Reply With QuoteHarryprice
Quite so. RAW is simply the data from the sensor. Since different camera models have different sensors, the RAW format varies between models, unlike JPG or TIFF which are agreed standards.
Agreed inferior standards…yes. RAW does vary from camera to camera – but is consistent in always containing more data than JPEG – that is the fact you keep ducking.
You are not representing my points accurately here.
Sorry, but I am representing you perfectly and I took the time to ensure I did. You just keep recruiting non-sequiturs by recruiting lots of tangential irrelevant points to distract attention away from the underlying theme running through your rationale. You said clearly above that you think the whole RAW thing could be a fallacy. Just to remind you (as I know your memory lets you down from time to time)….from post #20
I have directly challenged that. Now, if what you really mean is, maybe the advantages are not as great as some would have you believe – then I would certainly agree with you! But that is not what you said – or at least that’s not how is came over to me. In addition, that does not mean there are not important advantages to be had – just that those you have met in the past have exaggerated the matter. So your point is more to do with the dubious interpretations of other photographers rather than the objective advantages of RAW.In fact, I would go so far as to say that RAW mode is another DSLR myth!
OK – this is now a bit of a shift from the above and I think we agree on this to some extent so it seems pointless going over the detail. Fair points well made. I would only add that your interpretation of ‘marginal’ does not apply in the circumstances I have mentioned (full sized high-quality prints) and is obviously a matter of interpretation. Obviously, as I have said numerous times, small standard prints from “Photoexpress” etc would not show the differences at all - so ‘marginal’ would be an over-estimation for those circumstances – but to me, these are snaps, not photographs (but don’t get me started on that one). I have a friend who makes Christmas cards, calendars, postcards from their images – all JPEG – perfect for the job. But no photo is ever really over say 6 x 4 and one does not really require the quality I am talking about for those products.No, I'm, saying there are marginal advantages for those who want them but most people wouldn't appreciate them anyway.
I agree, this is never a good reason – but it’s not an argument against RAW.No. I said I knew inexperienced photographers who habitually use RAW simply because someone said it was better.
This is a completely separate point and you keep making it. Concentrating on the art of photography has no consequence at all on using RAW – none. If they think it does – it has nothing to do with the objective capacity of RAW – it’s their confusion – but you cannot recruit that as an argument against RAW. It’s a point of logic. You cannot take a confused pseudoscientists view of physics as an argument against using precise equations – the problem is with the source of the confusion – not the method or format – that’s the error in your lime of argument.In reality, their own shots are of such low quality that they should be concentrating on taking better shots in the first place.
Again, as mentioned above and in previous posts – they are confused. But you cannot use that as an argument against the merits of the format. Furthermore, the pros I know that use RAW do so for different reasons – many discussed here.I also said some people thought if they use RAW they could correct mistakes made in poor quality shots.
As I said earlier, this discussion of RAW vs JPEG will not feature in the leaflet – we will concentrate mainly on the megapixel issue (as the main focus). This discussion here is simply between us and those who want to join in. I did mention this earlier.I am talking about inexperienced photographers here - isn't that who this proposed leaflet is aimed at? Experienced photographers should know enough to make an informed choice.
You did imply earlier that using RAW means you are hoping it will get you out of a sticky situation and people do rely on it too much for these type of reasons – please go back and read the above – it’s all there. In addition, no camera internal settings cover the all the bases that RAW do, so I simply disagree on this.No I don't. While using RAW of necessity involves post processing, many inexperienced practioners use the same settings as their camera would anyway, so completely wasting their time.
Uncompressed formats do contain more information – my hunch is if you looked at this more than say 5 years ago – the differences that really did exist could not manifest themselves on your monitor or in print. Go back and look at the issue again – as I said earlier, things have changed. Sensors were more advanced than monitors and printer technology back then. The gap is smaller now.When I started doing digital I used TIFF in the belief that uncompressed formats contained most information so they must be the best.
if there is no significant advantage to using RAW then, yes, obviously any time used on it is wasted.
But that is completely loaded as you have not been able to show there are no advantages and indeed I note now you are acknowledging that there maybe differences in some circumstances – so you cant have it both ways.
I have not misunderstood or misrepresented you once – but I note you don’t like being pulled up on what you previously said and keep adding tangential irrelevant arguments and non-sequiturs. I guess you think you are saying one thing, but it’s coming across as something else – so maybe that’s part of the issue.Given your misunderstandings of my points, there's no point me commenting on everything you wrote afterwards. Instead, responses to certain points.
This is a completely illogical line of argument. Stunning photographs are down to skill, no doubt about it. But who here ever argued otherwise? How is this an argument against RAW? Do you think I am saying RAW makes you brilliant? Where did I say that? If not, why make such an odd and illogical point? It’s another non-sequitur.I can only speak about photographers I've met. There are some who produce simply stunning work that I envy. However, it is mostly due to their skill in the field rather than what post processing they do. There are also some who use RAW all the time whose work is terrible.
But those are limited more than the options in RAW. As I said earlier, you can also open your JPEGs in the RAW converter, but obviously it’s only working with a JPEG. I’ve never really played with this function and I don’t know if all the options work – but there will probably be more options in the interface for JPEGs than in your camera.I'm talking about spending time messing around on computers. I set the parameters on the camera for how I want my JPGs to be produced.
Who here ever made the argument that RAW can ‘improve’ a great shot in that way? I am talking about image quality at high resolution – not composition or exposure or the artistic nature of the picture. The format cannot save a bad shot either. These are not the arguments I am making here. When I say ‘image quality’ I am talking about things like noise, sharpening, distribution of colour saturation, colour balance, etc. They all add together.I don't believe processing from RAW would improve such a great shot - just gilding the lily as they say. Nor do I believe it would save a bad shot. It would simply waste my time when I'd rather be doing something else.
I never said you could and you totally misrepresent this point. You can measure data – and my point was about the data that underlies the image. This is much larger in RAW than JPEG.You can't measure the appeal of a photo. What pleases you might do nothing for me and vice versa.
Define slight? I’ve said to you many times that large prints, printed in professional labs, using the latest printers reveal the differences in the image quality. To my eye, I particularly notice the difference in colour saturation, more expert people spot the differences in other ways as well. If you are trying to ensure your image is of the highest possible quality (i.e., gallery quality or to sell) then the differences are worth it.But if the perceptual differences are so slight that you have to examine the shot carefully to see them, how is it worth it?
But none of this has anything to do with the format of recording the shot. So it’s another non-sequitur. If you set your camera to RAW and just concentrated on your photography – there is no problem. I’ve already explained that most photographs don’t require much tweaking (if they have been taken properly etc). So none of this is an argument against RAW – other than you cannot be arsed to spend a few mins in RAW. This is not really the basis for recommending the same to everyone. Why does setting my camera to RAW stop me from learning composition or exposure?No, once again, I'm saying inexperienced photographers could use their time more much more profitably by concentrating on the techniques of taking photos rather than marginal differences through using RAW. I've been doing photography for decades and there is still so much more to learn about actually taking the shots.
Or maybe they realise they have better ways to spend their time. If you are happy using RAW then that's fine by me. All I can say is that experience has taught me that for my photos it really isn't worth it
I do genuinely appreciate your advice and I really don’t think we disagree that much – though we may have misunderstood each others position (and some have shifted) from time to time. No worries.
Originally Posted by Dr Peter Lewis
Bookmarks