New Lens, Old Camera Question

Using RAW is like flying to Columbia for a slightly better cup of coffee that you can get at Starbucks. Not worth the effort for any slightly perceived gain.

 

Whatever Starbucks serves is coffee in name only. Luckily, one can get decent coffee without having to fly to Columbia though.

 

OK, Starbucks was a bad example.

 

Plenty, yes.
Why would you doubt there is more/better to be had optimising what's there than what an in-camera conversion produces? You do understand there are detailed and often complex choices to be made which a stupid program embedded in a camera can't get right?

And no, you're showing complete ignorance calling caring about the image you get "pixel peeping". It's image peepong, i.e. just that: actually caring about the image.

 

When I convert my pictures to b&w I prefer RAW. It gives much more options to adjust contrast and tonality and I save them as png and get more grey tones than with jpgs.

 

Prove it. Show us an example

 

Really... You really wrote that? Incredible.

 

I can point you in the direction of many great photographers who don’t (or didn’t) need RAW. Look at Sanford’s contributions, for one or many film photographers for many more. You can’t, or you won’t for some reason.

 

You have been explained, by quite a few, what the added benefits of raw format are. They are the same as doing darkroom work instead of handing your film over to Wallmart and making do with the bad prints they produce.
That you are asking for samples is, in short, a ludicrous sign of immaturity, a show of disregard and disrespect towards all those who spent a bit of their time providing you with good reasons why the raw format is anything but a waste of anyones time.
I can accept that some people just do not care about quality. You apparently are one of them. So be it. Go waste your own time in future.

 

Incredible that there are still discussions on JPEG vs RAW. While I understand that there are scenarios where shooting JPEG can be considered a "must", none of those apply to anything I am doing. The QUAL button on my Nikons or the menu setting for the selection of RAW in other cameras gets used EXACTLY once: when I acquire the camera and set it format to RAW. I wish I could re-program QUAL - because now it only serves one purpose - to accidentally change the setting from RAW.

 

RAW is for number crunchers not artists

 

Post a photo, ffs

 

What would be the point? JPEG gives quote reasonable results when the settings are optimised prior to taking the shot. RAW shooters don't do this for controls like WB so a RAW shooters SOOC JPEG will be inferior to a good JPEG shooters one.

There are certainly times when RAW is a huge benefit. Fortunately they are pretty rare as I'm rubbish at developing RAW, while my camera is quite good at it when given the right starting settings.

 

Paint is for chemists, not artists.

How foolish can you get? Look no further that PNet troll Ludmilla.
But whatever can be said about her, she does post samples. Repeatedly. Kudos!

 

Eh? This debate has nothing to do with SOOC JPEGs. Most people who shoot JPEGs do post process their images as do RAW shooters. The debate is whether the effort of shooting RAW is worth it. De Bakker thinks so but won’t post examples

 

Just meant as a little comedy relief, still a sensitive subject I see.

 

Working with RAW means you have so much more to choose from when converting to B&W or pretty much any other kind of post processing.

The true "digital negative" is RAW.

Even in non-RAW images such as jpg, having color in the original gives more options than a B&W image has to work with.

 

touched a RAW nerve, I guess

 

Yes we also post process but getting good results from processing a JPEG file requires it to be fairly good to begin with. RAW can allow a little more recovery from mistakes when shooting.
If the exposure was out by 2 stops & the wrong WB selected it will show in an edited JPEG. While RAW stands a much better chance of dealing with it.

A comparison between a well edited image from a good JPEG against a developed one from the same RAW data might be of some use, but it would often just show difference in artistic interpretation.

 

Thanks for clarifying that point. But if you post-process a JPEG, why not start with a RAW to begin with that gives you more leeway? What exactly is the additional effort with RAW in that case? Don't both involve adjusting some sliders in some post-processing software until the image looks the way you want it to? A blown highlight or lost shadow detail in a JPEG is unrecoverable in post; there's substantial leeway in the RAW file to deal with both.

Good. I know exactly no one who would select among different picture control settings for each shot (the Nikon D500 offers standard, neutral, vivid, monochrome, portrait, landscape and flat) and then modify the settings for sharpening, clarify, contrast, brightness, saturation, hue and WB on a small LCD screen that isn't even color-calibrated. Shoot RAW and all those (and more) parameters are under your control in post.