[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: RAW

Subject: [OM] Re: RAW
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:49:09 -0700
Chuck Norcutt wrote:

>If the exposure were perfect we'd never have any need for raw.  I think 
>I'd vote for a 12-bit JPEG.  :-)
Well... I admit to making exposure mistakes occasionally. And sometimes 
with digital, I can just shoot again until I get it right. But sometimes 
the subject, lighting, etc. is gone by then. With RAW, I have a good 
chance of getting the shot anyway.

>Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>  JPEG files contain 8 bits per pixel or brightness information or 256 
>different brightness levels.  Most raw formats contain 12 bits per pixel 
>or 4096 different brightness levels.  The raw form contains a lot more 
>exposure latitude than the JPEG.  Post processing the raw file can 
>recover a lot of information you might not otherwise see.
>In the end, however, we usually make prints.  And there's the rub.  
Well, you may. I do indeed make prints from some DSLR shots, but a much 
larger number are viewed on a monitor, which has a greater brightness 
range than prints and a more slidelike quality.

>The dynamic range of a print is even less than the JPEG.  
So true, but with RAW, I can choose which parts of a much broader the 
brightness range end up on the print.

AG Schnozz wrote:

> Horses for Courses.
> I shoot JPEG if I know the resulting image is able to be printed
> straight, without post-production. If I know editing will
> occur, I shoot RAW. Another aspect is print size. 11x14 and
> larger prints are RAW territory.

Well, I wish I knew for sure ahead of time which shots I was sure I 
would never want to enhance in some way or later decide to print large. 
Actually, there are a few I shoot as JPEG only, as I have discovered the 
value of the DC as note taker, but otherwise, I'd rather have as much 
info quality as possible - until I discover it's out of focus, etc. and 
dump it.

> However, as I continue to buy and adapt equipment/software, I
> prefer RAW because I can always batch process them into JPEG
> with the camera settings without any hassles.

Exactly, you can always get JPEGs from RAW, but not the reverse.

jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>This is a devil's advocacy for me.  I'm personally going to
>shoot RAW.  But the dialectic rages, and high-volume
>shooters make a case for SHQ.  They say, "If you love your
>computer seat time, shoot RAW.  If you like photography,
>concentrate on doing everything right at the source and
>shoot SHQ jpgs."  
I still don't get it. As AG says, I can either shoot RAW + JPEG or shoot 
RAW alone and later batch process to JPEG, without sitting in my 
computer seat while it does its thing. Then for that occasional shot 
where the JPEG doesn't work, I'm still covered. If the high colume 
shooters' real agenda is either that quality is secondary to quality or 
that storage is too limited, expensive, etc., sure. But the JPEGs you 
get from bathc processing RAW "as shot" are the same as those you would 
get by shooting JPEGs. So If you can consistenly get shots ready to use 
right out of the camera with little or no post processing, you can do 
the same with RAW shooting. And then those few failures may turn into 

Why do I have the feeling that, for some people, it's sort of a hair 
shirt thing. "If I can't do it perfectly, I don't deserve to get the 
image", "Real Men don't need exposure help.", "I learned how to live 
sieht the limitations of slide film, so why not artificially limit my 
new medium", or some such. Lots of photographers are used to shooting 
slides and having to decide whether to lose highlight detail or shadow 
detail because the film won't capture the whole range of subject 
brightness. So they either take a chance or bracket.

Well the news is... RAW IS a 2.5 to 4 stop bracket range all in one 
exposure and file!

And the other news is.... You can capture the whole brightness range of 
very contrasty scenes and later decide where and how much to crop and/or 
compress the dynamic range to suit your final display medium. Too easy? 
Well, I'm just not all that macho.


List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz