Why using RAW with 300D doesn't make sense to me

[a_hamann]

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question "is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print 4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range, and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do (almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at 700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100 RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the 300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue) claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so :^)

Just a though, Andy.

 

[JBM]

and compare it to the 6 and I see big differences...

Maybe you are only printing 4 x 6s, but for me, where I typically print enlargements and crops, the difference is readily noticeable

sometimes I squeeze a little out with a lanzos upscaling on a crop... it gets me a little edge...

overall, I suppose if you aren't doing enlargements and crops, then you are right to follow the Sony way of thinking, but for me, no prob with the 7 MB RAW files at all.

Cheers!

JB

 

[wingnut198476]

No single approach is right for everyone. You've found something that works for you and that's great.

For me, I shoot everything in Raw using Adobe RGB. It's what works for me. My only regret is that I didn't start shooting Raw much much sooner.

The great thing about the 300D is that it can meet a broad spectrum of users needs. Something for just about everyone.

Ed

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

 

[a_hamann]

... for the occasional poster you can do bi-cubic upsampling and judiciously use unsharp mask. There's no difference in resolution or image quality to RAW that I can really take seriously. By the way, I didn't actually print two posters but looking at 100% crops on the monitor should allow this judgment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers, Andy.

and compare it to the 6 and I see big differences...

Maybe you are only printing 4 x 6s, but for me, where I typically
print enlargements and crops, the difference is readily noticeable

sometimes I squeeze a little out with a lanzos upscaling on a
crop... it gets me a little edge...

overall, I suppose if you aren't doing enlargements and crops, then
you are right to follow the Sony way of thinking, but for me, no
prob with the 7 MB RAW files at all.

Cheers!

JB

 

[stoffer]

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

I would wish that I always got the exposure just right, but the 300D gets a bit moody regarding this once in a while, so RAW helps me a lot. I also enjoy having the ability to adjust everything in 16 bit in PS CS.

But once I master exposure on the 300D in a 100 years, I might just go for jpeg of course! ;-)

Each to his own anyway...

--
Best regards, Stoffer

 

[Sandman]

Andy,

Thanks for sharing this. I'm not going to call the photography police or anything. But you've got some radical ideas here.

I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

On the screen or in print? Please elaborate.

snip

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

And here you have at least two of the reasons to shoot at full resolution and RAW. A crop from a 3 mp image is not the same as a crop from a 6 mp image, so why not shoot 6 mp and crop to your heart's content? And for "a little bit of increased dynamic range," most of us would have paid an extra 100 bucks to get the Rebel version with "a little bit of increased dynamic range!"

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

Have you priced 120 Gig hard drives lately? They have never been cheaper. And DVD-R can store 4.7 Gb of data each. I have my image archive on one of these hard drives and on 7 DVD-Rs. Not so difficult.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

But this is looking backward. I prefer to look forward. I've already seen a huge improvement in the RAW converting engine in PS with PS CS vs ACR pluggin for PS 7. And C1 continues to make progress in this field. Can we expect to see other advances in RAW Conversion over the next few years? Certainly! What does this mean? The images you take and archive in RAW now can be revisited with the next generation of RAW converters for even greater image quality! I've already done this with a few images converted in ACR initially and revisited with PS CS for dramatic improvement (color issue). Look to the future!

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Not necessarily. I've not decided when to upgrade my camera, but likely it will be when I run into the same creative wall that i ran up against with my Olympus 2100 UZ that motivated my purchase of the Olympus E-10. And later the E-10 for the Rebel. In every instance, I upgraded my camera to give me better image quality. Image quality....that's the name of the game.

Andy, I could not disagree more with your logic or practice of using just 3mp of the Rebel and avoiding the incredible power of RAW. However, I do recognize that there is more than one way to skin a cat. To each his own!

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

 

[a_hamann]

... whatever works best. I'm just adding another perspective. Whether RAW and 6MP with 300D is really useful or a negligible improvement everybody may judge for themselves.

Just seems to me that the advantage of RAW really lies in the usefulness and ease of use of Capture One (and Photoshop CS) tools for RAW, not in the format itself. So people may be using a bad format for the sake of good software support.

Then again, whatever works for you :^)
Cheers, Andy

For me, I shoot everything in Raw using Adobe RGB. It's what works
for me. My only regret is that I didn't start shooting Raw much
much sooner.

The great thing about the 300D is that it can meet a broad spectrum
of users needs. Something for just about everyone.

Ed

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

After this discussion
http://www.digitalsecrets.net/Sony/AdvancedKnow4-Q.html and some
own experimentation with various quality settings I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

As Phil noted in his rewiew of the 300D, the in-camera
interpolation algorithms used for downsizing are quite good, and I
find the 3MP setting produces pretty much pixel perfect "Foveon
quality" images. There's just not very much real loss in terms of
noise, detail, and visible JPG artifacts compared to 6MP high
quality. And, indeed, even RAW.

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Just a though, Andy.

 

[a_hamann]

Actually I do find the same thing. My strategy is to mostly shoot in M-mode with histogram instant review. If things don't look perfect exposure wise, all you do is a quick turn with the command dial and take a second shot. I dislike holding a button and turning something else (exposure compensation) and then forgetting to put it back to zero :^)

Cheers, A.

I would wish that I always got the exposure just right, but the
300D gets a bit moody regarding this once in a while, so RAW helps
me a lot. I also enjoy having the ability to adjust everything in
16 bit in PS CS.

But once I master exposure on the 300D in a 100 years, I might just
go for jpeg of course! ;-)

Each to his own anyway...

--
Best regards, Stoffer

 

[Delbert]

There is no substitute for real pixel information. My case in point...my son had a Fuji 602 with a 3MP sensor that produces a 6MP file via interpolation. The files can't even compare to a true 6MP file. He now has a Rebel. My 4MP Olympus E-10 would out perform his 602 any day.

Not here to start a debate and I'm glad you're happy with your 3MP files but l'll stay with 6MP fine or Raw.

--
http://www.pbase.com/delbert
Delbert...just hangin around

 

[a_hamann]

To clarify: The 6MP/RAW difference mainly shows up under the best conditions (good light, tripod, good lens) and even then it's small (to me, subjectively) and neglegible compared to progress in technology.

Yea, your right, I kinda look backwards. It's cheaper though :^) Coming from a Coolpix 950 (which I bought when it was outdated of course) and a 995 (used at work), I do get excited about the image quality improvements (for the same cash) as much as anyone. RAW vs 3MP with 300D: see my shoulders shrug?

As I said in a previous response: It seems to me that the advantage of RAW really lies in the usefulness and ease of use of Capture One (and Photoshop CS) tools for RAW, not in the format itself. So people may be using a bad format for the sake of good software support.

Thanks for sharing this. I'm not going to call the photography
police or anything. But you've got some radical ideas here.

I now use three
megapixel basic quality setting of the 300D for virtually every
shooting situation. Most of the time, I see no difference in image
quality, especially if there is the tiniest bit of camera shake or
lens softness/diffraction due to the choice of aperture.

On the screen or in print? Please elaborate.

snip

Don't get me wrong, I like great detail and image quality as much
as anyone. I would always use 6 megapixel or even 12 megapixel if
that translates to a real gain in quality. You can never have
enough for cropping. Also, I frequently run out of dynamic range,
and shooting RAW does increase dynamic range a little bit. I would
guess maybe one stop from what I've seen.

And here you have at least two of the reasons to shoot at full
resolution and RAW. A crop from a 3 mp image is not the same as a
crop from a 6 mp image, so why not shoot 6 mp and crop to your
heart's content? And for "a little bit of increased dynamic
range," most of us would have paid an extra 100 bucks to get the
Rebel version with "a little bit of increased dynamic range!"

But is it worth the hassle? The Capture One tools for RAW are nice
but if you know just a few tricks in Photoshop CS you can do
(almost) the same adjustments on JPGs. And archiving 1000 images at
700kb per CD (my average observed size for 3MP Normal) versus 100
RAW shots at 7MB should make a difference in terms of organizing
and accessing their photos to anybody.

Have you priced 120 Gig hard drives lately? They have never been
cheaper. And DVD-R can store 4.7 Gb of data each. I have my image
archive on one of these hard drives and on 7 DVD-Rs. Not so
difficult.

I like to view it this way: By using RAW versus 3MP basic with the
300D, you place yourself maybe 6 month (or less) ahead in the
technology progress game of getting the best possible quality for
the buck. If a professional photographers (expense not an issue)
claim that RAW is the ONLY way to go that basically means that the
work they did last year is worthless now :^)

But this is looking backward. I prefer to look forward. I've
already seen a huge improvement in the RAW converting engine in PS
with PS CS vs ACR pluggin for PS 7. And C1 continues to make
progress in this field. Can we expect to see other advances in RAW
Conversion over the next few years? Certainly! What does this
mean? The images you take and archive in RAW now can be revisited
with the next generation of RAW converters for even greater image
quality! I've already done this with a few images converted in ACR
initially and revisited with PS CS for dramatic improvement (color
issue). Look to the future!

For the "run of the mill" shooter RAW seems just a bit "geeky" to
me. If you really need this you also have the rational (if not the
cash) to trade in your camera for a new one every half year or so
:^)

Not necessarily. I've not decided when to upgrade my camera, but
likely it will be when I run into the same creative wall that i ran
up against with my Olympus 2100 UZ that motivated my purchase of
the Olympus E-10. And later the E-10 for the Rebel. In every
instance, I upgraded my camera to give me better image quality.
Image quality....that's the name of the game.

Andy, I could not disagree more with your logic or practice of
using just 3mp of the Rebel and avoiding the incredible power of
RAW. However, I do recognize that there is more than one way to
skin a cat. To each his own!

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

 

[a_hamann]

To clarify:

Is 3MP downsampled in-comarea from 300D better than 3MP from D30? Yes, significantly.

Is 6MP from 300D better than upsampled 6MP from D30? Yes, significantly.

Is 6MP/RAW from 300D better than downsampled 3MP from 300D? Not really :^)

Cheers, Andy

There is no substitute for real pixel information. My case in
point...my son had a Fuji 602 with a 3MP sensor that produces a 6MP
file via interpolation. The files can't even compare to a true 6MP
file. He now has a Rebel. My 4MP Olympus E-10 would out perform
his 602 any day.

Not here to start a debate and I'm glad you're happy with your 3MP
files but l'll stay with 6MP fine or Raw.

--
http://www.pbase.com/delbert
Delbert...just hangin around

 

[DioDLL]

As I said in a previous response: It seems to me that the advantage
of RAW really lies in the usefulness and ease of use of Capture One
(and Photoshop CS) tools for RAW, not in the format itself. So
people may be using a bad format for the sake of good software
support.

The RAW data not format allow you to make the adjustments. You really can't do this after it has been converted to a jpeg. You can make it kind of look the same but you are working with less data.

I would have to say that if you are shooting 3mp then you probably would not fall in the category of a user who would benefit from the RAW format. You have made a great decision for yourself, but you have to understand that this appears quite strange to a lot of dslr users.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata

 

[KGB216045]

I was hoping Andy was trying to make a joke as to his opinion of RAW, but sadly I fear he thinks he's right.

Sometimes there's no point in trying to explain the faults to his logic, this is one of those times. Hopefully he's a new convert to the digital world, and time will allow him to understand the errors of his ways.

Please forgive Andy, he knows not of what he speaks.

 

[a_hamann]

I was hoping Andy was trying to make a joke as to his opinion of
RAW, but sadly I fear he thinks he's right.

... right :^)

Sometimes there's no point in trying to explain the faults to his
logic, this is one of those times. Hopefully he's a new convert to
the digital world, and time will allow him to understand the errors
of his ways.

Please forgive Andy, he knows not of what he speaks.

... :^)

Since you say "time will allow him to understand the errors of his ways", let me put it this way:

In two years time, when we have both gained alot of knowledge and also upgraded to 12 megapixels dSLRs with 4 stops better dynamic range, will we be impressed by the difference in my downsampled 3MP and your RAW files from the same camera? Will I have spent considerably more time behind the computer and considerably more money for storage? I don't think so :^)

Cheers, Andy.

 

[JBM]

... for the occasional poster you can do bi-cubic upsampling and
judiciously use unsharp mask. There's no difference in resolution
or image quality to RAW that I can really take seriously. By the
way, I didn't actually print two posters but looking at 100% crops
on the monitor should allow this judgment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I've seen some comparisons made on monitors, but once it's on photo paper and on a wall are two entirely different things in my book...

For some reason, I'm never happy with what's on the monitor, but put it on paper and let me touch it, and then I'll make a comparison....

The Foveon people make the argument that all the CCD/CMOS -- Bayer imaging is is a 1x upscale... they make the argument that a 6.3 MP Bayer CMOS is actually a 3.15 MP.... From these manipulations, they justify their own MP ratings...

Hey, it works for them and makes sales... all I know is, I can upscale the 7MB RAW file into a 6000x4000 and it looks better than upscaling the 3MB to the same...

by the way, lanczos (or whatever that durn -4 option is on ImageMagick) does a lot better job a upscaling than bicubic... at least, to me it does. the people who make the algorythmn say it better replicates natural upscaling (like projector systems)...

Meanwhile, I'm happy you are content with 3MB... at 2$ a DVD, I'm not worried about twice the space per picture, myself...

Cheers!

JB

 

[billybob_jcv]

Many of my pics are of my kids playing sports and other activities. By the time I check the histogram, the shot is gone. Sure, I try to take prep shots to check exposure, but the scene can change quickly when shooting outdoors and trying to follow action. I'm just not good enough to get the exposure right every time, and I need the exposure & white balance latitude of shooting RAW. I had this latitude when I shot print film, and I want it when I shoot digital.

Cheers, A.

I would wish that I always got the exposure just right, but the
300D gets a bit moody regarding this once in a while, so RAW helps
me a lot. I also enjoy having the ability to adjust everything in
16 bit in PS CS.

But once I master exposure on the 300D in a 100 years, I might just
go for jpeg of course! ;-)

Each to his own anyway...

--
Best regards, Stoffer

 

[KGB216045]

Perhaps if you were to shoot film, and eliminate the RAW problem entierly from your concerns, after all, these problems you describe only exist in the digital world, and you seem to dislike the digital world.

I was shooting film for over 40 yeas, and digital has it's own expenses, just as film ( how much is spent on developer, paper, film etc etc), there isn't really a difference. Now you upgrade your computer occasionally, before, you constantly bought the consumables, and cried when the shots didn't work, now you shoot 10, keep one delete the rest, format the card and shoot again......in RAW.

 

[a_hamann]

... yes, I do understand that I (judicously) sacrifice a certain amount of information when not workin in RAW for the convenience to work with small files and money saved on storage and backups.

... as you say I don't fall into the category of people who try to get the possibly best image quality out of the camera at any cost. And I really wonder why this appears is so strange. Who doesn't like to save money and spend more time outside shooting?

If the examples here are any measure: http://www.digitalsecrets.net/ItsCanon/challenge.html

then in two years the quality difference observed between downsampled 3MP and RAW/6MP from the 300D will be as insignificant and academic as the difference in image quality between, say, the Nikon Coolpix 950 and the Canon Pro70 is now. There was a time when people got really excited about this :^)

Cheers, Andy

As I said in a previous response: It seems to me that the advantage
of RAW really lies in the usefulness and ease of use of Capture One
(and Photoshop CS) tools for RAW, not in the format itself. So
people may be using a bad format for the sake of good software
support.

The RAW data not format allow you to make the adjustments. You
really can't do this after it has been converted to a jpeg. You
can make it kind of look the same but you are working with less
data.

I would have to say that if you are shooting 3mp then you probably
would not fall in the category of a user who would benefit from the
RAW format. You have made a great decision for yourself, but you
have to understand that this appears quite strange to a lot of dslr
users.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata

 

[DRG]

I saw a couple of threads and on-line essays raising the question
"is using RAW worth it?", and giving an enthusiastic "yes" as an
answer unless you know nothing about post-processing and only print
4x6. But the question itself implies some serious downsides such as
storage requirements, transfer and processing speed, future
compatibility when used for long-term archiving, etc.

Your arguments assume that storage is costly and thus to be avoided. In actuality, I just put two 120GB drives in my PC, at $60 apiece after rebate. 4GB of CF storage is $200 when ripped from a MuVo2. For $80, you can buy a driveless digital wallet into which you can install any sized laptop drive that you wish. Storage is becoming increasingly cheap.

I shoot RAW exclusively and should still be able to make it through a 9 day vacation without issue, shooting up to a couple hundred shots per day.

I also find the convenience argument to be overblown. If you're already prepared to set your camera settings properly on a per-shot basis, you can do so while shooting RAW, allowing you to batch convert your files using the default "in camera" settings. It's not much trouble to set this up, walk away from the computer, and come back to a directory full of JPEGs that are the same as if you'd shot them as JPEG to begin with ... only you have the RAWs to fall back on should you choose to make adjustments.

David

 

[a_hamann]

... well, you don't really seem to address my arguments. Probably you think they are too absurd to waste any time on this. That's alright. BTW I do like digital as much as you do for the same reasons, but that's a different topic :^)

Cheers, Andy.

Perhaps if you were to shoot film, and eliminate the RAW problem
entierly from your concerns, after all, these problems you describe
only exist in the digital world, and you seem to dislike the
digital world.

I was shooting film for over 40 yeas, and digital has it's own
expenses, just as film ( how much is spent on developer, paper,
film etc etc), there isn't really a difference. Now you upgrade
your computer occasionally, before, you constantly bought the
consumables, and cried when the shots didn't work, now you shoot
10, keep one delete the rest, format the card and shoot
again......in RAW.