Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy  (Read 3500 times)

JJP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« on: November 21, 2006, 06:39:01 pm »

Good Day Folks,
Every film camera from 2 dollars to a million had a negative or positive for each photograph taken.  
Everybody knows that the digital equivalent of film negative (or positive) is a raw file.
And so, all digital cameras no matter how el-cheapo they are should have raw capture.  RAW should be LAW IMO
period,
jj

edited
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 06:40:46 pm by JJP »
Logged
JJ

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2006, 08:34:55 pm »

Quote
Good Day Folks,
Every film camera from 2 dollars to a million had a negative or positive for each photograph taken. 
Everybody knows that the digital equivalent of film negative (or positive) is a raw file.
And so, all digital cameras no matter how el-cheapo they are should have raw capture.  RAW should be LAW IMO
period,
jj

edited
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have summed it up nicely. I understand RAW vegetables have more vitamins than cooked ones, too.    

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

JJP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2006, 09:34:09 pm »

Quote
I understand RAW vegetables have more vitamins than cooked ones, too.
hi EricM,
Except for specialty dining rooms, most restauwants serve em eh!  
jj
Logged
JJ

Stephen Best

  • Guest
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2006, 09:53:15 pm »

Quote
Everybody knows that the digital equivalent of film negative (or positive) is a raw file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Handy analogy ... but largely irrelevant. Today's camera makers will do whatever it takes to distinguish their brand from others, based largely on image quality straight from the camera. Intellectual property, the internal design and smarts that make the resultant images appealing to their target market, is where it's at. What a small percentage of consumers can achieve with the raw data from the sensor is neither here nor there.
Logged

JJP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2006, 10:15:05 pm »

hi Stephen,
I understand that jpegs straight out of ps cameras are generally not meant to be edited in photoshop.....however, for whatever reason, if you did open/edit a jpeg in photoshop, the image file (as far as I know) deteriorates (loss of data).  Whereas, you can open & adjust a raw file in camera raw or c1 without loss of data.  Benefits of raw outweigh jpegs big time.
jj
Logged
JJ

Stephen Best

  • Guest
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #5 on: November 21, 2006, 10:37:38 pm »

Quote
I understand that jpegs straight out of ps cameras are generally not meant to be edited in photoshop.....however, for whatever reason, if you did open/edit a jpeg in photoshop, the image file (as far as I know) deteriorates (loss of data).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86493\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not quite true. JPEG is a lossy format, so files opened and *saved* repeatedly as JPEGs will deteriorate ... but you can save the edited file in any format (PSD, TIFF) you want. JPEG was designed to be visually identical and at low compression ratios achieves this goal. Every edit you do to a file degrades it in some way no matter what format you use.

There will, of course, be some loss in the in-camera RAW to JPEG conversion, but if the white balance and tonal response curve are close to what you're after, the advantages you'll achieve from doing your own RAW conversion will be less. Camera makers are continually striving to deliver the image quality you're after straight from the camera. Lens correction is the next frontier. Not that RAW will disappear from top end cameras, just that it may become less useful if it bypasses most of the smarts (now and in the future) in the camera.
Logged

JJP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 208
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2006, 11:10:46 pm »

In all honesty Stephen,
Many a tweek (in Camera Raw) hath saved many an image which thy image otherwise be lost or chucked!  
JJ
Logged
JJ

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7394
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Lack-O-Rawtitus & Raw-ectomy
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2006, 01:40:49 am »

I have bought a G7, even without raw. I decided to stop complaining, and just moved on, focusing on the many good things the camera has to offer.

So I am now experimenting with different Custom and preset profiles: there are many to chose from: neutral, vivid, positive, etc. Actually, it's like chosing different films for different objectives.

In my mind, it feels a bit like having to make a decision before pressing the shutter; whereas with raw, you can make the decision later on.

My findings so far are that with good use of the histogram and these profiles, the results are quite pleasing. And given that I am a slide film user, I find that even without raw, the G7 can nail some shots that slide film could not.
Pages: [1]   Go Up