DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Rethinking RAW?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 42, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/20/2007 12:27:46 AM · #1
I know JPEG vs. RAW has been debated ad nauseam, but I was wondering if the "RAW-like" editing of JPEGs changes the playing field? I've noticed Photoshop CS3 allows this, as well as Capture NX. Has anyone tested the viability of maybe shooting JPEG in a non-printing workflow? I shoot nothing but RAW at the moment, but I would consider switching to save some space and time.

Thanks for any input, and sorry if this brings back a migraine.
02/20/2007 12:33:24 AM · #2
i don't think this is a rehash of old arguments, i think it's a new issue.

obviously there are advantages to raw, especially with regards to changing white balance after shooting, and more room for editing.

i don't know what the abilities are of CS3 or NX, but if they're expanding the ability of jpg editing, then obviously it's going to close the gap between raw and jpg.

i shoot in raw, but i admit that it's a pain in the butt to blow through 15mb every time i press the shutter. so being able to have more flexible editing options would bring jpg back into consideration for me ...
02/20/2007 12:36:10 AM · #3
The JPEG editing features are still the same JPEG editing features, with the same compromises and image quality issues. They've just moved the knobs into the 'RAW' converter, so you can posterize your image by mistake there, rather than in photoshop. If JPEG fitted your needs before and it does for a whole lot of people, then it still does. If it doesn't, then it still doesn't. Same initial file, same algorithms, same end results. Different knobs.

In other words, nothing's changed except the front end.

Message edited by author 2007-02-20 00:44:12.
02/20/2007 12:38:45 AM · #4
Gordon,

Yeah, it makes sense that the basic functionality can't change, because the JPEG image itself is still the same. I was just wondering if there were able to squeeze a little more out of the post-processing to justify switching to JPEG for non-printing work. I plan to give it a try as soon as I try out Capture NX.
02/20/2007 12:40:14 AM · #5
Originally posted by Gordon:

The JPEG editing features are still the same JPEG editing features, with the same compromises and image quality issues. They've just moved the knobs into the 'RAW' converter, so you can posterize your image by mistake there, rather than in photoshop.

In other words, nothing's changed except the front end.


LOL ... i'll be sticking with raw then! :)
02/20/2007 12:50:38 AM · #6
I did rethink RAW. When I did, I went back to shooting JPG.
02/21/2007 01:38:43 AM · #7
RAW, all the way.
02/21/2007 02:40:25 AM · #8
It depends entirely on your needs and wants.
02/21/2007 02:43:55 AM · #9
Originally posted by FloydianS/ip:

I know JPEG vs. RAW has been debated ad nausea, but I was wondering if the "RAW-like" editing of JPEGs changes the playing field? I've noticed Photoshop CS3 allows this, as well as Capture NX. Has anyone tested the viability of maybe shooting JPEG in a non-printing work flow? I shoot nothing but RAW at the moment, but I would consider switching to save some space and time.

Thanks for any input, and sorry if this brings back a migraine.


Have u tired Adobe Bridge with CS2? To view thumbnails and open the files almost as easily as jpegs in a folder?

And while CS3 might give u better editing tools it doesn't change any real facts of the editing advantages of raw versus jpeg. Your white balance might come out a bit better a bit cleaner then it once did in jpeg. But itll never beat raw.

However a 5,000 dollar camera having bad indoor auto white balance to begin with sucks. a 1600 dollar Foveon Sensor equiped Sigma does Indoor Auto White Balance better then 98% of all CCD / CMOS camera's.

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 03:31:51.
02/21/2007 03:26:44 AM · #10
21 and seems to be absolutely no end in sight as to your knowledge.
I'm impressed dude, and man - you got to know everyone here so well so quick. It's taken some of us slow-pokes years..
02/21/2007 03:31:22 AM · #11
Originally posted by Brad:

21 and seems to be absolutely no end in sight as to your knowledge.
I'm impressed dude, and man - you got to know everyone here so well so quick. It's taken some of us slow-pokes years..


Are you being serious at all? I don't take actual Mechanics seriously because they jerk me around alot.

ANyways Ive been up reading reviews for the past 6 months 5 or 6 days a week. This past week ive been printing out all the reviews on SLR's between 400 and 2,000 dollars.

Ive devised a weighted grade based on all aspects of the camera and capability's and problems and how they apply to me. Its coutner graded by the price and hopefully in 8 months ill be ready to replace my 1973 Yashica FX-3 with a dSLR.

I also tend to read Wikipedia ALOT.... it provides me with USELESS information.

I would assume he has tried bridge but i figured id ask.

Message edited by author 2007-02-21 03:33:33.
02/21/2007 01:04:01 PM · #12
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by Brad:

21 and seems to be absolutely no end in sight as to your knowledge.
I'm impressed dude, and man - you got to know everyone here so well so quick. It's taken some of us slow-pokes years..


Are you being serious at all? I don't take actual Mechanics seriously because they jerk me around alot.

ANyways Ive been up reading reviews for the past 6 months 5 or 6 days a week. This past week ive been printing out all the reviews on SLR's between 400 and 2,000 dollars.

Ive devised a weighted grade based on all aspects of the camera and capability's and problems and how they apply to me. Its coutner graded by the price and hopefully in 8 months ill be ready to replace my 1973 Yashica FX-3 with a dSLR.

I also tend to read Wikipedia ALOT.... it provides me with USELESS information.

I would assume he has tried bridge but i figured id ask.


I think he's saying that for a young whippersnapper, you sure are a smart one.

Sometimes you do tend to come across as a know-it-all though.
02/21/2007 06:17:02 PM · #13
Originally posted by Spazmo99:



I think he's saying that for a young whippersnapper, you sure are a smart one.

Sometimes you do tend to come across as a know-it-all though.


I can understand how i come across, since everyone says that. However in the words of my therapist "You're not gonna come off like you have Asperger's Syndrom so don't expect everyone to understand right away."
02/21/2007 06:20:40 PM · #14
Pot, meet kettle.
04/16/2007 11:45:29 PM · #15
Hanging out with some pro photographers over the past few weeks has led me to rethink not only RAW, but my entire workflow. My conclusion?

I am done shooting jpeg. Now that my eyes have been opened to the power of RAW, I don't think I will be able to go back, not for serious photography anyway. It took me a long time to be able to really notice the difference, but now that I have I cant believe how naive I was before.
04/16/2007 11:52:49 PM · #16
Originally posted by option:

Hanging out with some pro photographers over the past few weeks has led me to rethink not only RAW, but my entire workflow. My conclusion?

I am done shooting jpeg. Now that my eyes have been opened to the power of RAW, I don't think I will be able to go back, not for serious photography anyway. It took me a long time to be able to really notice the difference, but now that I have I cant believe how naive I was before.


Heh i hated jpeg compression before most people even had digital camera's. I spent alot of time with flatbed scanners on a 486 back in the day.
04/16/2007 11:55:53 PM · #17
I tend to shoot in both, these days. On the odd chance that I want to submit something to a Minimal challenge.

When it comes down to editing, though. RAW. No good reason not to.

ETA: "Both" as in RAW+jpeg

Message edited by author 2007-04-16 23:56:21.
04/16/2007 11:57:03 PM · #18
Originally posted by option:

I am done shooting jpeg.


would you bring your camera to be repaired should the jpeg capability stopped working?
04/16/2007 11:58:42 PM · #19
Okay, so RAW is the way to go, that said what is the best RAW converter program, I have the one that came with my camera but I suspect it is not top notch, although since I have never shot anything in RAW I have no idea, any thoughts?
04/16/2007 11:58:46 PM · #20
I have switched to raw for everything I care about. That said, I still shoot fine jpg when I shoot events like Auto-X's. I want the fps and storage capacity. IMO it all depends on what your shooting and if you plan to do any post processing.
04/16/2007 11:59:56 PM · #21
Originally posted by crayon:

would you bring your camera to be repaired should the jpeg capability stopped working?


Originally posted by option:

not for serious photography anyway.


Of course I'm still going to use jpeg at when I'm taking photos of my drunk friends with my fisheye cause it looks funny... thats not really worth a 16mb file...

Message edited by author 2007-04-17 00:04:03.
04/17/2007 12:01:36 AM · #22
Originally posted by jackal9:

Okay, so RAW is the way to go, that said what is the best RAW converter program, I have the one that came with my camera but I suspect it is not top notch, although since I have never shot anything in RAW I have no idea, any thoughts?


Lightroom is pretty sweet, its what I'm using.

ACR 4 that comes with CS3 is basically the same thing though, I believe...
04/17/2007 12:02:55 AM · #23
Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by option:

I am done shooting jpeg.


would you bring your camera to be repaired should the jpeg capability stopped working?


Only because I don't know what else would have been FUBARed in the process. :p

If your Lotus has an exhaust leak, it may only be exhaust, but...
04/17/2007 12:06:27 AM · #24
Originally posted by chimericvisions:

Originally posted by crayon:

Originally posted by option:

I am done shooting jpeg.


would you bring your camera to be repaired should the jpeg capability stopped working?


Only because I don't know what else would have been FUBARed in the process. :p

If your Lotus has an exhaust leak, it may only be exhaust, but...


and i'm bringing you to get a full health check because you used some weird word in your posting. who knows what else would have been "FUBARed" in the process? ;p
04/17/2007 12:08:21 AM · #25
Since everyone is talking about raws, I was curious how big everyones raw files are. My 8MP CR2 files range from 6-11MBs. How about everyone else's?

Message edited by author 2007-04-17 00:12:47.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 03:03:44 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/19/2024 03:03:44 AM EDT.