Saturday, March 03, 2007

RAW Jihad Rages On!

Manu said...
ahem... I've followed the debate on the site and I have been really good at shutting up (so far) but... not keeping raw files is like shooting film and throwing the negatives once you developed... if that's ok with you, then fine. ;-)
3/03/2007 2:29 PM
Wingnut said...
Ya, I am always torn about the whole RAW debate, I shoot raw+jpeg on my 20D. (2 gig memory cards)First thing I do is come home and download the compact flash card and burn it to DVD, then I can pull those files up anytime I need them, and they don't stay on the hard drive and bog it down. I like the security of having the RAW files if needed, but I honestly can use most all of the high res jpegs I shoot, unless you get that one fantastic shot, then it is that much better from RAW.
3/03/2007 5:15 PM

And MJ says...

No, Manu, it's not like shooting film and throwing away the negatives. The article referenced by Paul was written by a mathematician, you know, algorithims and all that. He also is an engineer and professional photographer. The camera is simply running the equation, an equation by the way the shooter selected, and doing it with hardware as opposed to software. He goes on to point out that the camera normally does a better job of it than we can. After tweeking quite a few images, I tend to agree on that latter point. RAW is forcing me to tweek when perhaps I would not have chosen to do so had I just relied on Canon's hardware.

Now for the special occasion, that may be different. But when I shoot 100-200 frames, I'll be damned if i want to process each and everyone.

Wingnut's suggestion, using both formats may be the ideal approach.


Paul said...

Way to go, MJ. All I have to say about raw is that there is a lot of 'conventional wisdom' out there. And conventional wisdom is usually neither conventional, nor wisdom! :-)

At any rate, I'll stick with the JPG, math aside, if I can't tell the difference, there is no difference! I'd rather spend that extra time shooting instead of processing. Also, I believe, like Ken Rockwell, get it right the first time!

Manu said...

Paul: I too rather spend time shooting, that's why I shoot in raw: for example, figuring out on location, which is the correct white balance to use takes ages on the camera while it can be done in seconds with the raw file at home. And if you've tried shooting at night or indoors with artificial lighting, you know that the auto white balance on the camera doesn't do the trick.

MJ: not keeping the raw files, is like shooting film and not keeping the negatives (am I repeating myself?!?). ;-) Generating a jpg (or a tiff) out of the raw data, is developing a frame, whether the camera does it while you shoot, or whether you do it yourself at home.

Bottom line: whatever works best for you, works best for you. I'm not saying raw is right, and jpg is wrong.

Copyright Notice

All images on this site are copyrighted. It is expected that copyright will be respected. Please do not copy or otherwise use these images without permission of the copyright owner, John A. Wilson.