the RAW shooting option. So, any camera in good hands can deliver fantastic results.

brianj Forum Pro • Posts: 14,657
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW

flektogon wrote:

brianj wrote:

flektogon wrote:

In my opinion all the modern digital cameras have pretty good JPEG engines and they generally do not have problems with the WB, exposure control and so on, so shooting the RAW won’t increase the IQ of your pictures. However, under the harsh light conditions, when the straight tone curve will not suffice (and the JPEG engine use them straight), then the shooting the RAW makes sense. You can see what a difference it makes at the latest DP review of the Olympus e-pm2:

You don't need to use the jpg straight tone curve anymore, I agree that it is really pathetic, that is why I turn on canon's Icontrast and get the enhanced DR and AUTO control of contrast based on the scene being taken.  Many companies have tried to provide extended DR but mostly it has problems in one situation or another, but the Icontrast is amazing, it alone would make me buy another canon camera with this feature.

My jpg album: http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5128303546/albums/sx260hs

Brian

Hi Brian,

Your pictures are simply amazing. And your camera even doesn't have the RAW shooting option. So, any camera in good hands can deliver fantastic results.

Thanks, but I must give some credit to the little camera, its amazing, and as others have said the DIGIC 5 and now 6 produce beautiful images straight from the camera.  I thought cameras had stalled in terms of their capabilities, but I still find that after a couple of years the new models out do the old.  I don't miss raw, as I don't think I would be able to equal this jpg performance at least not without a lot of practicing.

Brian

 brianj's gear list:brianj's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 330 HS
I2K4 Contributing Member • Posts: 670
Re: RAW is not Future Proof...

I'm a little more optimistic over the next few generations - seems to me electronic media are here for a while and that eventually there will be some professional consensus about archival file standards and that will filter down to amateurs.  I'd hope someone before the end of this Century would be able to look at all my stuff in something like an archival DNG format and decide what they want to keep.  The contradiction is that what makes an image memorable is often a product of both the original exposure and post-processing and I'm in doubt about how to preserve a "finished" image file.

Long term, googling tells me the oldest written hardcopy manuscripts are about 3500 years old, and you're probably right.  I'll hope I live long enough with enough wits to print my own archival shortlist on good enough media.

 I2K4's gear list:I2K4's gear list
Canon PowerShot S5 IS Canon PowerShot SX10 IS Canon PowerShot SD4000 IS +1 more
Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg
OP Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg Veteran Member • Posts: 3,227
Re: I Will Not Shot in RAW

Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg wrote:

I'm decided to not shot in RAW any more with my Camera SX50, I didn't found any Difference between JPG and RAW and you can see it by your self and tell me what is Difference if there any:

Very intimate message to all members who have contributed to reply to my thread, All respect for you. and I respect your opinion wonderful the details hand on for RAW images shots.
I am not against the concept of RAW absolute, but I also stated in My letter The SX50 (not all models of Cameras.

The quality of imaging in on super JPG and very simple difference
But after a good read by your advice, I'm decided to change to RAW+JPG along
and I'll keep the RAW maybe I need it in the future
but I've been using the JPG only at the moment
Thanks and appreciation to all of you

-- hide signature --

Hossam
[Kodak DX7590] {Broken}
[Canon SX50HS]

 Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg's gear list:Hossam Saad ElDin Abd Alhalim Farg's gear list
Kodak DX7590 Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM +1 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
RAW file support through the decade(s)....

I2K4 wrote:

I'm not much into another debate about image quality of RAW vs JPG output but the question of longevity is a serious one.  There is a lot of googlable opinion, but for the time being I'm convinced that anything one considers "archival" in the sense that I  want it to be there fifty year or more years down the road ought to be in DNG format:

www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

Most non-pros are so used to having print family snapshots or even some professional prints from the last century, we forget how new it is and how quickly this digital medium is moving. Many of us are taking so many photos because it's now cheap to "develop" them, but it's still relatively pricey to print them.  So what makes anybody think JPEG will be convertible and useful to our great-grandchildren in the way Mom's Kodak Brownie prints are to us right now?  I think there are photographers who shot proprietary RAW early in the 2000s who will have trouble finding software to deal with their images now, only ten years later.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html

A few examples.  The Kodak DCS 14n released 2002 still supported.  Kodac DCS 760 still supported.  Epson (Epson for goodness sake!) R-D1 released 2004 still supported.  Nikon D1 released 1999 still supported.  Canon Powershot 600 released 1996 still supported.  So at least one RAW converter supports cameras that go back 17 years.  Why?  Because it's free.  They supported it at one time and it costs them practically nothing to continue supporting it.  Again, why?  Because if they stopped supporting something that costs them nothing to continue supporting they'd damage their reputation for nothing....they would indicate how unreliable they are.  Ironic they've chosen a different method to accomplish that.  Still, their DNG converter will take all those old files and make them fresh and new.

And if someone is truly petrified about someone in the future not knowing how to view their RAW files, they can buy a $100 external hard drive (or two) and put all their images there in JPEG form.....or get a few Blu-ray discs and burn their library to disc (20 two layer discs for 1TB will hold a ton of JPEGs).  Cheap, easy, mind at ease.

I take nothing for granted in terms of storage devices (CD-ROM, hard drive, USB drive, online cloud) or in terms of converting digital file formats.  The good thing is that so far, technology has been providing useful "windows" of time to move important digital images into different media or formats before they become useless and lost forever, but I would not bank on it.  At least Adobe with DNG has turned its mind to the problem in a serious way to create an archival standard.  If others have better solutions I'll certainly listen.

kelpdiver Veteran Member • Posts: 3,498
Re: RAW is not Future Proof...

I2K4 wrote:

I'm not much into another debate about image quality of RAW vs JPG output but the question of longevity is a serious one.  There is a lot of googlable opinion, but for the time being I'm convinced that anything one considers "archival" in the sense that I  want it to be there fifty year or more years down the road ought to be in DNG format:

www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

Most non-pros are so used to having print family snapshots or even some professional prints from the last century, we forget how new it is and how quickly this digital medium is moving. Many of us are taking so many photos because it's now cheap to "develop" them, but it's still relatively pricey to print them.  So what makes anybody think JPEG will be convertible and useful to our great-grandchildren in the way Mom's Kodak Brownie prints are to us right now?

JPEG will outlast DNG...if there ever was a fatality.  But there won't be these are documented image formats.  KodakCDs are still readable and it stopped being used over a decade ago.

The only archival concern is the digital bits themselves, not the format they're in.  Adobe is selling the DNG as an answer, but the problem doesn't exist.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads