Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAW a cop-out?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 11:57:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
photo. How much truth in that?

More about : raw cop

Anonymous
January 26, 2005 12:09:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com writes:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?

I would not disagree. I also would suggest that JPEG is being used
inefficiently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good photo.

Uh, so what?
--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 2:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

To be honest, it sounds bizarre. What was his reason for making such a
statement?
Related resources
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 3:18:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Everyone has their own comments to make but I'd rather do the editing (and
sizing) as opposed to the camera doing it so I shoot RAW. Even Ansel Adams
spent hours and days in his darkroom perfecting really bland negatives to
get his beautiful prints. These days the darkrooms are on computers and not
light sensitive and full of caustic, environmentally-unfriendly chemicals.

CM


On 1/26/05 11:57 AM, in article llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com,
"drs@canby.com" <drs@canby.com> wrote:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?
January 26, 2005 6:52:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com>, drs@canby.com
says...
> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?
>

About the same amount of truth as saying:

Anyone who saves his negatives after getting his prints is stupid because all
he needs to do is save his prints, he will NEVER need his negatives again, no
one ever does.

Yeah! I think thats about the same amount of truth.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 6:58:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I made that mistake. I was taking a picture of a Great Egret [very
white!] against a fairly dark background. RAW is wonderful but it would
not correct for what was more than a two stop overexposure. The
solution was simple. Next time I went out to photograph this bird, I
used the spot "matrix" option, and framed the bird. Then I was easily
able to make proper compensation with RAW.

I have noticed two things that seem a bit more critical on the D70 then
my old film N70. One is the auto focus on the D70 is quite a bit more
temperamental. I almost always manually focus. The other is the range
of error [like that Great Egret] is not as tolerant as ISO 100 color
negative film. Once you get used to these two differences, there's no
going back to film [at least not for me]. I tried Fuji Velvia once and
found it very useful for ensuring your camera's autoexposure was
working properly. Other than that, I found it useless. Way too narrow a
range of contrats. Now with digital, there is no grain within the range
of blow-ups I use and then the problem is blocky pixels, not grain.
Also as you raise the ISO the quality loss seems far less with digital.
Love that D70!!

Tom
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:49:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com writes:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?

Probably a lot. Of course, people who never learned that craft will
use jpeg, tiff, and every other format and setting on their camera
inefficiently too! Lots of people using cameras are
not-very-experienced amateurs, so lots of people aren't doing things
the optimal way.

I'm a very-experienced amateur myself; and I'm sure *I'm* doing a lot
of things suboptimally too. Or at least, I'm sure if I'm doing them
optimally, it's just by luck -- I know lots of areas where I have only
a vague understanding to base my practice on.

RAW can be used to to give yourself more safety margin. Needing
safety margin can be viewed as planning to screw up, and using RAW to
cover for that. On the other hand, NO sane photographer would pass up
a cheap and easy way to give themselves more safety margin!

So I don't think you can conclude anything from the format people
choose to shoot in. The imprtant question is, what are people doing
to improve their weaknesses? Every craftsman has weaknesses. Every
good craftsman knows what most of them are, and has at least some sort
of plan to improve, eventually.

So, people -- what are you weaknesses? (To keep this on topic, let's
limit it to your weaknesses *as a photographer* :-)). The *serious*
ones -- areas you barely know your ass from a hole in the ground,
where you're proceeding on vague rules of thumb rather than any kind
of firm understanding, where you're guessing a lot.

I don't have any theoretical basis behind my usage of unsharp mask;
it's completely empirical, and I'm sure far suboptimal. When I'm
sharpening a picture for screen display, I'm reasonably happy with
just doing it visually, since what I'm seeing *really is* the intended
use of the photo. But especially when sharpening for printing at
various sizes by various processes, I don't have the faintest clue how
I should really decide the parameters to use. From the parameters I
see other posters mentioning, I suspect I may be using too large a
radius and too small a percentage, but I have no theoretical basis for
this idea either. I've also seen it suggested that you should sharpen
at 100% on screen and look for certain kinds of behavior of the halos
in the image to tell you what the right parameters are -- but they
didn't describe what to look for usefully. So does anybody know a
good source for teaching me to use unsharp masking intelligently?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 7:53:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Myers <cmyers@virginia.edu> writes:

> Besides, who cares how a photo was made (well I guess the purists do) as
> long as the desired result is what you or a client wants it to be??

I care, not as a purist, but as a craftsman who might learn
something. If the photo is fairly ordinary and I can think of three
ways to do it, I don't much care which one the photographer used.
But if a photograph is extraordinary then I get much more interested;
especially if I can't think of *any* ways to do it myself.

> It's a new time for photography and I see nothing wrong with mixing mediums
> (photo image and photoshop) to create a piece of artwork.

Photoshop doesn't really change what's *possible*; it only changes
what's *practical*, by making lots of things much, much easier to do.
I agree entirely that, when creating a piece of artwork, the choice of
technique and medium is an artistic one.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 8:30:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com>,
<drs@canby.com> wrote:
>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>photo. How much truth in that?

All sorts of photographic tools are being used inefficiently by people who
never learned the craft of taking a good photo. That doesn't mean they're
bad tools, it just means they're being misused.

HTH
January 26, 2005 8:30:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sounds like you've been listening to monkeys chattering from the tops of
tall trees.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

<drs@canby.com> wrote in message
news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com...
> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 8:30:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> Sounds like you've been listening to monkeys chattering from the tops of
> tall trees.
>
Agree with Tony.

Or the OP is a troll.

--
John McWilliams
January 26, 2005 9:27:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?

Some people use RAW to obtain more shadow and highlight detail in the print
than would otherwise be available. In other words, some people who are well
versed in the craft of photography use RAW to create images that are
unobtainable with the other file formats their cameras support.

Bob
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:39:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?

Very little, if any. You might have an easier time salvaging a badly exposed
shot from a raw file than a jpg. But to claim that would encourage people to
take bad exposures seems a bit ludicrous. Sounds more like someone making
excuses for the fact that his/her camera doesn't have raw capability.

If I'm shooting something where I'm worried about the highlights getting
blown out, I find raw works better (on my camera, an Oly 5050) than jpg. But
I don't see that as cheating, but rather using the tools available to me to
get the best-possible outcome.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 9:54:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 1/26/05 10:57 AM, in article llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com,
"drs@canby.com" <drs@canby.com> wrote:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?
That is true. But RAW is also used as an extremely useful tool by those who
know how to take great pictures!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:10:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?

As much as in any troll.

None to speak of.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Besides, who cares how a photo was made (well I guess the purists do) as
long as the desired result is what you or a client wants it to be??

It's a new time for photography and I see nothing wrong with mixing mediums
(photo image and photoshop) to create a piece of artwork.



>
>> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>> photo. How much truth in that?
>
>
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:10:29 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:
>
>> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>> photo. How much truth in that?
>
>As much as in any troll.
>
>None to speak of.

Sorry, I don't know what a troll is. A pejorative of some kind,
perhaps?

I can't remember where I heard the comment about RAW, but I am trying
to learn about digital photography and I thought it a fascinating
perspective. Since, some relatively small JPEGs produce outstanding
photos, I'm assuming that in those cases either the photographer got
lucky or knew the craft very well. And the chap who made the comment
wasn't denigrating RAW, simply suggesting it wasn't always used
effeciently. And I'm hoping to discover how to use it appropriately.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:10:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Another thing to keep in mind is that jpegs compress images...RAW does not.
I shoot with a Canon 1Ds Mark II and 20d and use the RAW + Jpeg option.
This way if I want to make a quick 4x6 somewhere I can use the jpeg but if I
ever want to do a blowup, I use the RAW. If I used the jpeg for a large
image then it would start to break apart of "pixellate" after a certain
point and look terrible (even if you use Genuine Fractals or some other
interpolation software)..

Jpeg is fine for up to 8x10 or so but I've done 30x40 prints with the 8.2MP
20d and they are beautiful because there were made from the RAW file.




On 1/26/05 3:53 PM, in article jc0gv015nnsd3jvhdh9vlvfq8n8k8a4m4l@4ax.com,
"drs@canby.com" <drs@canby.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:10:29 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>>> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>>> photo. How much truth in that?
>>
>> As much as in any troll.
>>
>> None to speak of.
>
> Sorry, I don't know what a troll is. A pejorative of some kind,
> perhaps?
>
> I can't remember where I heard the comment about RAW, but I am trying
> to learn about digital photography and I thought it a fascinating
> perspective. Since, some relatively small JPEGs produce outstanding
> photos, I'm assuming that in those cases either the photographer got
> lucky or knew the craft very well. And the chap who made the comment
> wasn't denigrating RAW, simply suggesting it wasn't always used
> effeciently. And I'm hoping to discover how to use it appropriately.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:10:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<drs@canby.com> wrote in message
news:jc0gv015nnsd3jvhdh9vlvfq8n8k8a4m4l@4ax.com...
>
> Sorry, I don't know what a troll is. A pejorative of some kind,
> perhaps?

A troll makes controversial assertions just to see if he can start a fight.
Usually the troll does not participate in the fight, but just sits and
watches without posting any further.

>
> I can't remember where I heard the comment about RAW, but I am trying
> to learn about digital photography and I thought it a fascinating
> perspective. Since, some relatively small JPEGs produce outstanding
> photos, I'm assuming that in those cases either the photographer got
> lucky or knew the craft very well. And the chap who made the comment
> wasn't denigrating RAW, simply suggesting it wasn't always used
> effeciently. And I'm hoping to discover how to use it appropriately.

I think I see where you are coming from.

The vast majority of JPEGs that you see on the Web are very low quality, but
they look good because of the limitations of your computer monitor. Actually
printing them out would quickly reveal their serious limitations.

This is where "the chap" may have a point. If you are going to just post on
the Web anyway, why use RAW when a low-res JPEG will do? If you are never
going to do anything with the photo other than post it on the Web or maybe
print a straight 5x7 picture with it, RAW is a lot of overkill. In fact, why
use anything more than a 2 megapixel camera? The only answer is that you may
want a large high resolution print of the photo later. Then you will wish
you had a high resolution RAW image to work with.
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:57:39 -0800, drs@canby.com wrote:

>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>photo. How much truth in that?

Depends on the camera. Mine asks me 6 technical and compositional
questions about photography that I have to answer with a mutli-choice
thing on the little LCD screen before it lets me switch it to RAW
mode. This ensures that as a RAW user, I have learned 'the craft'.

The system isn't perfect, for example, if I answer the questions and
then pass it to a lowly 'inefficient' beginner, it doesn't seem to
realize.

It can get annoying at times too, I missed a couple of shots when
concord crashed in Paris because I couldn't remember if Ansel Adams's
mum was called Olive, Plum or Gooseberry. It turned out to be Olive.
But hey, who could have known that one?

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:31:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>To be honest, it sounds bizarre. What was his reason for making such a
>statement?

To troll.

Probably some nerdy drinking game. They have to drink 2 fingers for
every 10 responses to their trolly message.

I support them 100% in this endeavor. It *is* a drinking game after
all.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:38:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <fbsfv05ribeg5ajtae222uasgqlnhg0naj@4ax.com>,
nomail@hotmail.com says...
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:31:24 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >To be honest, it sounds bizarre. What was his reason for making such a
> >statement?
>
> To troll.
>
> Probably some nerdy drinking game. They have to drink 2 fingers for
> every 10 responses to their trolly message.
>
> I support them 100% in this endeavor. It *is* a drinking game after
> all.
>
> --
> Owamanga!

Then let us help them get drunk!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
January 26, 2005 10:40:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fbsfv05ribeg5ajtae222uasgqlnhg0naj@4ax.com:

>>To be honest, it sounds bizarre. What was his reason for making such a
>>statement?
>
> To troll.
>

Calm down you guys.

They hypothetical lazy photographer could shoot in RAW mode, rather than
carefully metering the scene, and fix it in Photoshop. I'm betting that's
what the origin of the comment was getting at.

Bob
Anonymous
January 26, 2005 10:40:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:Xns95EA9639A2255j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> >
>
> Calm down you guys.
>
> They hypothetical lazy photographer could shoot in RAW mode, rather than
> carefully metering the scene, and fix it in Photoshop. I'm betting that's
> what the origin of the comment was getting at.

Funny. I deliberately underexpose, then fix it in Photoshop.
January 26, 2005 10:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com>, drs@canby.com says...
>
>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>photo. How much truth in that?

Probably about as much as saying that airbags in autos are a cop-out for bad
driving, or that swings, shifts, tilts are a cop-out for not being a more
proficient photographer with a view camera.

Hunt
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:23:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:53:14 -0800, drs@canby.com wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:10:29 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>>> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>>> photo. How much truth in that?
>>
>>As much as in any troll.
>>
>>None to speak of.
>
>Sorry, I don't know what a troll is. A pejorative of some kind,
>perhaps?

Trolls: Children that ask questions that are purposefully selected to
instigate an onslaught of argument or all-round disagreement.

A good example for this NG is 'Film is better than digital because...'

In woodworking NG's I bet they make claims about modern laminates
being superior to real wood. Who knows...

>I can't remember where I heard the comment about RAW, but I am trying
>to learn about digital photography and I thought it a fascinating
>perspective. Since, some relatively small JPEGs produce outstanding
>photos, I'm assuming that in those cases either the photographer got
>lucky or knew the craft very well. And the chap who made the comment
>wasn't denigrating RAW, simply suggesting it wasn't always used
>effeciently. And I'm hoping to discover how to use it appropriately.

The biggest threat to learning photography on today's SLR/DSLRs is
'Program' mode, and to a lesser extent, the 'dummy' modes. A close
second is the excellent TTL matrix metering systems they have now.

Switch the camera to spot metering and use either Aperture or Shutter
Priority and now you can start learning. The closer you can get to
manual everything, the more you need to understand to get a good
photo. It slows the whole process down and gives you time to think.
RAW vs JPEG is as irrelevant as Autofocus.

Digital itself is a threat because there is no cost associated with
taking a photo. Why bother stopping and thinking, just hit the damn
button and move on. I find myself doing this sometimes - I want one
photo of something, but take 40. Press the button more, think less.
It's almost a disease.

On the other hand, if used properly, digital can *vastly* compress the
learning curve. For example, I found the ability to instantly see a
preview incredibly useful when setting up multi-flash shots (I don't
have modeling lights), something that would be near to impossible if I
had to pay for the film and wait a week to see the results.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 12:23:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:23:39 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Trolls: Children that ask questions that are purposefully selected to
>instigate an onslaught of argument or all-round disagreement.

By that definition, I certainly had no intent of being a troll. Thanks
to all who've given their perspectives on how RAW is valuable.
January 27, 2005 12:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:LfednaI1f6P-mWXcRVn-rw@wavecable.com:

> Funny. I deliberately underexpose, then fix it in Photoshop.
>

If it's deliberate, then it's not lazy. The lazy photographer I was
commenting on would not pay attention to the exposure. Sometimes it would
be over; other times under. He would just assume that he could make things
"good enough" in PS later.

Bob
January 27, 2005 12:24:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"bob" <not@not.not> wrote in message
news:Xns95EAA7E0B5842j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:LfednaI1f6P-mWXcRVn-rw@wavecable.com:
>
> > Funny. I deliberately underexpose, then fix it in Photoshop.
> >
>
> If it's deliberate, then it's not lazy. The lazy photographer I was
> commenting on would not pay attention to the exposure. Sometimes it would
> be over; other times under. He would just assume that he could make things
> "good enough" in PS later.
>
Oddly enough wiuth colour negative films like the old Kodak VPS I would
over-expose them 2/3 of a stop.
January 27, 2005 12:38:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:cc1gv050891n905ogc4c5ngtokkgc6e2hp@4ax.com:

> Digital itself is a threat because there is no cost associated with
> taking a photo. Why bother stopping and thinking, just hit the damn
> button and move on. I find myself doing this sometimes - I want one
> photo of something, but take 40. Press the button more, think less.
> It's almost a disease.
>

I had a friend in college who advised me that the best way to learn to play
pool was to play for money. He figgured that playing for money would give
you a really big incentive to learn how not to loose.

There is actually a cost involved in shooting 40 instead of 1: It's
measured in time instead of money, but for some, time = money.

Not so much the time in taking, but the time in editing.

Bob
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:52:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:08:28 -0500, Chris Myers <cmyers@virginia.edu>
wrote:

>Another thing to keep in mind is that jpegs compress images...RAW does not.

RAW is compressed as well.

>If I used the jpeg for a large
>image then it would start to break apart of "pixellate" after a certain
>point and look terrible

So would RAW if you go big enough.

>Jpeg is fine for up to 8x10 or so

JPEG is fine for any size, provided you've shot with high enough
resolution.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 3:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com writes:
>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>photo. How much truth in that?

My first response is "what does efficient mean in this context"?
Are you trying to minimize cost, or minimize time at some fixed image
quality? Are you trying to minimize time spent reading the manual?

Once we know what efficient means, we can talk about whether RAW is
efficient or not.

Dave
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 4:57:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com wrote in news:jc0gv015nnsd3jvhdh9vlvfq8n8k8a4m4l@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:10:29 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>>> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>>> photo. How much truth in that?
>>
>>As much as in any troll.
>>
>>None to speak of.
>
> Sorry, I don't know what a troll is.

*Sure* you don't.

Pull the other one.

<snip>
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 4:59:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in
news:3o7gv0lq5752sio857hij7vh340tbkokrm@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:08:28 -0500, Chris Myers <cmyers@virginia.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Another thing to keep in mind is that jpegs compress images...RAW does
>>not.
>
> RAW is compressed as well.

Usually lossless, such as LZW.

I seem to remember a body that used JPEG compression on it's raws. I would
never shoot with such a device.

>>If I used the jpeg for a large
>>image then it would start to break apart of "pixellate" after a
>>certain point and look terrible
>
> So would RAW if you go big enough.

....except that you aren't laboring against JPEG compression artifacts, so
that point will be reached much later.

<snip>
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:42:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:59:48 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>>If I used the jpeg for a large
>>>image then it would start to break apart of "pixellate" after a
>>>certain point and look terrible
>>
>> So would RAW if you go big enough.
>
>...except that you aren't laboring against JPEG compression artifacts, so
>that point will be reached much later.

Compression issues will not cause pixellation issues.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:45:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:14:14 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>subject matter and composition takes a back seat

Blasphemy! :) 

If one doesn't consider subject matter, composition and artistic
value, then one isn't partaking in photography; they are simple taking
snapshots.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:46:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:07:36 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>Once we know what efficient means, we can talk about whether RAW is
>efficient or not.

Good point!
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 8:03:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in
news:i5lgv0p4a5cmrv55sq30h2bd355a1t0f9j@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:59:48 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>If I used the jpeg for a large
>>>>image then it would start to break apart of "pixellate" after a
>>>>certain point and look terrible
>>>
>>> So would RAW if you go big enough.
>>
>>...except that you aren't laboring against JPEG compression artifacts,
>>so that point will be reached much later.
>
> Compression issues will not cause pixellation issues.

The resulting noise makes that moot.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 8:49:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Xns95EA89D866E20j123w123x123@216.77.188.18>,
bob <not@not.not> wrote:

>drs@canby.com wrote in news:llifv0h215ls6nvkjl1g309n48oi468poc@4ax.com:
>
>> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>> photo. How much truth in that?

>Some people use RAW to obtain more shadow and highlight detail in the print
>than would otherwise be available. In other words, some people who are well
>versed in the craft of photography use RAW to create images that are
>unobtainable with the other file formats their cameras support.

Using RAW is the digital equivalent of using better quality film.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 11:57:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

drs@canby.com wrote:

> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> photo. How much truth in that?


I think more accurately, it is used by some people who do not yet have
the skills to process the image better than what the popular algorithms
in cameras and canned programs do. RAW is great if you really know how
to use it. Otherwise, you are probably better off letting your camera
do the initial work.
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:45:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kibo informs me that drs@canby.com stated that:

>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>photo. How much truth in that?

Very little, except in the sense that most camera owners in general have
"never learned the craft of taking a good photo".
IMO, shooting JPEG is like getting your neg's processed at a lab, while
shooting RAW is like processing them yourself.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:45:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

usenet@imagenoir.com wrote:

> Kibo informs me that drs@canby.com stated that:
>
>
>>I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>>ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>>photo. How much truth in that?
>
>
> Very little, except in the sense that most camera owners in general have
> "never learned the craft of taking a good photo".
> IMO, shooting JPEG is like getting your neg's processed at a lab, while
> shooting RAW is like processing them yourself.
>

Challenge:
Here are links to three galleries. See if you can
determine which ones were jpeg only and which ones were raw?
Hint: if well exposed, it generally does not matter.
Hint, I make nice 16x20 inch prints from all of them:

Bears:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear

Birds:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird

Recent New Images:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW

Roger
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:45:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Weitzel wrote:

> Hi...
>
> Haven't won the lottery yet - maybe Saturday - so haven't
> yet got a camera that shoots raw.
>
> Knowing as little as I do; could I not liken it to
> having a film processed (develop only) and having the
> lab give me three negs per shot? One red, one green, and
> one blue? That I could overlay in an enlarger and print
> from?
>
> Digital output like that would be a tremendous advantage.
> Could overlay them, but do noise reduction, sharpening,
> anything I liked on each individual color.
>
> Gotta learn more :) 
>
> Ken

Here is the film analogy I would use:

Raw: You take the film out of the camera and develop it
yourself. By changing the development, you
have complete control over the outcome.

jpeg, highest quality: You have a pro lab develop the
film using their standard process, giving you
the negatives only.

jpeg, low quality: You have the film developed at the
fast, local, cheap 1-hour photo booth that has a
bad reputation, giving you negatives only.

Roger
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:48:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kibo informs me that secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> stated that:

>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:08:28 -0500, Chris Myers <cmyers@virginia.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Another thing to keep in mind is that jpegs compress images...RAW does not.
>
>RAW is compressed as well.

Canon RAW uses lossless compression. JPEG compression is lossy.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 1:48:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:48:28 +1100, usenet@imagenoir.com wrote:

>Kibo informs me that secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> stated that:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:08:28 -0500, Chris Myers <cmyers@virginia.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Another thing to keep in mind is that jpegs compress images...RAW does not.
>>
>>RAW is compressed as well.
>
>Canon RAW uses lossless compression. JPEG compression is lossy.

Thanks for agreeing with me; I need all the support I can get! :) 
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 3:39:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Jan 2005 15:58:33 -0800, "kodakfilm@gmail.com"
<kodakfilm@gmail.com> wrote:

>I made that mistake. I was taking a picture of a Great Egret [very
>white!] against a fairly dark background. RAW is wonderful but it would
>not correct for what was more than a two stop overexposure. The
>solution was simple. Next time I went out to photograph this bird, I
>used the spot "matrix" option, and framed the bird. Then I was easily
>able to make proper compensation with RAW.
>
>I have noticed two things that seem a bit more critical on the D70 then
>my old film N70. One is the auto focus on the D70 is quite a bit more
>temperamental.

I moved from an N80, and noticed only that the AF seems faster on the
D70. However, if outside, shooting insects or birds, I'll often switch
to manual on both bodies.

>I almost always manually focus. The other is the range
>of error [like that Great Egret] is not as tolerant as ISO 100 color
>negative film. Once you get used to these two differences, there's no
>going back to film [at least not for me]. I tried Fuji Velvia once and
>found it very useful for ensuring your camera's autoexposure was
>working properly. Other than that, I found it useless. Way too narrow a
>range of contrats. Now with digital, there is no grain within the range
>of blow-ups I use and then the problem is blocky pixels, not grain.
>Also as you raise the ISO the quality loss seems far less with digital.

Blocky pixels can be eliminated for massive enlargements by using
fractal-based software to do the image resize.

One example is Genuine Fractals. On the first half of this page, the
guy rants about saving space, but the more interesting side is to use
it to enlarge full-size images to even bigger sizes.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/GF/GF.HTM

There are alternatives too, discussed in this article:
http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/resolution/a/increasin...

>Love that D70!!

It's a cool machine.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 6:08:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote:
> bob <not@not.not> wrote:
> >drs@canby.com wrote:
> >
> >> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
> >> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
> >> photo. How much truth in that?
>
> >Some people use RAW to obtain more shadow and highlight detail in the
print
> >than would otherwise be available. In other words, some people who are
well
> >versed in the craft of photography use RAW to create images that are
> >unobtainable with the other file formats their cameras support.
>
> Using RAW is the digital equivalent of using better quality film.

No, using RAW is the digital equivalent of reading Anchell and Troop.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
January 27, 2005 7:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
>
> Blocky pixels can be eliminated for massive enlargements by using
> fractal-based software to do the image resize.
>

If you only need to do one or two, or if you don't want to spend money,
and if you have photoshop (I know that's a few ifs) then there is an
easy solution that works pretty well:

First, resize the image to a higher number of pixels. Switch the image
to Lab mode. Blur the a and b channels (the color) and sharpen the L
channel.

We printed some 100k jpgs (frame captures of full screen VCD) at D size
(24x36 inches) for some guy and it worked pretty well.

Bob
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 7:46:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:cta0he$qg6$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> <JPS@no.komm> wrote:
>> bob <not@not.not> wrote:
>> >drs@canby.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> I recently read a comment that suggested RAW was being used
>> >> ineffeciently by people who never learned the craft of taking a good
>> >> photo. How much truth in that?
>>
>> >Some people use RAW to obtain more shadow and highlight detail in the
> print
>> >than would otherwise be available. In other words, some people who are
> well
>> >versed in the craft of photography use RAW to create images that are
>> >unobtainable with the other file formats their cameras support.
>>
>> Using RAW is the digital equivalent of using better quality film.
>
> No, using RAW is the digital equivalent of reading Anchell and Troop.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Now that's what I call hitting the nail on the head. (Must admit I've never
actually read Anchell and Troop, but the analogy seems perfect.)

N.
January 27, 2005 8:15:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> drs@canby.com writes:

> So, people -- what are you weaknesses? (To keep this on topic, let's
> limit it to your weaknesses *as a photographer* :-)). The *serious*
> ones -- areas you barely know your ass from a hole in the ground,
> where you're proceeding on vague rules of thumb rather than any kind
> of firm understanding, where you're guessing a lot.

One of mine is holding the camera straight. When I bought my Nikon F4 I
had a grid screen installed in it, and I loved that.

I don't really understand flash, especially fill flash.

I've always been much better at conceiving of projects and collecting
the images than following through and producing the product.

I'm very good at composition, to the point that I can visualize the shot
with the lens I have in mind before I have arrived at the location.

Bob
!