RAW snobism has got to stop!

[g_w2]

Bogdan,

 

I do believe you are correct. I am a photographer who has

shot and continues to shoot for magazines, advertising and

corporate clients around the world. I shoot personal work that

has been exhibited in galleries and museums around the

world.

 

I have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about

digtal photography on this sight. However, as in the film

medium, there are many, many folks who seem to be more

interested in technique than in taking pictures. That's their

business. I believe way too much space is taken complaining

about imaginary problems and fixes. If the picture works for

you, than it doesn't matter what format or camera or software

or printer, etc. was used.

 

Scott Eaton,

 

You are one of the voices of reason on this sight. You are into

taking pictures and giving rational, sincere advice based on

real world experience. Too many folks give advice based on

their perceived expertise. They scare away people who would

like answers to their qustions and learn more about

photography.

 

RAW is way overkill in most situations IMHO. It uses too much

space and requires too much post time. It has it's place.

 

To many of you 'experts,

 

Go out and take some pictures and stop worrying about

perfect technique.

 

 

gw

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>So a lot of newcomers to the digital world feel that unless they shoot RAW they

are lesser photographers and THAT is the wrong idea to install in people's minds.

</I><P> A few years ago i was having a discussion with a client about how a project

i

was hired to salvage after another vendor had screwed it up in the first place. The

two of us had a meeting with the other vendor during which we both realized that

the entire thing (setting up a library of images for a non-profit corporation) would

have to be started again from scratch. During this meeting it was also concluded that

the other vendor would be working under my direction to do a lot of the "scut" work

in exchange for criminal charges not being filed. Afterthe meeting I looked at my

client and asked him if he thought the other guy understood something. He

replied:<B>"Never me ask me what someone else understands."</B> <P>It is nice

that you are worried about the mental capacities and ego-strength of your fellow

photographers, but don't try to be a "catcher in the rye".

[rtrace]

Ellis,

 

Yes Sir! How dare I? Excuse me for stating my opinion. You are quite right. Now may I please have my Grey Poupon back? ....

 

Bogdan

[madwand]

Ken Rockwell writes on exactly this topic:

<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm">JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First Time</a><br><br>

 

<i><fontsize=-2>Professional journalists like Karl Grobl who need to produce results shoot JPG. Karl just returned from a two month series of assignments in Asia. He brought back 20 Gigabytes of JPGs, and those were just the keepers. Karl no longer has the time to piddle with anything in Photoshop: if the image isn't perfect as shot it gets deleted. Life is too short to piddle with sloppy images if making images is what you do for a living. Of course if photography is your hobby and you find the piddling enjoyable or if you're in a studio with time to burn then that's another story.</font></i><br><br>

 

Somewhat simplified, the gist of his message seems to be that the in-crowd uses JPEG.<br><br>

 

Another point that Bogdan makes here -- the quality of different RAW conversion, would seem to be one argument for capturing in RAW -- for some hypothetical time in the future where the same format is still supported by better conversion algorithms have been devised, and the photos are still desired.

[rtrace]

Andrew,

 

I don't disagree - I just see it differently. I'm not anti RAW! I just don't like people saying that if I want quality I HAVE to shoot RAW. That is BS. I'm all for quality. I calibrate everything, and am anal in general. You know. So when some article that pretends to be objective makes a statement like that I have to react.

 

Yeah sure if I take my 6MP camera and save a JPEG 10 times until it looks like crap and then blow up the pic to 20x30 it will look bad. That is obvious. But I don't do that! If I know I'm going to do that (edit heavily and save 10 times, layers, etc.) I WILL shoot RAW. It's just rare that I do. And I'm not the only one.

 

People that care about quality and shoot JPEG do NOT edit and save 10 times, expose bad, choose a bad WB, or blow noisy images way too large for a 6MP camera to begin with. These people care about PHOTOGRAPHY and shooting rather than editing in Photoshop a lot. Getting it right in the viewfinder. Just like Jay who I guess is not allowed to touch his computer does :)

 

I'm all for better RAW software that's easier to use and more intuitive. Time is not even an issue for me. I made actions in Photoshop to use ACR rather quickly - it's a no brainer. But after all my anal calibrations to get my 10D to match the one Thomas Knoll used to create the two profiles for ACR, I still cannot get consistent colors that I like. ACR needs to really improve in that area IMO. If it worked for me, I'd still use it. And you know for what? Just if I needed to edit a lot where 16bits would save me some.

 

Bogdan

[andy_piper2]

Is there "RAW snobbery"? Of course. Just as there is "SERIOUS photography" snobbery. And "not OUR kind, dear" snobbery.

 

RAW is like The Zone System. Under certain circumstances, for the right kind of picture, there is no question that it provides the photographer a great amount of latitude and control.

 

But that doesn't mean it's always best all the time. Any more than the Zone System is suited to the work of Garry Winograd or Henri Cartier-Bresson.

 

No doubt back in the 20s-30s there were format snobs who opined that "No SERIOUS photographer would shoot with those 35mm toy cameras" - until H. C-B. and Robert Frank and countless others proved how idiotic that statement was.

 

Snobbery is stupid, and someone always proves it wrong eventually. But that doesn't mean you can't weigh the differences between RAW and JPEG (and for that matter the differences between one manufacturer's RAW or JPEG and another's - they vary widely) and make your own choice to shoot one or the other (or both).

 

As to the plethora of RAW formats - it's inescapable. RAW is the raw data from an imaging chip, and each chip type/size will have a different pattern of data: R-G-B-G, or R-G-B-E, or C-M-Y-G pixels; or 2560 x 1920 vs. 3448 x 2620 pixels; or even something as simple as "top left pixel is red (or blue - or green)". Plus a lot of other factors.

 

You cannot have a common RAW format - any more than you can print 3 different novels and expect the same words to show up on the same pages in each.

[beno_t_marchal]

<p>I'm reading through this thread. I'm not at the end yet but I have the feeling it all boils

down to different definitions of quality (if I can summarize, it seems it boils down to

making sure one gets a top-notch shoot by being very careful with the camera vs making

sure one gets top-notch editing by using the least pre-processed file).

<p>A writer should be very careful in his/her choice of word. Quality is an emotional

word, we all aim for quality but we have different means to achieve it.

<p>I agree with the original poster, the luminous landscape article was good and well-

balanced until the conclusion. I guess the author tried to summarize his point in too few

words.

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com/">marchal.com</a>

[andrew_rodney1]

-->You cannot have a common RAW format - any more than you can print 3 different

novels and expect the same words to show up on the same pages in each.

 

You might want to tell Thomas Knoll and Adobe that because they are under the

impression that such a format can be created, with lots of hooks for manufacturers to

place secrete sauce while still allowing 3rd parties to easily extract the data into a color

image without having to resort to reverse engineering.

 

Andrew Rodney

 

http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/

[ethan hansen]

Here's one plug for RAW vs. jpeg. First, I'll admit that I'm a firm believer in getting things right in the camera. There is no substitute for a good starting point. A print made from a RAW file that is off by 2/3 stop will never be as good as one from a properly exposed jpeg.

 

The comments above equating a RAW file to an undeveloped negative are on the mark. This was driven home to me when I had the occasion to reprocess D1X images I originally shot in Spring of 2001 (love those situations where you've already got the shots needed!). I did the original conversions using either Nikon Capture 2.0 or some early version of Bibble. My skill at working with D1X images has improved during the intervening years, but so has the available software. Crunching the files through Capture One with an accurate camera profile made a hell of a difference. In film terms, it was something like the difference between shooting with Superia and NPZ. Had I shot jpegs I would have been stuck with the image the camera's converter produced.

 

That ties in with the need for a sensible, common RAW format. As Andrew mentions, there is no reason why some proprietary tags can not be implemented if it gives the camera manufacturers jollies. Basic information - data layout, orientation, white balance - these need to be standardized if there is to be any hope of using digital cameras for the long(er) term. For example, when Capture One came out close to two years ago, Phase One's decision was that the Nikon D1H was hopelessly outdated and need not be supported. Granted, it had been almost a year since the camera was introduced, but this seemed a bit premature. My CYA solution has been to archive both the RAW file and the initial tiff created by the raw converter as well as finished product.

 

The RAW confusion gets even worse when companies such as Sony start encrypting the RAW files. If these idiots really think they'll support the corporate bottom line on the strength of their raw converters, they should create a general purpose converter. That was Phase One's approach, and it worked. I would not want to use Sony's software on a bet, but that might just be me.

[rtrace]

I completely agree with the analogy between a RAW file and an undeveloped negative. The

issue to me, as I mentioned, is one of future compatibility. Will my RAW files from my

camera today be supported in the future? Long term that is. And by what converters? This

is a big unknown. So I like Andrew would love to see a common RAW format, but I just

don't see it happening. We can be optimistic, but so far camera manufacturers have been

less than cooperative with divulging information to 3d party RAW converters like C1 or

ACR. It's a battle, I know. Point is I can't predict the future.

 

I also wonder why then would Canon be bothering with producing new RAW converter

software like EVU and DPP, if they did NOT intend to keep things from being shared or

divulged? And they are NOT charging for it! This is an important point as it sort of shows

me what Canon is thinking long term. That is, they seemingly do NOT want to cooperate

too much with the 3d parties and so are creating software that is trying to match the

quality and more so, the functionality of ACR or C1.

 

EVU is actually VERY good quality wise - better in some areas than ACR and C1 from what

I've tried. Especially with noise in the shadows. Funcionally it's crippled. DPP is better in

terms of functionality/workflow/speed but IMO it's quality is not as good as EVU.

 

Imagine EVU/DPP on steroids next year. What would that do to C1 or ACR? They probably

will have to play catch-up.

 

We'll wait and see, but it seems that if Canon wanted to be really helpful, they would get

out of the software business and not come out with EVU or especially DPP. Canon KNOWS

their pro photographers are using C1 or ACR. So it seems they are trying to hook them -

for free! The quality is there in EVU and DPP for the most part. Wait until the functionality

comes..

 

So this leaves me looking at the situation differently. While I know it's possible, I'm not

sure it's probable.

 

Another important point is that while I agree that RAW files shot and converted with

current converts can look better in the future when better converters come out (if they still

support the particular RAW files that is), this only really applies to mostly personal

photographs.

 

When I shoot for a client I have to deliver NOW. Not in a year later!

 

There's the dilemma.

 

RAW is about flexibility now and *possibly* later. Not really about quality unless all your

prints are HUGE gallery prints where small JPEG artifacts will look bad when staring at the

print inches from it instead of feet..

 

Bogdan

[andy_piper2]

"Thomas Knoll and Adobe ... are under the impression that such a format can be created..."

 

Fair enough. Although I'd call this "Meta-RAW" or "Encapsulated RAW" or some such. In effect you (or the camera makers) would be taking the RAW interpretation "plug-in" unique for each camera/chip and building it into the image file alongside the "raw" output from the chip as the camera saves it, rather than running the plug-in in Photoshop. Packaging the codebook with the coded message, as it were.

 

No doubt Adobe backs the idea - they could quit having to reverse-engineer plug-ins for every new camera that comes along, and just leave it up to the manufacturers' software writers to support their own products.

[beno_t_marchal]

<p>I had a look into the steps involved in RAW to TIFF conversion. I don't claim to be an

expert in this field but I'm a computer scientist and my special experience is in

interoperable business applications (getting two business software to talk to each other by

means of common formats and others so, while my experience is not directly applicable, I

think it is close enough to be valid).

<p>Anyway it does not appear that the difference between Nikon and Canon formats are

that great (based on the reversed documentation available online). Basically both

manufacturer store an array of pixels. The differences are in the number of bits per pixel,

the byte order, the specifics of the bayer pattern, the compression used, and of course the

file header.

<p>Technically it would not be difficult to agree on a common header, a set of

compression algorithms and move the rest to header (parameter) information. So I would

tend to agree with Adobe, technically it is doable; whether there's a willingness to define

such a format is another issue, obviously.

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com/">marchal.com</a>

[andrew_rodney1]

-->So I would tend to agree with Adobe, technically it is doable; whether there's a

willingness to define such a format is another issue, obviously.

 

Agreed, it's not a technology issue, it's a business (I'd say cultural issue). We vote with our

dollars. Those of us that write reviews automatically knock off points for camera

manufacturers who will not get on the band wagon of opening up their RAW files to a

standard that insures it's not a total PITA to use a 3rd party converter. Eventually, all RAW

users who demand this might actually get this (with help from the 900lb Gorilla in San

Jose).

 

Andrew Rodney

http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/

[andrew_rodney1]

Interesting cross post on RAW:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?

Cat=&Board=UBB13&Number=240731&Forum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Lim

it=25&Main=240731&Search=true&where=&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertyp

e=d&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post240731

[rtrace]

"Agreed, it's not a technology issue, it's a business (I'd say cultural issue). We vote with our dollars. Those of us that write reviews automatically knock off points for camera manufacturers who will not get on the band wagon of opening up their RAW files to a standard that insures it's not a total PITA to use a 3rd party converter. Eventually, all RAW users who demand this might actually get this (with help from the 900lb Gorilla in San Jose). "

 

I just don't see it happening, but can hope?! See my comments above on DPP and EVU and especially read this thread and the last message:

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=239593&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

 

How can we vote with our $$ when Canon and Nikon the two largest makers don't care and keep on supply FREE RAW software that gets better and better. Adobe will be struggling me thinks. Do you think people are going to go out and dump their Canon or Nikon gear and get a Minolta or Olympus because it supports a RAW standard????

 

Bogdan

[andrew_rodney1]

-->How can we vote with our $$ when Canon and Nikon the two largest makers don't care

and keep on supply FREE RAW software that gets better and better.

 

They have to do this (although it's kind of dumb since I've yet to see a product from either,

or for that matter a Japanese company that wasn't totally bad). They can't produce a

product that produces a format that requires the user to have Photoshop or C1 or some

other commercial product. What if the user doesn't own or want to buy these products?

Yes I know, how many people dropping the bucks on the 1Ds don't own Photoshop. That's

not the point as far as they are concerned. The cultural aspect I alluded to is that by and

large, my experience working with these companies is that "not built here" is, in their

minds a bad thing. It's shocking how long it took the manufacturers to even support the

illusion that they could produce data in "Adobe RGB" (which really isn't the case). The

900lb Gorilla and more importantly all their customers who upgraded to Photoshop 5 way

back when and found that they had to define RGB color to work in Photoshop made these

guys kind of get with the program. So this idea of a standard RAW format could take.

 

If Canon and Nikon want to continue spending time and, money and R&D making what

amounts to piss poor software, fine with me (although we all pay for this in the end). I'm

willing to drop that money if someone better (Adobe) can produce a better product for me.

But to continue this proprietary attitude is simply not acceptable.

 

Andrew Rodney

http://digitaldog.imagingrevue.com/

[philip_hartlieb]

"What Jay can do has nothing to do with RAW verses TIFF verses JPEG. The differences do show when he cranks out a huge print but that doesn't alter the fact that the image itself is totally amazing."

 

I tend to think the above carries the day....if your scrapping for bits and bytes then something is wrong....either it knocks you on your ass or it doesn't....take your favorite photo and fuck with the WB here and there...does it really take away from that "God Damn!" reaction....Just a thought...

[beno_t_marchal]

<p>Andrew

<p>Having a standard/portable format would <b>not</b> prevent Canon or Nikon from

shipping free (or even paying) software with their camera. I don't know about Canon but

Nikon has software that works with JPEG (an industry standard) and the software works

with any JPEG, not just those produced by Nikon cameras.

<p>I noticed two things on this matter recently: Foveon released a PR to announce that

Adobe will eventually support their format later this year... and, at a recent event, a

Nikon representative was quick to point to me that Adobe would support the D70 "very

shortly" (it was added since).

<p>So I guess their sales guys are seeing that RAW support in Photoshop is something

that some of their customers want, which gives ammunitions to Adobe to promote an

open format.

<p>Will we have a standard RAW format in 2004? No way. 2005? Maybe. 2006? A real

possibility judging from the current market. Time for the information to move up the chain

of command.

<p>Manufacturers

have a tradition to work together. Look at CompactFlash, Exif, ExifPrint and now direct

camera printing. Heck, in the days of film, there was no "Nikon 35mm

film", "Canon 35mm film" or "Pentax 35mm film"... why should be settle for a "Nikon/

Canon/Pentax RAW file format"?

<p>--ben<br><a href="http://www.marchal.com/">marchal.com</a>

[rtrace]

We still need to rememeber that we are still in digital's infancy period, even though it may

not seem so simply because it's so ubiquitous. We still have small sensors, a small

dynamic range, crappy AWB, 12bits of capture, etc. All these things WILL improve. Yes,

today's fancy RAW software allow for some flexibility and give you the ability to squeeze

that final 5% or whatever one thinks it is out of a file that JPEG in *some* cases, not all,

can't. But like Scott said above, until digital cameras can capture way more bits JPEG *IS*

the standard now, NOT RAW. RAW is a work/format in progress. So we will have to wait

and see what "develops" on that front. For now I'll use JPEG 99% of the time because it

makes sense to me and most importantly (the main reason for which anyone should make

a choice) is that it give me equal results w/o the BS of working with RAW converters and

such.

 

Heck, I agree with Andrew when he calls for a single, standalone program. But for me

Photoshop is OVERKILL as an app for digital photography. We need a new standalone ACR

with many more options but the 900lb Photoshop gorilla looks like it's putting on more

weight rather than taking some off. Mr. Knoll should think to make ACR a standalone an

incorporate some Photoshop feature into it, but the route he's taking (from what I've read)

is to do some things in ACR but not to duplicate a lot of Photoshop stuff, which means his

intention is to still use Photoshop. And face it, for most of us how many of the Photoshop

feature do we really use for processing photos? Chances are 10% if that. I'm not saying get

rid of Photoshop, because certainly some people DO use a lot of its features, but give me a

good alternative that is slim, fast, and mean. I see Adobe going the way of MS - more

bloated software.

 

If we have a RAW standard then we will see real competition from more than Adobe and

C1. Programs that are fast, sleek, self-contained, and produce great output. THAT is the

future I want to see.

 

Bogdan

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't quite understand - on the 10D doesn't the PC raw conversion software have the same default settings as the in-camera conversion software? I usually don't need to edit my D70 RAW files at all to get nice prints. There is essentially no drawback to using RAW for me. I can shoot 120 raw files on one 1 GB CF card and I never shoot fast sequences. Since it's quite clear that JPG ditches fine detail, I don't see much point in using it. In time the in-camera electronics and cards get faster in handling large files, so that fast bursts of RAW will be possible. JPG is good for transmitting files for web display and other time-critical applications but I think the vast majority of photography doesn't require it once cameras are fast enough. Same thing with computers; there will be little penalty in processing time in a few years. If you need to use JPG now, use it! I agree that the loss in quality with the best JPG settings is not too bad unless your image just doesn't fit well for truncated cosine transformation. I don't want to learn when JPG looses noticeable quality and when it doesn't - I'll just shoot the native format and forget about the existence of JPG.

[jean deaux]

I shoot RAW, because I'd like to increase the number of keepers in my files. Back in the E-6 days, nothing would frustrate me more than a slide that was somehow off (color balance, slightly mis-exposed,...). Thank god for desktop scanners that allowed me to correct some of these images. But back to the topic at hand: no one will get every shot right the first time, I don't care who you are. And you don't always have an opportunity to reshoot (unless you're shooting in a studio environment).

 

I'd rather have the option of being able to better tune the image on the desktop. Sure, I could get try to get it right when I'm out in the field like I did during the E-6 days, but I'd rather not deal with color correction issues out in the field (thankfully, we can now use white balance adjustments instead of specialized film and/or filters). I don't know about you, but I can never get my white balance "right" out in the field when I'm shooting mixed lighting scenes (tungsten + fluorescent + daylight,...).

 

When I do get it right the first time, I simply convert to jpeg using the default camera settings, which is exactly the same as shooting jpeg in the first place. No problem--CF memory is cheap these days, and I have yet to run out of room.

 

You might ask, "why go through the trouble of converting to jpeg?" No trouble at all--I batch process those images, walk away from my computer (or check my email), and the jpegs are ready in no time at all. The only difference being that RAW takes up more room on my CF cards. No problem---memory is cheap compared to film.

 

When I don't get it right, RAW can save an image. Sure, it can only hold an extra 1/2 to 1 stop of info, but that can mean the difference between filing it and trashing it.

 

I do check my histogram after just about every shot. If the highlights are clipping, I'll adjust and reshoot. But sometimes, I just don't have opportunity to recapture a moment image. That 1/2 to 1-stop CAN and has saved some of my images.

 

I've noticed a difference, albeit very slight, in the quality of RAW (converted to 16-bit TIFF) vs. jpeg. This becomes a bit more apparent when adjustments are necessary (e.g. curves, levels,...). This can probably be attributed to the added bit depth of RAW images (12-bits/channel vs 8-bits/channel).

[minamishka_phallangie]

Could somebody please remind me what Ansel Adams used in Yosemite?? Was it RAW or JPEG? Am I the only one who understands Bogdan's point?

[kmgibbs]

"until digital cameras can capture way more bits JPEG *IS* the standard now, NOT RAW"

 

You are correct in this statement as far as you go. Tiff is also a standard and can have zero compression.

 

I understand that a new standard for JPEG has been developed, JPEG 2000. This begs the question of the lifespan of 'standard jpegs' should the software people decide to support JPEG 2000 in addition to or instead of the 'standard jpegs'. Unless I am mistaken, TIFF has been a DTP standard much longer than jpeg has been around. Heck, haven't GIF's been around longer than jpegs?

 

So, in reality, there is no 'standard' and won't ever be. Technology marches on and the best we can hope for is to stay on top of the compatibility curve or shoot film and use the latest whizz bang do everthing scanner to rescan as needed.

 

I love digital, but looking for a 'standard' is like hoping that Mac's and PC's will one day work together. Not going to happen. Profit and profit only drives this technology!

 

My opinion.

 

Kent