Go to a  "printer friendly" view of this message which allow an easy print Printer-friendly copy Go to the page which allows you to send this topic link and a message to a friend Email this topic to a friend
Forums Lobby MASTER YOUR TOOLS - Hardware & Software Digital postprocessing & workflow (Public) topic #45716
View in linear mode

Subject: "Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..." Previous topic | Next topic
TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 03:00 AM
1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
"Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
Tue 29-Jul-08 03:12 AM by TXCiclista

Fort Worth, US
          

Before I go any further than the title, if you are here to argue that "RAW is better" and maintain some type of "JPG sux" mentality, then allow me to quote you a line from Star Wars:

"Move along. Move along."

That having been said...



  • On or around September 29th, my wife and I will have our first child. I expect my photography-taking to experience an exponential leap in quantity, if not quality . I currently own Lightroom and Photoshop CS3. With the possible exception of Christmas, Capture NX 2 is out because of budgeting considerations (Any "if you can afford a D300 you can afford NX2" comments just prove you're, well, I won't say it...).

  • In late August/early Sepetember, I will start back to school, both as a teacher (Algebra II) and as a student (working on an advanced Masters in prep for a PhD). I will also be a Research Assistant for my Masters advisor.

  • I came back from a Hawai'i in June with 1,500 RAW shots. I am a teacher and have the whole summer off. I am now, finally, finishing up my corrections and edits. I have 35 shots left to go (out of 180 that I pared down from 650, pared down from 1,500). I spend approximately 5 minutes per photo to get it "right," much of which is color (I tend to be a little OCD here).

  • I recently discovered Picture Controls in the D300.

    Now, if you read the above 4 bullets, you see where I'm going with this (and all but the 4th bullet are non-negotiable). My problem with RAW is nothing but a time consideration, and time is something I'm two months away from having very little of. Since RAW's in anything but NX 2 require a fair degree of enhancement (at least when you're not a graphics whiz like I'm not), I just won't have the time to ever get good results from them.

    As a result, I am seriously considering a move from RAW to JPG. I have shot exclusively RAW for 2 years, so I think I understand the pros and cons. This is my thinking:

    RAW Cons
    Large
    Slower to open, edit, etc
    Time-consuming
    Not processed "perfectly" by anything but NX/NX2 without user intervention (Can View NX give Capture NX results on open?)

    RAW Pros
    Unparalleled quality and flexibility

    ------------------

    JPG Cons
    (When using non-destructive editors like Lightroom and shooting "fine," none that I can think of since you don't have to resave)

    JPG Pros
    Smaller
    Faster to open, edit, etc
    Little PP required if Picture Controls are set "correctly."
    Universal format that can be shared/uploaded to websites immediately without the need for any conversion
    "Capture NX 2 RAW results" right off the CF card



    OK, so, intelligent replies requested. If you've got a soapbox or just think you've got life all figured out, I'm not interested. f you can articulate your views intelligently and/or offer well-considered critiques, you're my man/women. And please note the areas where I use quotation marks. This denotes my awareness that the word I used oversimplifies the issue.

    (And just in case someone says it, yes, I've also considered RAW+JPEG and archiving the RAWs "just in case" so that might make this a moot point. I'm still interested in your comments.)

    PS if this would be better-served in another forum, please move. Otherwise, I'm looking for input from the D300 community)

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

  • Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    Replies to this topic
    Subject Author Message Date ID
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    jag65
    29th Jul 2008
    1
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    11
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    olivierrychner Gold Member
    29th Jul 2008
    2
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    6
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    peterah
    29th Jul 2008
    3
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    10
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    ericbowles Moderator
    29th Jul 2008
    4
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    8
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    kindervb
    29th Jul 2008
    5
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    7
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Shred
    29th Jul 2008
    9
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    12
              Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Wayne C
    29th Jul 2008
    13
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    notes386 Gold Member
    29th Jul 2008
    14
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    dm1dave Administrator
    29th Jul 2008
    15
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    29th Jul 2008
    16
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    19
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    29th Jul 2008
    22
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    30th Jul 2008
    24
              Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    30th Jul 2008
    26
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    PSE07
    29th Jul 2008
    17
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    max_man_94_01_04
    29th Jul 2008
    18
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    29th Jul 2008
    20
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    diff Silver Member
    29th Jul 2008
    21
              Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    tamrokin
    30th Jul 2008
    23
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    30th Jul 2008
    25
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    31st Jul 2008
    27
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    01st Aug 2008
    29
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    01st Aug 2008
    33
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Wareagle
    31st Jul 2008
    28
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    01st Aug 2008
    30
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    01st Aug 2008
    31
              Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    01st Aug 2008
    32
                   Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    01st Aug 2008
    34
                        Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    01st Aug 2008
    35
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    01st Aug 2008
    37
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    01st Aug 2008
    38
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    01st Aug 2008
    39
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    02nd Aug 2008
    44
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    49
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    86
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    04th Aug 2008
    93
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    02nd Aug 2008
    41
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    pcspecialist
    02nd Aug 2008
    43
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    02nd Aug 2008
    46
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    04th Aug 2008
    80
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    94
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    02nd Aug 2008
    45
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    40
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    02nd Aug 2008
    47
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    50
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    02nd Aug 2008
    52
                                                 Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    57
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    03rd Aug 2008
    65
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    doctor_big
    03rd Aug 2008
    66
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    68
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    03rd Aug 2008
    74
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    04th Aug 2008
    79
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    04th Aug 2008
    81
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    97
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    05th Aug 2008
    100
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    05th Aug 2008
    103
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    05th Aug 2008
    101
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    92
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    jku
    01st Aug 2008
    36
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    02nd Aug 2008
    42
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    jku
    02nd Aug 2008
    56
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    04th Aug 2008
    82
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    doctor_big
    02nd Aug 2008
    58
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    jku
    02nd Aug 2008
    59
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    63
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Cookies35 Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    48
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    pdinella
    02nd Aug 2008
    51
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    IntegrityPhotos Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    53
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    55
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    03rd Aug 2008
    76
              Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    78
                   Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    04th Aug 2008
    83
                        Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    85
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    04th Aug 2008
    89
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    90
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    05th Aug 2008
    98
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    05th Aug 2008
    104
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    06th Aug 2008
    106
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    06th Aug 2008
    107
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    06th Aug 2008
    108
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    109
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    07th Aug 2008
    110
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    111
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    07th Aug 2008
    114
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    08th Aug 2008
    122
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    08th Aug 2008
    125
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    04th Aug 2008
    95
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    04th Aug 2008
    96
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    05th Aug 2008
    102
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    02nd Aug 2008
    54
         Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    greyface Gold Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    60
              Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    61
                   Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    greyface Gold Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    62
                        Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    greyface Gold Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    64
                             Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    67
                                  Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Cookies35 Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    69
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Socrates Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    70
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Cookies35 Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    71
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    TXCiclista
    04th Aug 2008
    84
                                       Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    greyface Gold Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    72
                                            Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Cookies35 Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    73
                                                 Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    greyface Gold Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    75
                                                 Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    Cookies35 Silver Member
    03rd Aug 2008
    77
                                                 Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    87
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    04th Aug 2008
    88
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    04th Aug 2008
    91
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    05th Aug 2008
    99
                                                      Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    smb_ohio
    05th Aug 2008
    105
                                                      Reply message [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is ...
    Socrates Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    112
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG...
    smb_ohio
    07th Aug 2008
    113
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG...
    Socrates Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    115
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG...
    smb_ohio
    08th Aug 2008
    126
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    116
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Socrates Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    117
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    07th Aug 2008
    119
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Socrates Silver Member
    08th Aug 2008
    120
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Replytoken Silver Member
    08th Aug 2008
    121
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Socrates Silver Member
    08th Aug 2008
    123
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    markbarendt Silver Member
    08th Aug 2008
    124
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    smb_ohio
    08th Aug 2008
    128
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    smb_ohio
    08th Aug 2008
    127
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Socrates Silver Member
    08th Aug 2008
    129
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    smb_ohio
    08th Aug 2008
    130
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Socrates Silver Member
    09th Aug 2008
    133
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    greyface Gold Member
    09th Aug 2008
    134
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    smb_ohio
    09th Aug 2008
    135
                                                      Reply message RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub...
    Socrates Silver Member
    09th Aug 2008
    137
    Reply message All kind of moot now (for me)
    TXCiclista
    07th Aug 2008
    118
    Reply message RE: All kind of moot now (for me)
    smb_ohio
    08th Aug 2008
    131
         Reply message RE: All kind of moot now (for me)
    TXCiclista
    08th Aug 2008
    132
    Reply message RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale...
    pauljm
    09th Aug 2008
    136

    jag65 Registered since 08th Jul 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 08:14 AM
    3 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #1. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    NO
              

    I shoot RAW, for anything, but sports.
    Then number one reason, is the flexibility in postprocessing.

    I also agree, that raw files are slow to open and view. I therefore process all my RAWFILES (that are not immediately discarded), in a batch to save them as JPEG. The reason for not saving RAW+JPG in camera, is space considerations on CF.

    This is my way of working

    /Jan

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 01:16 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #11. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 1


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Yeah, that's what I've been doing so far. I'm just so slow at post-processing (or maybe inefficient) that's it's quickly becoming a time-sucker

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    olivierrychner Gold Member  Awarded for his long standing high level of commitment to the Nikonians community and demonstrated excellence in the art and science of photography. Nikonian since 03rd Jan 2005Tue 29-Jul-08 10:45 AM
    4949 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #2. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0
    Tue 29-Jul-08 10:48 AM by olivierrychner

    CH
              

    Hi!

    You're raising what some see as a taboo question around here!

    But I must confess that if you look at my gallery, about 50 percent of the shot there have been taken as .NEF, meaning the rest are... .jpeg (with the rare exception of .tif out of my CPX 5400, which now shoots .nef as well since it has had its firmware updated - moot point).

    I wrote 50% - but that is not my "native" ratio of .nef files, actually. All my shots, basically, are .jpegs and have been since I have been shooting digital, i.e. 2003; only the "difficult" shots or the ones I knew would mean something special to me were shot in .tif on my 5400, then .nef on my D70 and now D200. And on the latter two, I have never shot .nef alone, but always added a large fine .jpeg file, be it only for review purposes, and more often than not I have not touched the .nef file!

    My point is that if you have carefully set banks of settings on your cam, it will work well enough on its own. And if you use Lightroom, no problem! Plus all the filters you can think of, a good tripod for sharpness and you're set! And if you have a D300, it should be even better than my D200, which is better than my now sold D70, which was incomparably better than my CPX 5400...

    And something else is good to think of: I'm a father, as you are about to become, and I take hundreds of pics of my little twins. How often do I print bigger than A4? Never... so jpeg files are more than adequate for that purpose!

    Hope this helps!

    EDIT: and I often shoot a CPX P50... do you think it does .nef? No, sir... and I won't bother to use it if it is once upgraded to it

    Olivier Rychner

    Jetez un oeil à ma galerie if you feel like it!

    Auta i lomë! And my Nikon's only awaiting daylight...

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 01:11 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #6. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 2


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Excellent points Olivier. Thanks

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    peterah Registered since 29th Oct 2005Tue 29-Jul-08 11:20 AM
    718 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #3. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Durban, ZA
              

    My major reason for not shooting only jpg is that there is not enough leeway with highlight recovery when the exposure is not perfect. For my landscapes this is a real consideration.

    I now always shoot raw+jpg just in case. I usually only use the jpgs but once in a while there is an image I like to enlarge to 30x40 cm and then I use the raw image for processing and I find the overall results more pleasing.

    Peter
    http://www.peterhowells.co.za

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 01:15 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #10. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 3


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Thanks Peter

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    ericbowles Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge and high level skills in various areas, especially Landscape and Wildlife Photoghraphy Writer Ribbon awarded for for his article contributions to the community Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005Tue 29-Jul-08 11:21 AM
    8681 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #4. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Atlanta, US
              

    Mike Hagan has suggested that there is no reason why you can't produce good images with JPEG only. There are plenty of high volume photographers - particularly in sports - that shoot JPEG exclusively. So your proposal is not really off base.

    The images from the D300 can be optimized using in-camera picture controls. The resulting JPEG will be the same as the RAW in Capture NX or View NX. In fact, the image you are viewing in RAW is an embedded JPEG. You can still edit the JPEG image using most - but not all - the tools in View NX or Capture NX.

    What you can't do with the JPEG is adjust white balance in the original file, but you can warm or cool the image in editing. You also cannot reduce sharpening if it is set too high for the scene. And as you know, you cannot adjust picture controls in post processing for JPEG images.

    One throught to keep in mind is that your skill level and your software will continue to improve the ability to edit your images. I have images from 2-3 years ago that were captured as JPEG's and I would love to have the added flexibility of RAW for my current editing. That being said, Capture NX does a wonderful job with JPEG's.

    My personal preference is to shoot everything in RAW, rate and sort images in View NX, and only edit the best images in Capture NX/NX2. If I want to make a quick adjustment to an image that will not have a full edit, View NX is just fine. I use the Batch function in Capture NX to convert selected images to JPEG's so they can be shared quickly.

    I just got back from Maine and was able to process 1500 images in about a week. My wife has the same number of RAW images and is still processing 4 weeks later. Pick something you are comfortable with - photography does not need to be a chore.

    Eric

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 01:14 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #8. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 4


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Thanks for the perspective Eric

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    kindervb Registered since 29th Feb 2008Tue 29-Jul-08 11:26 AM
    443 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #5. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0
    Tue 29-Jul-08 11:40 AM by kindervb

    Midlothian, US
              

    I also use Lightroom & CS3 for all post processing, I have Capture NX, but I prefer using Lightroom & CS3.

    I shoot RAW for anything that I deem as critical or if I feel the conditions call for the increased flexibility of RAW, I shoot JPG for everything else.

    When I do a wedding I will use RAW for the service, formals etc... when I am shooting candids at the reception I use JPG fine unless I feel the conditions call for RAW. When I shoot sports I use JPG 99.9% of the time. If I go on a day trip or vacation etc... I shoot JPG.

    My experience with the D300 has been that most images require very little post processing and what is required can be done in Lightroom very quickly. This was not something that I could say about the D200. With the D300 I feel that most times when I do shoot RAW I could get by with shooting in JPG fine with no issues.  

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 01:14 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #7. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 5


    Fort Worth, US
              

    That's a good point. I'm not suggesting that I would go 100% JPG, but that it would become "primary." Your experience confirms this is a viable option. Thanks

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    Shred Registered since 28th Oct 2005Tue 29-Jul-08 01:14 PM
    193 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #9. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 5


    FI
              

    It is true that Jpeg is faster and easier file format but RAW can save the day if, or should i say when, something goes wrong.

    I shoot mainly Raw + Fine, dont know really why since View/Capture NX can make "As Shot" Jpg images.
    About 95% of the pictures i shoot have correct exposure and white balance and those pictures are just fine in Jpeg format.
    But those remaining 5% are sometimes totally unacceptable because over/under exposure, that is when RAW shows its potential.

    If you get spot on results with JPG then there is no really any sense to use RAW.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 01:18 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #12. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 9


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Yeah, that's my concern about leaving RAW. That 5% can be pretty important. Several of you have mentioned ViewNX, which I confess I haven't used. I'll run some experiments tonight and see about processing RAWs to JPGs through that. If that works with a minimum of effort, that could be the best of both worlds

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    Wayne C Registered since 11th Apr 2007Tue 29-Jul-08 02:19 PM
    102 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #13. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 12



              

    I shoot jpeg at most family gatheringas and when I'm asked to photograph company events. But when we travel to places will probably won't visit again I shoot raw. In fact I shoot all travel photos and anything else that I don't consider a "snapshot" in raw format.

    If you don't have Capture NX and don't feel you can afford it then jpeg is probably your best bet as the other programs can't get the most out of raw files anyway.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    notes386 Gold Member Nikonian since 14th May 2008Tue 29-Jul-08 02:45 PM
    243 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #14. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Peoria, US
              

    Sorry I'm late to your party- great stuff! Here is another option:
    1) Take all RAW.
    2) Copy to hard drive.
    3) Backup to DVD (or ???).
    4) Convert all to jpeg (Please do this overnight for the "stress-reduction" factor).

    My normal process is to run a step "3a) where I just boost any pictures that need brightness/contrast/shadow enhancement, but this is optional...

    You would want to play around a bit at first to find the correct Picture Controls and stuff that translate well to jpeg, but once done, I think this might work well for you.


    Dan- Peoria, Az
    D300, Nikkor 80-400mm VR, Sigma 24-70mm 2.8, SB800

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    dm1dave Administrator Awarded for high level knowledge and skills in various areas, most notably in Wildlife and Landscape Writer Ribbon awarded for his excellent article contributions to the Nikonians community Nikonian since 12th Sep 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 03:21 PM
    11487 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #15. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Lowden, US
              

    View NX processes the images based on the cameras settings and picture controls. In fact the image it displays is a JEPG file that is embedded in the RAW file.

    You know the overall benefit of RAW for ultimate flexibility. I have some nice images that I regret shooting in JEPG because of the limited flexibility in processing.

    For most shooting your best bet is to either shoot RAW + JEPG. Then use the JEPG when possible and archive the RAW. Another option is to use View NX and continue shooting all RAW then batch convert to JEPG and archive the RAW file.

    Of course you can also choose based on the importance of the image. Simple snapshots can be shot as JEPG only.

    You really should put Capture NX on your list of things you need for this hobby. It is an outstanding tool that essentially solves this problem by making quick conversions based on your cameras picture controls easy.

    Dave Summers
    Lowden, Iowa
    Nikonians Photo Contest Director

    Nikonians membership -
    "My most important photographic investment, after the camera"

    My Nikonians Gallery | SummersPhotoGraphic.com | My Crated Gallery
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Showcase your best work in any of our 7 Monthly Nikonians Photo contests.


    Wildlife | Landscape | Macro | Sports | Travel | Online Assignments | Best of Nikonians 2014

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Tue 29-Jul-08 03:48 PM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #16. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Seattle, US
              

    I can sympathize about the time issue, and I am also looking for a way to process my raw images more quickly. I understand the appeal of shooting JPG, but I am not yet convinced that it really saves any time when IQ is most important.

    For now, I am trying to devote more time to seeing if LR presets will provide a good solution. The presets from One Third Stop seem to offer some hope as an alternative to shooting JPEGs in the camera. Have you tried creating your own preset in LR? And, with LR 2.0 being released, there may be hope for us yet! Keep us posted.

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 10:06 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #19. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 16


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Yeah, I've tried a few presets and they're certainly better, but still not "ideal." As some above have mentioned, I'm now reevaluating my options and considering running the RAWs through ViewNX and saving as JPG. I could then archive the RAWs and load the JPG's into LR.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Tue 29-Jul-08 11:36 PM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #22. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 19


    Seattle, US
              

    >Yeah, I've tried a few presets and they're certainly better,
    >but still not "ideal."

    I am under the impression that things may change w/LR2.0. IIRC, it may be easier to replicate the look of camera manufacturer software under the new version, and I do not believe that it will be done through presets.

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Wed 30-Jul-08 04:10 AM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #24. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 19


    Seattle, US
              

    >Yeah, I've tried a few presets and they're certainly better,
    >but still not "ideal." As some above have
    >mentioned, I'm now reevaluating my options and considering
    >running the RAWs through ViewNX and saving as JPG. I could
    >then archive the RAWs and load the JPG's into LR.

    You may want to have a look at this: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles .

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Wed 30-Jul-08 10:28 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #26. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 24


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Thanks Ken. I'll give that a look

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    PSE07 Registered since 23rd May 2008Tue 29-Jul-08 05:57 PM
    25 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #17. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    US
              

    One thing I have found shooting either format is that when I take custom white balance of the subject, I rarely can improve on the color when I get to post processing.
    Great results from expo disc and Calibration Targets!

    Scott.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    max_man_94_01_04 Registered since 19th May 2007Tue 29-Jul-08 06:28 PM
    3 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #18. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    simi valley, US
              

    I am purely a RAW shooter. However, on a part-time basis, I shoot parties, weddings and get togethers a lot. At one time I felt the need to shoot JPG's. I need to have something to show at the end of the event or the next day. If I shoot RAW, that would not happen. However, that changed until I discovered those JPG Extractors. I am at work right now. I do not have the name of the software I use. It is a shareware and I just donated $10 to the developer. Just google JPG Extractors. Anyway, the way it works is that you specify the folder where the RAW files are and specify the folder where you want the JPG's to be and let it run. The most I ran through this is around 200-250 raw files(4gb CF). It only took a minute to extract all the embedded "processed" jpgs. YMMV depending on your computer and of course, you still have to consider the download time from your CF to computer. However, that may not be much of a deviation to your workflow. From there you can run those JPG's in LR. I use DXO. This way, I have something to show for at the end of the day or next. In some cases where you have the money shot and the pic is a little off (ie. WB, exposure, etc.), I still have the RAW file to fall back on. It is a whole lot faster than batch processing the RAW in NX or DXO to get the JPG. Something to consider if you haven't already.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 29-Jul-08 10:08 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #20. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 18


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Yeah, I've tried that before and it's certainly useful. On the other hand, they're usually lower res with higher compressed. If it's not JPG "L, Fine" it won't work for my purposes. But again, that is certainly a handy feature and I have used it many times with great success.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    diff Silver Member Nikonian since 31st Jan 2007Tue 29-Jul-08 11:34 PM
    296 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #21. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 20


    Spokane, US
              

    I love using ACR!

    I've had CS3 for a number of months and finally put in time to really learn it. What capped it off was taking a 4 weeks online class.

    I've been interested in shooting RAW and learning ACR. But first, I wanted to be grounded in CS3. So, yep... Took a 4 week online class and simply feel in love with shooting RAW & using ACR.

    As a novice to both, there is the expected long term learning curve.

    Two points...

    RAW Converter Slow - All dependents on the amount of RAM (Anything less than 2 gigs will be slow) and your computer processor.

    ACR Presets - I think this is key and makes a huge difference.


    - - - - - -
    ~ Rick Diffley ~
    Come See My Gallery

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    tamrokin Registered since 09th Feb 2006Wed 30-Jul-08 12:44 AM
    359 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #23. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 21


    Fremantle, AU
              

    My answer is 'Insurance' ..... I shoot everything in RAW + .jpg fine. Creates heaps of data & data is very cheap (think of what you have paid in the past).

    With an efficient workflow it only means a bit more time downloading and having back-up storage for the extra data.

    For 90%+ of my work .jpg is adequate and cropping the most used function. For editing beyond that I use the RAW files.


    Regards,

    Rob

    'Civil wars are ones where only cameras do the shooting'

    Black camera, Black lenses, Black bag ...... & NAS Black hole .....

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Wed 30-Jul-08 10:40 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #25. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Ignacio, US
              

    I think your logic is fine.

    Two reasons:

    1 The best camera (or film, or file format, or lens) bar none, is the one you will actually use. This reason alone is enough for you to shoot jpeg.

    2 You will get good at your chosen medium, jpeg.

    The RAW has better quality and can save-the-day concerns raised by others here and elsewhere are largely meaningless as your shooting quantity goes up because you will learn to use jpeg well.

    The other thing is that higher shooting volume means that an individual image is rarely make-or-break. RAW's save-the-day ability is only important if there is not another acceptable shot.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Thu 31-Jul-08 08:18 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #27. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    Canton, US
              

    It sounds like you only want to hear opinions that justify your decision.

    Well, if you will bear with me a little, I beg to differ somewhat. RAW is indeed superior for many reasons, and one of them is speed and convenience.

    What? Did I say speed?

    Yes indeed, I did. It's a myth that RAW is always slower and requires extensive post processing. It can be if you choose to work that way, but the fact is that it is as slow or as fast as you want to make it.

    With a program like Lightroom it is very fast and convenient to sort through your images, choose the ones you want to keep; and then processing can be a quick and simple as applying a preset and batch saving to jpeg. There's nothing to it. (But you have the option of working on an individual image to whatever level of detail you desire.)

    With other programs like NX, shooting RAW can be more of a burden if you don't like to fiddle with each image in great detail.

    I also said convenient: With RAW you have worry far less about all those multiple camera settings and modes, you just set the ISO and shoot, knowing that you can adjust those things later when you have more time to think about them. That leaves you more time to concentrate on the image at hand. (Note that this is not the same thing as being careless or sloppy in your shooting habits, you just take this into account as part of your workflow.)

    In addition to speed and convenience, you have the bonus advantage of the original data being archived for future use, as well as the inherent potential for greater image quality compared to jpeg.

    To me, the only real advantage of shooting jpeg is that the files are smaller, if storage space is a concern. Otherwise, I prefer the consistent and simple approach of shooting RAW.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 03:41 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #29. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 27


    Fort Worth, US
              

    >With a program like Lightroom it is very fast and convenient
    >to sort through your images, choose the ones you want to keep;
    >and then processing can be a quick and simple as applying a
    >preset and batch saving to jpeg. There's nothing to it. (But
    >you have the option of working on an individual image to
    >whatever level of detail you desire.)

    Though I certainly understand what you're saying, I disagree. I have yet to see a LR preset that gives me "Capture NX 2" results. JPG offers that. RAW + Lightroom does not. I am, however, looking to see if ViewNX will. If I can get Capture NX 2 results by batch processing RAWs through ViewNX, this whole thread becomes moot. I want to shoot RAW, but I am absolutely done with taking the time to "fix" a RAW only to pull it up in Capture NX 2 (trial) and see that in the 10 seconds it took to open the RAW in NX, I could have gotten what it took me 2 minutes to achieve in Lightroom.

    I think the statement "there's nothing to it" implies a certain level of facility with post-processing techniques-- something I don't have. My brother can tear it up. I, however, kind of struggle. I get the result I want, but I'm just too inefficient (and I also don't know what "right" is until I invariably over-correct). With a baby on the way "inefficient" will translate to "it never gets done."

    But don't hear me say "never again RAW." I'm trying to approach this from the best angle I can. The ViewNX option is steadily becoming my last, best hope (I've heard Capture NX 2 is not too good at batch processing 500 RAW's or so).

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 09:37 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #33. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 29


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >Though I certainly understand what you're saying, I disagree.
    >I have yet to see a LR preset that gives me "Capture NX
    >2" results. JPG offers that. RAW + Lightroom does not.
    >I am, however, looking to see if ViewNX will. If I can get
    >Capture NX 2 results by batch processing RAWs through ViewNX,
    >this whole thread becomes moot. I want to shoot RAW, but I am
    >absolutely done with taking the time to "fix" a RAW
    >only to pull it up in Capture NX 2 (trial) and see that in the
    >10 seconds it took to open the RAW in NX, I could have gotten
    >what it took me 2 minutes to achieve in Lightroom.


    So what you're saying is that you're happy with the way your camera processes RAW files according to the menu settings, and that's fine. That's pretty much what's happening in those 10 seconds it takes to open the file in NX. In that case, there really is no reason for you to be shooting RAW anyway.


    >
    >I think the statement "there's nothing to it"
    >implies a certain level of facility with post-processing
    >techniques-- something I don't have.

    I can understand that, and I'm far from being an expert. But it isn't nearly as intimidating as many people think. Learn just a few principles and you're 80% on your way to being proficient at it. The latest version allows you to use camera-specific profiles; I'm very curious to see how well it emulates that "Nikon look" that many people seem to prefer.



    >But don't hear me say "never again RAW." I'm trying
    >to approach this from the best angle I can. The ViewNX option
    >is steadily becoming my last, best hope (I've heard Capture NX
    >2 is not too good at batch processing 500 RAW's or so).


    That may indeed be your best solution, as that would give you the in-camera "look" you prefer while preserving the RAW data for future use when you have more time to take advantage of it. If/when you return to that point, I think you'll find that a program like Lightroom makes it possible to get excellent results with speed and simplicity.

    Best wishes on the new baby! My little girl is getting married next week. How in the world did she grow up so fast? You'll find out soon enough.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    Wareagle Registered since 15th Apr 2008Thu 31-Jul-08 09:54 PM
    27 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #28. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    US
              

    This has bee stated in a couple of different posts, so forgive me repeating things.

    Assuming that you have View NX, my thought would be to shoot in RAW, then use View NX to do a batch conversion on all of the files. I'd set it up to run before leaving for work in the morning, before mowing the lawn, before going to the grocery store, or prior to going to bed at night. Let the computer do the work for you while you do other things! When you get back, your JPEG files will be waiting for you do as you wish.

    From the batch of JPEG files, select the ones you wish to edit or print, and do whatever with the remainder. In this method, the JPEG files would be created from your in camera settings, you can edit them with your current software, and yet you would still have the RAW file should you have a shot that needs to be rescued (say you forgot to set the white balance). Archive the RAW files for use later.

    Software capabilites change, and one day your budget will allow you to upgrade your software from where you are now. Keep that in mind during your thought process, and also during your image selection for deletion process. Who knows, tomorrow XYZ Software Company may release Super Photo Editing 6000 that will do everything that you would want it to do and more for a price that is under your budget... If you go with only JPEG, then your options are somewhat limited in future editing and image rescue.

    In my mind, you would get the best of both worlds this way, and save space on your CF card at the same time. No matter which way you go, keep shooting! Don't let the post processing keep you from enjoying your hobby!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 03:43 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #30. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 28
    Sat 02-Aug-08 04:12 AM by TXCiclista

    Fort Worth, US
              

    OK, it's good to hear people suggest that. I'm really starting to think that might be my solution. You are exactly right "technology changes." I want to retain RAW because I've seen what it can do. I've also seen the 1,500 pictures from Hawai'i sit on my hard drive for 6 weeks now and I'm even on asummer break. I'm about 75% done. That can NOT happen with ma bébé.

    But yes, I'm still shooting. 300 more RAW's to someday go through.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 08:27 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #31. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 30


    Ignacio, US
              

    >OK, it's good to hear people suggest that. I'm really
    >starting to think that might be my solution. You are exactly
    >right" technology changes. I want to retain RAW because
    >I've seen what it can do. I've also seen the 1,500 pictures
    >from Hawai'i sit on my hard drive for 6 weeks now and I'm even
    >on asummer break. I'm about 75% done. That can NOT happen
    >with ma bébé.
    >
    >But yes, I'm still shooting. 300 more RAW's to someday go
    >through.

    Reality check: When you look at the pix from your childhood do you have the insatiable urge to reprint them differently?

    I used to be seduced/enamoured by RAW and it's raw ability to do fun things. Technical superiority is cool but it isn't always needed or desirable. JPEG can produce great prints, what jpeg is marginal at, compared to raw, is BIG editing changes. Even there, regular PS CS whatever can do wonders one image at a time.

    Shot well and printed with minor edits for the family at 4x6, in greeting cards, and for 8x10s JPEG is plenty for most people. I have a freind who is a professional landscape shooter and his most sold image is printed up to 40x60 from a jpeg off a 6mp camera.

    Myself, I also find it very hard to believe that I'll be re-editing the 8-10,000 digital pictures I've shot of my daughter. Even for the pictures of my own childhood the biggest issue is throwing out the junk, not re-printing them differently.

    I'm not suggesting this for you, but I actually have gone back to shooting film because it suits my needs better and it's cheaper at my shooting volume for my personal work (under 5k shots per year now) than buying a D3 or D300 or D700. I still shoot some digital on a "Day Work" basis I charge accordingly based on the format a client wants. At the end of the day I just edit out the trash and burn a disk. RAW costs the client more because RAW always takes more time to download, flip through, and burn; period. JPEG downloads in half the time, edits in half the time, and burns in half the time. My time is valuable. It sound like yours is too.

    As I'm sure you've noticed, the shoot RAW and batch suggestions also include ignoring the computer overnight or while you are at work.

    Keep your eye on a workflow that suits you best, not the ultimate in technology. If your bébé does something cute do you want to be able to e-mail that shot to the Grands right away or tomorrow after the batch.

    Given what you described as your issues originally, time is your biggest issue now and I would suggest that time will be your biggest issue going forward at least until the kids are in college. That's only another 18 plus years.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 09:22 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #32. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 31


    Canton, US
              

    Obviously the best solution is the solution that works best, and that will be different for everyone.

    If you've taken 8,000 - 10,000 shots of any one subject, I doubt you'd even be looking at all of them again, let alone editing them. That's not a RAW vs. JPEG issue, it's one of quality vs. quantity. The point with re-editing is that you do indeed have that opportunity for certain problem images you may have. It doesn't mean that you would expect to re-edit all of the images in your library.

    It sounds like your decision to return to film might be more based on the baggage that comes with shooting in quantity, not necessarily any real quality issues. The fact is that RAW can deliver on the quality aspect, but you may have to work at it from a different angle to achieve it consistently. I don't work in quantity, either. In fact, I'm rather merciless on myself when I sort through a day's worth of pictures to choose those I want to spend any time on editing.

    Batching RAW files need not take over the computer for extended periods. I find that for the biggest jobs I do it is typically letting it run while I take a dinner break. That aspect depends on your particular computer and the software you use, not the RAW workfow itself.

    To your point, shooting JPEG and printing to 4x6 is probably good enough for most people, but that begs the question of why not just use a much less expensive P&S camera for that purpose? That's what they are designed for. But for those whose motivation for photography justifies spending several thousand dollars on an slr and multiple lenses, it would make sense that the expectations would also be higher. In your case, that may mean the specific qualities that film gives you; for others it means the extra quality and control that RAW gives them.

    My film analogy would be, why would someone buy an F6 only to drop off their film for 4x6 prints at the local Wal-Mart?

    Your friend may indeed have a best-selling image that was done as a 6 megapixel JPEG, but I'd wager that it is so popular because of the image content, not the technical quality. Whatever it is, the same image shot at higher resolution and in RAW would have the potential to be even better from a quality perspective.

    Like most things in life, "good enough" is just that, good enough. Others aspire to greater things, whatever their thing may be.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 10:07 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #34. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 32


    Ignacio, US
              

    >The point with re-editing is that you
    >do indeed have that opportunity for certain problem images you
    >may have. It doesn't mean that you would expect to re-edit
    >all of the images in your library.

    High-Quantity shooting typically makes problem images redundant and fully expendable. At the end of a normal day when I shoot digital there are two classes of photos, trash and done. There is no to-be-edited pile.

    >It sounds like your decision to return to film might be more
    >based on the baggage that comes with shooting in quantity, not
    >necessarily any real quality issues.

    Steve you are reading too much into one paragraph and this thread isn't about my choices. My point is that the OP should not be swayed by other peoples definition of best.

    >Batching RAW files need not take over the computer for
    >extended periods. I find that for the biggest jobs I do it is
    >typically letting it run while I take a dinner break. That
    >aspect depends on your particular computer and the software
    >you use, not the RAW workfow itself.

    RAW always takes longer than JPEG to download, to process, and to sort/delete/rate. This is pure physics; the bigger the file, the more computer cycles to do the work.

    >Like most things in life, "good enough" is just
    >that, good enough. Others aspire to greater things, whatever
    >their thing may be.

    To have that discussion someone has to define what Greater or Better means. If that criteria is best speed and little to no editing for a large quantity of shots at normal family shot sizes, jpeg wins in my opinion.

    If the criteria is saving certain problem images RAW wins.

    The OP seems to need/want a fast, no-edit workflow for now. My point is that the odds of ever reporocessing are next to none and that for the one or two that may make it to a big print, jpeg is workable.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 03:23 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #35. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 34


    Canton, US
              


    >High-Quantity shooting typically makes problem images
    >redundant and fully expendable. At the end of a normal day
    >when I shoot digital there are two classes of photos, trash
    >and done. There is no to-be-edited pile.

    Why is that any different from when you shoot film? The point is that with digital you have a greater opportunity to edit. But it isn't a digital vs film thing, it's more a matter of how you choose to shoot. In the context of this thread, if you don't want to do any PP for whatever reason, then JPEG would make the most sense for you. Why even fool with RAW if you don't have the time or desire to do more with your images than what comes out of the camera?


    >
    >Steve you are reading too much into one paragraph and this
    >thread isn't about my choices. My point is that the OP should
    >not be swayed by other peoples definition of best.

    You're correct, it isn't about your choices or anyone else's. What works for some doesn't necessarily work for others. But it is also fair to point out to the OP the advantages and disadvantages of the different processes we have each chosen.



    >
    >RAW always takes longer than JPEG to download, to process, and
    >to sort/delete/rate. This is pure physics; the bigger the
    >file, the more computer cycles to do the work.

    That's really irrelevant unless you are opening a large number of images at once and you measure your personal productivity in terms of seconds. For instance, with Lightroom you can view, compare or select a collection of RAW images very quickly on a "light table," much faster than you could with actual slides; then process or edit the ones you select as quickly or as slowly as you choose to. Physics doesn't really come into play, it's more a matter of how you choose to work.

    For a real world example, processing a collection of RAW files in Lightroom this way is MUCH faster than opening up a collection of JPEGS individually in Photoshop and touching them up. You need to think in terms of total workflow, not the difference in fractions of a second between opening up files of different formats on your computer.




    >To have that discussion someone has to define what Greater or
    >Better means. If that criteria is best speed and little to no
    >editing for a large quantity of shots at normal family shot
    >sizes, jpeg wins in my opinion.

    No argument there. JPEG is perfect for quick snapshots and no-edit pictures.


    >If the criteria is saving certain problem images RAW wins.

    But there is much more than that. It's a myth that RAW is only good for saving problem images or correcting mistakes. It really opens up a new world to you in terms of creativity and control over your work. It also gives you much more freedom when you are shooting, enabling you to concentrate more on the subject than on the camera settings. It also gives you maximum security.

    My main point, though, is that it can also be simple and fast in its own right if you take the proper approach and don't buy into the myth that RAW always means spending long hours at the computer.


    >
    >The OP seems to need/want a fast, no-edit workflow for now. My
    >point is that the odds of ever reporocessing are next to none
    >and that for the one or two that may make it to a big print,
    >jpeg is workable.

    Agreed, if one doesn't care about editing or shooting for maximum quality, then JPEG is a fine choice. It meets the needs of many people, just realize that you pretty much get what you get.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Fri 01-Aug-08 09:03 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #37. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 35


    US
              

    "If one doesn't care about editing or shooting for maximum quality, then JPEG is a fine choice. It meets the needs of many people, just realize that you pretty much get what you get."

    Steve...

    To be blunt, your comment is downright offensive. I find it fascinating that essential characteristics of every PP software package on the market today is Red-eye Removal and Exposure Adjustment. That's exactly what my wife needs for the shots that she takes with her Casio. On the other hand, I have a more capable camera and I know how to use it.

    Now that I got that off my chest, I am glad that you included your web site so that I can get more specific. Many of your images are absolutely beautiful (well beyond what I'm capable of producing) BUT, to me, they're not photography because it's immediately obvious that they do not reflect reality.

    On the other hand, you also have some exceptionally good shots that do reflect reality and one particular shot, the Memphis Belle, really got my interest. Take a look at my shot of the Nine-O-Nine. Looks familiar, doesn't it?
    http://web.me.com/george.dick/Nine-O-Nine/Photo.html
    I took that shot a bit under three years ago using Kodacolor film. The image that I posted is the scan from a Kodak CD with zero PP. What about yours?

    A year after I took that photo, I flew in the Nine-O-Nine as a gift from my sons.


      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 01-Aug-08 11:20 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #38. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 37


    Canton, US
              

    >"If one doesn't care about editing or shooting for
    >maximum quality, then JPEG is a fine choice. It meets the
    >needs of many people, just realize that you pretty much get
    >what you get."
    >
    >Steve...
    >
    >To be blunt, your comment is downright offensive.


    I'm truly sorry if you find that offensive, but I'm trying hard to understand why you would. I'm not saying that JPEG is inferior in any way, but the fact is that its forte is for quick shots that are pretty much the way you want them right out of the camera. You can do some basic adjustments such as the redeye you mention, but basically a JPEG has a much more limited range of adjustments available before you begin to damage the image. RAW is capable of maximum quality, but that doesn't mean that JPEGs are of low quality.

    For some people, that is indeed all they want or need. That's reality, but again I'm sorry you found that offensive.

    One way to look at it is that even when you are shooting JPEGs, you are really shooting RAW anyway. The only difference is that you are using the menu commands to tell the camera how to PP the image before it writes a JPEG to the memory card and erases the original data.

    >Now that I got that off my chest, I am glad that you included
    >your web site so that I can get more specific. Many of your
    >images are absolutely beautiful (well beyond what I'm capable
    >of producing) BUT, to me, they're not photography because it's
    >immediately obvious that they do not reflect reality.

    I appreciate the comments very much. But I'm not sure what you mean about them not reflecting reality. I can assure you that I didn't do any extensive PP to make them look like something other than what they were, the images represent the reality as it was presented through the viewfinder. In some cases I increased the punch of the colors somewhat to simulate a film such as Velvia, and I did some basic cropping on some; but I added nothing artificial. You could say that the black and white images don't reflect reality, but that is just a natural characteristic of black and white photography.

    That could be a whole new topic of discussion. Photography can never really represent reality anyway, because by its very nature it reduces a chaotic three dimensional world to an ordered two dimensional plane. That's really the key to a successful photograph, to make that translation in a way that says something about the subject.



    >
    >On the other hand, you also have some exceptionally good shots
    >that do reflect reality and one particular shot, the Memphis
    >Belle, really got my interest. Take a look at my shot of the
    >Nine-O-Nine. Looks familiar, doesn't it?
    >http://web.me.com/george.dick/Nine-O-Nine/Photo.html

    Again, thank you. Your airplane image does look quite similar, and it is well done. IMO the B-17 is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever designed.



    >I took that shot a bit under three years ago using Kodacolor
    >film. The image that I posted is the scan from a Kodak CD
    >with zero PP. What about yours?

    That particular image was made using a Canon D30 and a Tamron zoom. (My apologies to all the Nikonians here.) PP was limited to basic level adjustments and sharpening.


    >
    >A year after I took that photo, I flew in the Nine-O-Nine as a
    >gift from my sons.

    Wow! That must have been some gift! I went inside the 'Belle, and I was amazed at how cramped it was. I have a lot of respect for those aircrews who flew in them day in day out.

    Thanks again,




    >
    >
    >

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Fri 01-Aug-08 11:50 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #39. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 38


    US
              

    "I went inside the 'Belle, and I was amazed at how cramped it was. I have a lot of respect for those aircrews who flew in them day in day out."

    That also surprised me since it was known as a "heavy bomber" during the war. I was especially taken aback walking on the I-beam above the bomb bay. The bay doors were closed during our flight but I don't believe for a minute that they were always closed during the war. We did have the top removed (above the waist-gunner area) and it was kinda neat sticking your head up there for a better view.

    My boys (on the ground) were shocked at how loud the engines are but I never noticed it, probably because, years ago, I flew many hours in DC-3 equipment.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 10:11 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #44. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 39


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >That also surprised me since it was known as a "heavy
    >bomber" during the war.

    But remember, in those days it took waves and waves of heavy bombers to accomplish the same thing that a handful of cruise missles or smart bombs can do today.

    With my apologies to our German Nikonian friends, the B-17 did exactly what it was designed to do, but at abhorrent loss rates. If not for its reputation as the "flying fortress" I doubt any of them would have ever gotten through to do their missions.

    But back on topic, do you have any photos from your flight?



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sat 02-Aug-08 02:16 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #49. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 44
    Sat 02-Aug-08 06:52 PM by Socrates

    US
              

    "But back on topic, do you have any photos from your flight?"

    Hi Steve,

    I do have photos but, as far as technical characteristics are concerned, they're terrible. I was determined to give 100% of my attention to my personal enjoyment of the flight itself and photos were a secondary concern. I used my wife's "shirt pocket" Casio and, to make matters worse, it was lightly raining. In any event, here are a few shots.
    http://web.mac.com/george.dick/Flight/Photos.html

    Getting back to our original discussion, both of my sons participated in the New Jersey Triathlon several weeks ago. I'm posting one of my photos (I used my D80 with the 18-200 lens). I'm happy with it. What would you do in PP if this were your shot?
    http://web.me.com/george.dick/Triathlon/Photo.html

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 09:54 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #86. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 49


    Canton, US
              

    >"But back on topic, do you have any photos from your
    >flight?"
    >
    >Hi Steve,
    >
    >I do have photos but, as far as technical characteristics are
    >concerned, they're terrible. I was determined to give 100% of
    >my attention to my personal enjoyment of the flight itself and
    >photos were a secondary concern. I used my wife's "shirt
    >pocket" Casio and, to make matters worse, it was lightly
    >raining. In any event, here are a few shots.
    >http://web.mac.com/george.dick/Flight/Photos.html

    I'd say that regardless of the their technical qualities, those images capture the essence of your experience on the flight. At the end of the day, that's what matters. I still envy you!


    (I used my D80 with the 18-200
    >lens). I'm happy with it. What would you do in PP if this
    >were your shot?
    >http://web.me.com/george.dick/Triathlon/Photo.html

    I won't begin to tell anywone what they should do with their photographs, but if it were mine I would probably do a bit of cropping to isolate the subject from the cluttered background a little better. Otherwise, the colors and exposure look good, and the highlights are well controlled. Was his shirt that shade of grey, or was it actually white? If it was a brighter white I might tweak the lighter tones to better reflect reality, if that is important to you.

    But more important, did he win the race?






    >

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Mon 04-Aug-08 04:21 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #93. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 86


    US
              

    >>"But back on topic, do you have any photos from
    >your
    >>flight?"
    >>
    >>Hi Steve,
    >>
    >>I do have photos but, as far as technical characteristics
    >are
    >>concerned, they're terrible. I was determined to give
    >100% of
    >>my attention to my personal enjoyment of the flight itself
    >and
    >>photos were a secondary concern. I used my wife's
    >"shirt
    >>pocket" Casio and, to make matters worse, it was
    >lightly
    >>raining. In any event, here are a few shots.
    >>http://web.mac.com/george.dick/Flight/Photos.html
    >
    >I'd say that regardless of the their technical qualities,
    >those images capture the essence of your experience on the
    >flight. At the end of the day, that's what matters. I still
    >envy you!
    >
    >
    >(I used my D80 with the 18-200
    >>lens). I'm happy with it. What would you do in PP if
    >this
    >>were your shot?
    >>http://web.me.com/george.dick/Triathlon/Photo.html
    >
    >I won't begin to tell anywone what they should do with their
    >photographs, but if it were mine I would probably do a bit of
    >cropping to isolate the subject from the cluttered background
    >a little better. Otherwise, the colors and exposure look
    >good, and the highlights are well controlled. Was his shirt
    >that shade of grey, or was it actually white? If it was a
    >brighter white I might tweak the lighter tones to better
    >reflect reality, if that is important to you.
    >
    >But more important, did he win the race?
    >
    >
    Hi Steve,

    This thread is much too long. I missed your reply when you posted it. Regarding the B-17 flight. That was absolutely the best gift that I ever received. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything. It's interesting that your preference is to crop out the clutter on my son's photo. My preference was to show the clutter (but slightly out of focus). By the way, his shirt was gray.

    No, he didn't win but he had about a thousand competitors. One scary situation involved the swimming portion of the Triathlon. The swimming was broken up into waves (groups). He and his brother were in the same wave with a competitor that drowned despite the excellent precautions. The victim just disappeared with no known panic activity. It wasn't until after the event that the victim's girl-friend alerted the authorities and the body wasn't recovered until the next day.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 04:21 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #41. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 38


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Steve, can I correctly assume that the shot you have on your gallery page was taken from the Waikiki Marriott Resort and Spa in Honolulu? If so, I'm kicking myself for not thinking to look at it from that angle. I was so busy taking pictures of the beach and water from our balcony that I didn't think to look for "creative" shots.



    I think all of the comments in this sub-thread are good, offensive or not. I think you all have summed up some of my difficulties and why this decision is a difficult one, even though my original post makes it sound like I have decided. Sigh. I'm in a quandary.


    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    pcspecialist Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 06:34 AM
    1766 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #43. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 41


    Portland, US
              

    >>>even though my original post makes it sound like I have decided. Sigh. I'm in a quandary.<<<

    I don't get it, if you are using Lightroom 2 and the new camera profiles available separately and have developed a few of your own presets.... with the exception of the little extra time it takes to deal with larger files it should make practically no difference time wise between jpeg and raw.

    I found I take less time in Lightroom then I would adjusting camera settings had I wanted the camera to do the processing. I have presets and just hover my pointer over them and view the results INSTANTLY in the little preview window, click on the preset that works the best and that takes 1 to 4 seconds - batch apply to the rest of the pictures in a sequence. My presets beat in camera results by a large margin and as I already said, take less time then tweaking camera settings (which might have caused missing a shot).

    The only thing I can think of is you either don't have very good presets or you don't have a fast enough computer. My computer is well over a year old and the new components that I've put into it (2.5" drives (heck they are even 5200RPM but in RAID-0) to cut down on noise, two GeForce 7300 LE video cards (to drive 3 monitors) because previous didn't have stable drivers for Vista 64-bit) are not high performance hardware yet Lightroom 2 performs at practically the speed of light. I just don't see how jpegs would cut down on time very much with post processing adding practically no additional time on top of reviewing. I'd guess I average 1 second more than the time it takes to review an image when I factor in a lot of batch processing. While the batch processing is taking place I continue reviewing so batch processing doesn't add any time.

    Again, I just don't see how JPG has any advantage unless you feel in camera (inferior) results are better than custom Lightroom presets tailored to your liking. I mean, they are tailored to you by you - how can they not be better than in camera? Takes you how long to hover your mouse on them and click on one or two? For me it is two as one is a lighting preset and the other is color though I often skip lighting.... heck I often skip color as my camera profile for each camera frequently nail color.

    Again, if properly setup, Lightroom should take practically no additional time to review AND post-process than any software does just to review. Where is the JPG advantage?

    Ok, I thought of one possible advantage if you actually like in camera noise reduction - that can certainly take time to do as a post process because Lightroom doesn't do the job good enough to use Lightroom for it. This one almost escaped me because I rarely do any noise reduction but I hate in-camera's so much I'd never use it.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 10:32 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #46. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 43


    Canton, US
              

    >with the exception of the little extra
    >time it takes to deal with larger files it should make
    >practically no difference time wise between jpeg and raw.
    >

    Exactly what I have found to be true. In all the comparisons between speed of RAW vs. JPEG, it turns out that *I* am the bottleneck rather than the number of seconds it takes to open a particular file.


    >I found I take less time in Lightroom then I would adjusting
    >camera settings had I wanted the camera to do the processing.
    >I have presets and just hover my pointer over them and view
    >the results INSTANTLY in the little preview window, click on
    >the preset that works the best and that takes 1 to 4 seconds -
    >batch apply to the rest of the pictures in a sequence. My
    >presets beat in camera results by a large margin and as I
    >already said, take less time then tweaking camera settings
    >(which might have caused missing a shot).

    That's the beauty of Lightroom. It takes the mystery of shooting RAW and can make it as fast and easy as just choosing what looks best to you. Or you can spend as much time as you want to fiddle with a particular image. It's truly up to you, and LR works extremely well with either approach.



    >computer is well over a year old and the new components that
    >I've put into it (2.5" drives (heck they are even 5200RPM
    >but in RAID-0) to cut down on noise, two GeForce 7300 LE video
    >cards (to drive 3 monitors) because previous didn't have
    >stable drivers for Vista 64-bit) are not high performance
    >hardware yet Lightroom 2 performs at practically the speed of
    >light.

    I have a much less sophisticated setup than you do, and I don't find the speed of LR to be limiting in the slightest.

    >
    >Again, if properly setup, Lightroom should take practically no
    >additional time to review AND post-process than any software
    >does just to review. Where is the JPG advantage?


    I find it interesting that one of the biggest selling feature of the newer Nikons is that they let you do in-camera editing. To me, that seems much more cumbersome than just shooting RAW and using a program like LR.



    >Ok, I thought of one possible advantage if you actually like
    >in camera noise reduction - that can certainly take time to do
    >as a post process because Lightroom doesn't do the job good
    >enough to use Lightroom for it. This one almost escaped me
    >because I rarely do any noise reduction but I hate in-camera's
    >so much I'd never use it.


    That's a good point. A program like Noise Ninja does a better job than either LR or the in-camera noise reduction. But that's a consideration whether you shoot RAW or JPEG.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 04:16 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #80. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 46


    Fort Worth, US
              

    OK, perhaps you two could explain LR 2 to me better then. I've only used the beta and, so far, I'm just not overwhelmed. I keep hearing about new camera profiles as a major reason to upgrade, but I guess I either don't understand them or have missed them somehow. The big thing I want is for my RAW's in Lightroom to look like they do in NX 2 with an absolute minimum of work on my part. Since post-processing is something I'm still VERY new to (less than 2 years experience and spread out so much, it probably amounts to 36 hours total), JPG seems to be the only way to get those results. I am more than willing to learn. I guess I just don't know what to look for in LR 2...

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 05:12 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #94. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 80


    Canton, US
              

    >OK, perhaps you two could explain LR 2 to me better then.
    >I've only used the beta and, so far, I'm just not overwhelmed.
    > I keep hearing about new camera profiles as a major reason to
    >upgrade, but I guess I either don't understand them or have
    >missed them somehow. The big thing I want is for my RAW's in
    >Lightroom to look like they do in NX 2 with an absolute
    >minimum of work on my part.

    I've just had LR2 installed for a couple of days, so I'm not the one to ask about the fine points of the new features. However, I do know that you have to download and install the new camera profiles, which are still in beta at the moment. What little playing around I've done with them has shown me that they indeed make a difference.

    I have no doubt that it is possible to duplicate the NX2 look in LR, but I can't say I know enough about the technical details of that look to tell you exactly how to do so. I'll leave that up to the experts to develop those presets, and then for the rest of us it's a simple matter of pasting them onto your pictures.

    I guess my overall approach is still more one of aiming for the overall image first, with the "look" that a particular camera provides being secondary. Some images are better with different looks.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 10:19 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #45. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 41


    Canton, US
              

    >Steve, can I correctly assume that the shot you have on your
    >gallery page was taken from the Waikiki Marriott Resort and
    >Spa in Honolulu? If so, I'm kicking myself for not thinking
    >to look at it from that angle. I was so busy taking pictures
    >of the beach and water from our balcony that I didn't think to
    >look for "creative" shots.

    You're half right. It was shot at a Marriott resort, but it was at Marco Island, Florida. It sounds like the folks at Marriott use the same architects wherever they build their hotels.


    But I envy you that you've been to the one in Waikiki. I've never been to the Islands, but maybe I will some day. Let's see, a vacation to Hawaii will cost about the same as a new D3.... hmmmm... maybe I'll just stay at home.


    >
    >
    >
    >I think all of the comments in this sub-thread are good,
    >offensive or not. I think you all have summed up some of
    >my difficulties and why this decision is a difficult one, even
    >though my original post makes it sound like I have decided.
    >Sigh. I'm in a quandary.

    That's part of the fun, sorting through all the options and deciding what works best for you. All I can say is that I made the decision to standardize on shooting RAW and have never looked back. For me it is actually more convenient and even quicker than shooting JPEGs.


    >
    >
    >

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 01:01 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #40. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 35


    Ignacio, US
              

    Your comment sums up the matter nicely.

    >It meets the needs of many people, just realize that you pretty much get what you get.

    What we have to remember is that all our modern digital Nikons are quite capable of exceptional images straight out of the camera without editing and within certain limits.

    Anyone who is comfortable with that exceptional Nikon look is done editing when they press the shutter button. Same as with somone who likes Provia.

    That is cool, because not editing is always faster than any editing.

    Okay, next.

    With regard to creative control being better in raw than in jpeg, shall we compare the capabilities of LR/ACR vs. the main PS CS3 application. (BTW that's a whole different topic worthy of a thread of it's own, I'm not really suggesting that discussion here.)

    Just read the jpeg and save as a tiff or psd and the creative posibilities are 100 fold greater in PS than in LR.

    PS CS3 wins hands down for absolute editing ability and "Creative License", there is no raw editor made that can even come close to the flexibility offere in PS.

    Make it the CS3 suite and the possibilities are even greater.

    Raw simply can't compete if absolute editability is the criteria. In that world raw or jpeg is just a delivery vehical.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 10:55 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #47. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 40


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >
    >What we have to remember is that all our modern digital Nikons
    >are quite capable of exceptional images straight out of the
    >camera without editing and within certain limits.

    Very true. The key to your statement is "within certain limits." RAW simply expands those limits. RAW makes it equally easy to get that "Nikon look" as well as your own "personal look" from the same basic image. Imagine your film camera being able to deliver the Provia look or the Velvia look, or any number of "looks" without having to change film.


    >
    >Anyone who is comfortable with that exceptional Nikon look is
    >done editing when they press the shutter button. Same as with
    >somone who likes Provia.
    >
    >That is cool, because not editing is always faster than any
    >editing.

    That's the reason for the classic analogy of JPEG being the film equivalent of shooting slides. Once you press the shutter, you're done; and if you don't get exactly what you want you live with it.

    But historically, photographers who want more control have always used negative film and "post processed" their images in the darkroom. That's the film equivalent of shooting RAW.



    >PS CS3 wins hands down for absolute editing ability and
    >"Creative License", there is no raw editor made that
    >can even come close to the flexibility offere in PS.


    That's why many of us who shoot RAW have Photoshop in our toolbox along with RAW conversion software.

    But the reality of the situation is that a program like LR will provide 90% of the creative control you will ever need, unless you are doing some very extensive edits or slight-of-hand image manipulation.

    In my case, I also use Elements and CS2 for special situations that require that extra degree of control. I like some of the plug-ins that are available for Photoshop, for instance. But the new release of LR supports plug-ins, and I'm looking forward to see the kinds of third party goodies that will be added in the future.


    >Raw simply can't compete if absolute editability is the
    >criteria. In that world raw or jpeg is just a delivery
    >vehical.


    That's really a moot point, isn't it? Regardless of how much PP you do, RAW provides a superior starting point, and it gives you the absolute security of always having the original camera data preserved regardless of what you may do to it in the process.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 03:08 PM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #50. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 47


    Ignacio, US
              

    >Very true. The key to your statement is "within certain
    >limits." RAW simply expands those limits. RAW makes
    >it equally easy to get that "Nikon look" as well as
    >your own "personal look" from the same basic image.
    > Imagine your film camera being able to deliver the Provia
    >look or the Velvia look, or any number of "looks"
    >without having to change film.

    The shooter has to want that extra flexibility to make that flexibility hold any value.

    Extra flexibility may be great for you but LR's flexibility and speed cost the shooter the Nikon look, no preset I've tried or made has ever been able to get it back. That's a heavy price.

    I didn't buy my Nikons to get a Canon look, just like I don't buy Fuji Provia to get a Ilford SFX look.

    When I shoot I have a very clear idea of the result I want, click done, no editing. Perfect job for jpeg and/or film.

    >That's the reason for the classic analogy of JPEG being the
    >film equivalent of shooting slides. Once you press the
    >shutter, you're done; and if you don't get exactly what you
    >want you live with it.

    Or re-shoot, or shoot extra and then just throw away what you don't like. Not evey shot is a keeper, in fact in two years of shooting digital professionally I have found none that could not be replaced.

    >But historically, photographers who want more control have
    >always used negative film and "post processed" their
    >images in the darkroom. That's the film equivalent of
    >shooting RAW.

    It is a good analogy, it is also part of the fun of slides, getting it right at the camera. One click and done forever.

    In my mind this topic centers on where the OP is willing to spend time. The answer there seems to be spending time with the baby, not spending time with the computer.

    When the OP gets to be 50 and the kids move out, negatives or raw may make more sense.


    >>PS CS3 wins hands down for absolute editing ability and
    >>"Creative License", there is no raw editor made
    >that
    >>can even come close to the flexibility offere in PS.
    >
    >
    >That's why many of us who shoot RAW have Photoshop in our
    >toolbox along with RAW conversion software.
    >
    >But the reality of the situation is that a program like LR
    >will provide 90% of the creative control you will ever need,
    >unless you are doing some very extensive edits or
    >slight-of-hand image manipulation.

    Umm, that is a narrow and uncreative view Steve. History is cool but raw is not the equivalent film, digital is a completely new medium. Cofining oneself to raw in a digital world is to discount the real value of digital, the ability to add bling and share with everybody.

    Try and layout a Tryptic in LR on one canvass, how about adding names and dates at the bottom of prints so that people can actually know who's in that print 20 years from now. How about collages again on one canvass. Layout your own holiday cards. PS can easily do these everyday tasks, RAW editors can't. Clone out the 4 year olds finger that is innocently flipping you off, try that in RAW. E-mail a raw file to somebody and see what they get, it won't be what you made.

    If you are going to shoot digital and use the medium to it's fullest in terms of sharing with your world, jpeg provides a direct route, raw does not.

    In the digital world the print is also redundant, an extra.

    >>Raw simply can't compete if absolute editability is the
    >>criteria. In that world raw or jpeg is just a delivery
    >>vehical.
    >
    >
    >That's really a moot point, isn't it? Regardless of how much
    >PP you do, RAW provides a superior starting point, and it
    >gives you the absolute security of always having the original
    >camera data preserved regardless of what you may do to it in
    >the process.

    Here you are again using your criteria to define "superior". RAW is an inferior starting point if you don't want to do expoure or WB work on the computer.

    One of the biggest draws for me, when I was shooting digital, of a high dollar pro camera was actually the ability to shoot tiff. I know how to get WB and exposure right, I don't need a RAW converter to make those changes, batching was simply extra work and wait time. I wanted to go straight to PS, InDesign, etc... RAW can't do that.

    As for saving the original data untouched, open the jpeg in PS, save-as a copy, done.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 05:48 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #52. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 50


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >The shooter has to want that extra flexibility to make that
    >flexibility hold any value.

    I suppose that is a true statement, but a rather odd one. Having the flexibility doesn't mean you have to use all of it. But if someone actually prefers to being locked into a specific box, then having the ability to see what might be outside that box could be a disadvangage, right?



    >Extra flexibility may be great for you but LR's flexibility
    >and speed cost the shooter the Nikon look, no preset I've
    >tried or made has ever been able to get it back. That's a
    >heavy price.

    I didn't buy Nikon to get a "Nikon look." I bought a Nikon because I believe it to have superior qualities over other brands, such as durability, ergonomics and reliability. When I'm making photographs, I strive for my own look, not what the camera maker forces on me. I'm a photographer, not a Nikonographer.



    >I didn't buy my Nikons to get a Canon look, just like I don't
    >buy Fuji Provia to get a Ilford SFX look.

    As you've reminded me many times, Mark, you prefer to shoot film and use your Nikon dslrs as light meters or as polaroid proof cameras. So why is that Nikon look even important to you?


    >When I shoot I have a very clear idea of the result I want,
    >click done, no editing. Perfect job for jpeg and/or film.


    That's great, and if you prefer that you should continue to do so. But others, including the OP, may want to know about all the other options that are available before locking into that rather narrow approach.


    >
    >Or re-shoot, or shoot extra and then just throw away what you
    >don't like. Not evey shot is a keeper, in fact in two years of
    >shooting digital professionally I have found none that could
    >not be replaced.

    But why do things the hard way? Going back to reshoot something after you get slides back (or go home to review the jpegs on your monitor) is a terrible waste of time.


    >
    >> That's the film equivalent of
    >>shooting RAW.
    >
    >It is a good analogy, it is also part of the fun of slides,
    >getting it right at the camera. One click and done forever.

    Yes, I remember the fun of shooting slides. I also remember kicking myself when I've ruined a batch of them by having the exposure off by as little as half a stop.




    >
    >In my mind this topic centers on where the OP is willing to
    >spend time. The answer there seems to be spending time with
    >the baby, not spending time with the computer.
    >
    >When the OP gets to be 50 and the kids move out, negatives or
    >raw may make more sense.

    Exactly, which is why I've been pointing out that RAW is not the mythical time-consuming monster that many think it to be.

    Check out this video:

    http://www.rawworkflow.com/products/DVD/index_new_trailer.html

    He is absolutely correct!


    >
    >Umm, that is a narrow and uncreative view Steve. History is
    >cool but raw is not the equivalent film, digital is a
    >completely new medium. Cofining oneself to raw in a digital
    >world is to discount the real value of digital, the ability to
    >add bling and share with everybody.

    Sorry, I don't agree. The real value of digital is not quick pictures to email to Grandma. Get yourself a cheap P&S if that's all you think it is. Digital gives us much more control, flexibilty, and in many cases better quality than film. RAW is hardly confining; it actually liberates you to all the advantages of digital. You can call it a completely different medium, but I think it is more proper to consider it to be a more highly evolved version of film.


    >
    >Try and layout a Tryptic in LR on one canvass, how about
    >adding names and dates at the bottom of prints so that people
    >can actually know who's in that print 20 years from now. How
    >about collages again on one canvass. Layout your own holiday
    >cards. PS can easily do these everyday tasks, RAW editors
    >can't. Clone out the 4 year olds finger that is innocently
    >flipping you off, try that in RAW. E-mail a raw file to
    >somebody and see what they get, it won't be what you made.


    I don't think you truly understand what RAW is. RAW is not a file format, it is merely the actual data as recorded by the sensor. You could easily say that you can't do all the above with an undeveloped roll of film. It's a moot analogy.



    >
    >If you are going to shoot digital and use the medium to it's
    >fullest in terms of sharing with your world, jpeg provides a
    >direct route, raw does not.

    RAW allows you to make jpegs or any other format you choose in seconds with the click of a mouse, without changing the original data.

    Do you share an undeveloped roll of Provia with your world? Of course not. You process it first.



    >In the digital world the print is also redundant, an extra.

    That's also true in the film world if you shoot slides, as you do.

    >
    >>That's really a moot point, isn't it? Regardless of how
    >much
    >>PP you do, RAW provides a superior starting point, and it
    >>gives you the absolute security of always having the
    >original
    >>camera data preserved regardless of what you may do to it
    >in
    >>the process.

    >Here you are again using your criteria to define
    >"superior". RAW is an inferior starting point if you
    >don't want to do expoure or WB work on the computer.

    Ok, I suppose I could have been more clear. A boat is a superior form of transportation on the water unless you'd rather swim for miles to get to your destination.

    By superior, I'm referring to ultimate image quality and control over your results. If for some reason you don't want these things, call it whatever you want.


    >One of the biggest draws for me, when I was shooting digital,
    >of a high dollar pro camera was actually the ability to shoot
    >tiff. I know how to get WB and exposure right, I don't need a
    >RAW converter to make those changes, batching was simply extra
    >work and wait time. I wanted to go straight to PS, InDesign,
    >etc... RAW can't do that.


    As pointed out in the video link above, when you shoot JPEG you're working with a "cooked" 8 bit file. If you want to use TIFs, you can't improve on that. With RAW you can convert to a higher-bit TIF that preserves all the dynamic range and other data of the original image.



    >As for saving the original data untouched, open the jpeg in
    >PS, save-as a copy, done.

    But that is extra work that you don't have to do with RAW. You don't have to keep track of an original JPEG vs. an edited one. RAW is much more convenient.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 07:31 PM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #57. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 52


    Ignacio, US
              

    >So why is that Nikon look even important to you?

    When I shoot, the end is always in mind, that's true whether I'm shooting film or digital. I pick the look before I start shooting, not after.

    Example:

    When I shoot digital, like at the wedding I shot last weekend where we ended up with ~1500 shots because the client wanted lots of shots; I wanted no editing of images, period. Just that nice Nikon look on every shot; download, throw out the trash, burn the dvd, and enjoy.

    Everything with even marginal focus, crop, composition, color, or exposure was trashed, period; ~500 shots gone without a second thought on my part.

    Were there savable shots in the ones we threw out? Sure, but who cares?

    There is some really cool stuff in the 1000 or so that we kept that can go straight into albums, collages, prints, e-mail, whatever in any program I or the client cares to use without any editing.

    No batching needed here, just burn a 1000 jpegs to disk and the client is absolutely thrilled. The shots we provided fit the client's needs and wants perfectly.

    Are there shots that the client might want blown up and have edited for the wall? Sure, but I talked with the client and know they have no interest in any print larger than 16x20. I know everything they got is well within the capabilities of 8-bit jpegs and PS at that size because focus, crop, composition, color, & exposure on every shot I delivered is workable to start with.

    There are no marginal images on that disk where saving with RAW would be necessary, none.

    Shooting RAW in this situation would just add more work on my part and more cost to the client with no change in absolute quality of any print they may want.

    There are jobs where RAW is a reasonable tool but only where the client is willing to pay the price. I charge an extra $150 an hour to shoot raw because it really does take more time.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sun 03-Aug-08 10:34 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #65. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 57


    Canton, US
              

    >>So why is that Nikon look even important to you?
    >
    >When I shoot, the end is always in mind, that's true whether
    >I'm shooting film or digital. I pick the look before I start
    >shooting, not after.

    So exactly what is the "Nikon look" as it applies to a wedding, compared to, say, the "Canon look?" Does the client point to those pictures and think, "Wow, I'm glad these were shot with a Nikon?" Of course not.

    If you're after a certain camera's "look" for a wedding, then you should keep your Nikons in the bag and use a Fuji instead. Wedding and portrait photographers in-the-know use them because of their better dynamic range and rendering of skin tones.


    >Everything with even marginal focus, crop, composition, color,
    >or exposure was trashed, period; ~500 shots gone without a
    >second thought on my part.

    So far, nothing here that makes RAW any different from JPEG.


    >Were there savable shots in the ones we threw out? Sure, but
    >who cares?

    Let's say the unthinkable happened and in the rush of the moment you had all those pictures taken with the wrong WB, or your exposure compensation dial was accidentally bumped to underexpose all of them. I would think the client would care very much, and you would care because it would take you MUCH longer to fix it on those JPEGs.


    >
    >There is some really cool stuff in the 1000 or so that we kept
    >that can go straight into albums, collages, prints, e-mail,
    >whatever in any program I or the client cares to use without
    >any editing.


    Still nothing here that makes RAW a burden. Just because you have better editing capability with RAW doesn't mean you *have* to use it. It's still best to nail things in the camera.


    >No batching needed here, just burn a 1000 jpegs to disk and
    >the client is absolutely thrilled. The shots we provided fit
    >the client's needs and wants perfectly.

    When you burn those images you are indeed batching them by the very act of burning, unless you burn each one individually. You can just as easily burn a disc of jpegs when you start with RAW files. Simply export the keepers as JPEGs to a burn folder and let the computer do the hard work for you.


    >Are there shots that the client might want blown up and have
    >edited for the wall? Sure, but I talked with the client and
    >know they have no interest in any print larger than 16x20. I
    >know everything they got is well within the capabilities of
    >8-bit jpegs and PS at that size because focus, crop,
    >composition, color, & exposure on every shot I delivered
    >is workable to start with.

    That's well and good, and if that's all the client wants then that is great. But note your choice of the word "workable." Wouldn't you rather have something that is ideal for a certain result compared to something that is merely workable?



    >There are no marginal images on that disk where saving with
    >RAW would be necessary, none.

    I don't think you fully understand what RAW is all about, Mark. It's not just about "saving" errors and fixing marginal images, even though it is better by leaps and bounds than JPEG in that regard. It's also about consistency, speed and convenience once you get over the hurdle that RAW always means more time and more work.

    But even with that approach, just one wedding with a disappointed client because something went wrong in the camera should be enough to convince you to shoot RAW. Or are you so good that you can be absolutely certain that will never happen? If so, is your picture in the wedding photographer hall of fame?



    >There are jobs where RAW is a reasonable tool but only where
    >the client is willing to pay the price. I charge an extra $150
    >an hour to shoot raw because it really does take more time.

    How many clients actually tell you they want you to shoot RAW and are willing to pay because it personally takes you longer to use the more secure workflow? My goodness, Mark, does it really take $150 of your time to use the mouse to click "export as JPEG?"

    Check out that video link I posted if you haven't done so already. It's a misconception that working in RAW should be a burden.



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    doctor_big Registered since 02nd Aug 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 11:23 AM
    2 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #66. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 65


    CA
              


    >When you burn those images you are indeed batching them by the
    >very act of burning, unless you burn each one individually.
    >You can just as easily burn a disc of jpegs when you start
    >with RAW files. Simply export the keepers as JPEGs to a burn
    >folder and let the computer do the hard work for you.

    Is there any freeware that provides this feature?

    Thanks,
    Jason

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Sun 03-Aug-08 02:19 PM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #68. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 65


    Ignacio, US
              

    >Wedding and portrait photographers in-the-know
    >use them because of their better dynamic range and rendering
    >of skin tones.

    An ad for Fuji on Nikonians, your brave Steve.

    What difference does the look I prefer make to you? When I show up at a gig, I'm the artist.

    Have I suggested that you change your specific artistic choices? Why would you even listen if I did? It's your art.

    >Let's say the unthinkable happened and in the rush of the
    >moment you had all those pictures taken with the wrong WB, or
    >your exposure compensation dial was accidentally bumped to
    >underexpose all of them. I would think the client would care
    >very much, and you would care because it would take you MUCH
    >longer to fix it on those JPEGs.

    Steve I have made those mistakes, I made most of them early in my professional experience. Good lessons and yes I was glad I had shot RAW. That was before I had become fully comfortable with managing my cameras in fast paced situations. We all have learning experiences.

    This doesn't mean RAW is best, RAW is more work all the time, JPEG is only more work when I mess up. Lesson is don't mess up.

    As experience grows , mistakes like that stop and we move on to more efficient ways of doing things.

    Expensive lessons are the best; you don't forget them, you are careful to avoid them going forward. Life goes on.

    >>There is some really cool stuff in the 1000 or so that we kept
    >>that can go straight into albums, collages, prints, e-mail,
    >>whatever in any program I or the client cares to use without
    >>any editing.
    >
    >
    >Still nothing here that makes RAW a burden.

    Steve, every RAW converter has to convert the files to jpeg or tiff or psd before the image can be sent anywhere besides a raw converter, that is a time consuming when I could just drag and drop otherwise. That's a burden.

    >When you burn those images you are indeed batching them by the
    >very act of burning, unless you burn each one individually.
    >You can just as easily burn a disc of jpegs when you start
    >with RAW files. Simply export the keepers as JPEGs to a burn
    >folder and let the computer do the hard work for you.

    I'd hardly call a drag-and-drop in windows batching, it requires no software other than the operating system. With JPEG there is no "export" necessary and no choices of how to save needed.

    >That's well and good, and if that's all the client wants then
    >that is great. But note your choice of the word
    >"workable." Wouldn't you rather have something that
    >is ideal for a certain result compared to something that is
    >merely workable?

    This was ideal for the situation, the client got exactly what they wanted and could afford.

    Simply shooting RAW would have cost the client $1200 extra with me shooting. If they had wanted every image worked on top of that, the bare minimum I charge to open and edit a single image is $35. $35 x 1000 = $35,000 just for the edits, that's a bit pricey for most weddings.

    >I don't think you fully understand what RAW is all about,
    >Mark. It's not just about "saving" errors and
    >fixing marginal images, even though it is better by leaps and
    >bounds than JPEG in that regard. It's also about consistency,
    >speed and convenience once you get over the hurdle that RAW
    >always means more time and more work.

    Consistency? Only if the shooter is really wild when shooting, or makes lots of mistakes shooting, and has to correct everything as a normal part of the process. Technically there is no reason for a consistency difference.

    Speed and Convenience? Only true when edits/corrections are needed. When no color or exposure corrections are required a raw converter only adds work. JPEGs can go straight to PS, InDesign, e-mail, most retail clients; raw cannot.

    >But even with that approach, just one wedding with a
    >disappointed client because something went wrong in the camera
    >should be enough to convince you to shoot RAW.

    >Or are you so good that you can be absolutely certain that will >never happen?

    I claim no special invincibility or extrordinary skills, what I do claim is having built some experience. After shooting a bunch of pictures most shooters will get to the point where they will make very few mistakes of that magnitude. I have learned that when shooting digital chimping once and looking carefully at the begining of each shooting situation completely eliminates WB and Exposure Compensation issues. So, why would I rely on training wheels when I know how to ride a bike? So what if I fall over now and again, training wheels slow me down and make me look silly.

    Steve, I suppose you have a job you are good at too and you rarely make rookie mistakes there anymore either.


    >>There are jobs where RAW is a reasonable tool but only
    >where
    >>the client is willing to pay the price. I charge an extra
    >$150
    >>an hour to shoot raw because it really does take more
    >time.
    >
    >How many clients actually tell you they want you to shoot RAW
    >and are willing to pay because it personally takes you longer
    >to use the more secure workflow? My goodness, Mark, does it
    >really take $150 of your time to use the mouse to click
    >"export as JPEG?"

    Yes, when I actually have the audacity to believe that my time and the use of my equipment/software ought to be paid for appropriately.

    One fundamental problem with marketing in the digital world is that in retail photography clients don't understand the costs, this carries through in your comment here. I believe that the client should pay appropriately for both my time and the equipment time needed to support that.

    Raw simply takes about twice as long as a jpeg wedding in hours worked. Downloading takes longer and has to be done twice as often, throwing out the trash takes longer, burning takes longer.

    >Check out that video link I posted if you haven't done so
    >already. It's a misconception that working in RAW should be a
    >burden.

    Steve, I've shot and experimented with raw and jpeg extensively (hundreds of thousands of shots). I've used LR, ACR, Bridge, NX, PS, iView, and more, extensively. It is NOT a misconception that raw takes longer, it's real.

    You might ask some big-shot high-dollar wedding shooters like Yervant why they shoot jpeg too?

    Bet it's speed, consistency, and control.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sun 03-Aug-08 08:40 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #74. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 68


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >An ad for Fuji on Nikonians, your brave Steve.

    I figure I'm safe since Fuji cameras are based on Nikon bodies.


    >What difference does the look I prefer make to you? When I
    >show up at a gig, I'm the artist.
    >
    >Have I suggested that you change your specific artistic
    >choices? Why would you even listen if I did? It's your art.

    I didn't suggest you change your art, I simply asked what it was about the Nikon look that you think is more appropriate for weddings. A whole lot of wedding and portrait guys shoot Fujis because they have characteristics that make them a better tool for the job, specifically better dynamic range and more accurate skin tones right out of the camera. That isn't about art, it's about applying a tool to do a job. My point is that if you want to shoot JPEGS you might as well use a camera that gives the best results for the application.

    Besides, it isn't your art if you are relying on the camera to give you a certain look. It's Nikon's art. Shoot RAW, develop your own presets to apply to all those pictures, and bingo -- you've just created your own art. You can make those wedding shots look oversaturated like they were shot on Velvia if you think that's artistic; or you can apply a tone curve that is more flattering to the bride in the way the Fuji cameras tend to do. Have it your way, all with a few mouse clicks and you're done.


    >Steve I have made those mistakes, I made most of them early in
    >my professional experience. Good lessons and yes I was glad I
    >had shot RAW. That was before I had become fully comfortable
    >with managing my cameras in fast paced situations. We all have
    >learning experiences.

    But you're still in the mindset that RAW is only for correcting errors. That ain't so. But if you want to think of it that way, look at it as insurance. I'm sure you are an experienced and good driver, also, yet I'd wager you wear a seatbelt and carry a policy on your car just in case.


    >This doesn't mean RAW is best, RAW is more work all the time,
    >JPEG is only more work when I mess up. Lesson is don't mess
    >up.

    Again, RAW is more work only if your workflow makes it that way. If all you want are JPEGS with no edits whatsoever, how much work is it for you to batch convert a day's shoot to JPEG? If you try to tell me it takes you hours and hours, I suspect you're trying to do it one image at a time. In truth it only takes 5 minutes of your time, the rest of the time is taken by the computer while you have a cup of coffee or eat dinner, depending on the speed of your computer.


    >As experience grows , mistakes like that stop and we move on
    >to more efficient ways of doing things.

    >Expensive lessons are the best; you don't forget them, you are
    >careful to avoid them going forward. Life goes on.

    Still nothing unique to JPEG there. You still have to know what you're doing when you shoot RAW.

    As to progressing onward, it is interesting that most beginning digital photographers shoot JPEG at first because they like to fiddle with the camera and get results right away. They tend to shy away from RAW because they've heard it is slow and complicated. But as they get more serious about their photography, they tend to progress to shooting RAW when they discover the superior control it gives them over their work. Then once they've been there a little while they realize just how easy and efficient RAW can be. It's the best of all worlds. (Of course your mileage may vary, but that's a good generalization.)


    >
    >Steve, every RAW converter has to convert the files to jpeg or
    >tiff or psd before the image can be sent anywhere besides a
    >raw converter, that is a time consuming when I could just drag
    >and drop otherwise. That's a burden.

    Again, five minutes of your time is a burden?

    The benefit is that for those few images that actually do require more extensive edits or corrections, you've saved yourself a lot of time in the long run.

    For instance, with RAW you gain a stop or more of dynamic range right out of the box. That can be a big help when shooting weddings when the groom is wearing a dark tux and the bride is dressed in dazzling white.



    >I'd hardly call a drag-and-drop in windows batching, it
    >requires no software other than the operating system. With
    >JPEG there is no "export" necessary and no choices
    >of how to save needed.

    Where's the burden to that? Dragging and dropping is just as difficult or easy as is clicking "export to JPEG" with predefined settings in your RAW converter. Unless you are intimidated by computers, the tasks are equal in simplicity.



    >
    >Simply shooting RAW would have cost the client $1200 extra
    >with me shooting. If they had wanted every image worked on top
    >of that, the bare minimum I charge to open and edit a single
    >image is $35. $35 x 1000 = $35,000 just for the edits, that's
    >a bit pricey for most weddings.


    Uhm.... price gouging at 7.8 on the Richter Scale???


    >Consistency? Only if the shooter is really wild when shooting,
    >or makes lots of mistakes shooting, and has to correct
    >everything as a normal part of the process. Technically there
    >is no reason for a consistency difference.


    With RAW you start with the same, consistent data from the camera that is independent of most menu settings. You can't get more consistent than that. Using that as a starting point, you can add as much or as little complexity to it as you wish. You can do a simple straight conversion to JPEG if that's all you want; yet you retain the full capability to do much more than that if it is needed.


    >Speed and Convenience? Only true when edits/corrections are
    >needed. When no color or exposure corrections are required a
    >raw converter only adds work. JPEGs can go straight to PS,
    >InDesign, e-mail, most retail clients; raw cannot.

    But Mark, the actual work involved in converting a RAW file to a JPEG is trivial compared to the work that you would do in those other applications you mention.


    >
    >I claim no special invincibility or extrordinary skills, what
    >I do claim is having built some experience. After shooting a
    >bunch of pictures most shooters will get to the point where
    >they will make very few mistakes of that magnitude.

    I'm a very good and experienced driver, yet I always wear my seatbelt whether the law requires it or not.



    >learned that when shooting digital chimping once and looking
    >carefully at the begining of each shooting situation
    >completely eliminates WB and Exposure Compensation issues. So,
    >why would I rely on training wheels when I know how to ride a
    >bike? So what if I fall over now and again, training wheels
    >slow me down and make me look silly.

    Again, if you look at RAW as training wheels then you are looking at the wrong thing.


    >Steve, I suppose you have a job you are good at too and you
    >rarely make rookie mistakes there anymore either.

    Sometimes what you might consider a mistake is simply the result of something outside of your control. If RAW was for rookies prone to mistakes, why is it that the best RAW tools are made for professional photographers instead of the rank amateurs you think RAW shooters are?

    Lightroom is a professional program. Capture One is a very professional program. Etc.


    >Yes, when I actually have the audacity to believe that my time
    >and the use of my equipment/software ought to be paid for
    >appropriately.

    >One fundamental problem with marketing in the digital world is
    >that in retail photography clients don't understand the costs,
    >this carries through in your comment here. I believe that the
    >client should pay appropriately for both my time and the
    >equipment time needed to support that.

    But you charge the customer an arm and a leg because it takes you much more time than it should??? The customer doesn't care a bit about your time, they just want results.


    >Raw simply takes about twice as long as a jpeg wedding in
    >hours worked. Downloading takes longer and has to be done
    >twice as often, throwing out the trash takes longer, burning
    >takes longer.

    You must consider hours worked as sitting in front of the computer watching the progress bar move.



    >Steve, I've shot and experimented with raw and jpeg
    >extensively (hundreds of thousands of shots). I've used LR,
    >ACR, Bridge, NX, PS, iView, and more, extensively. It is NOT a
    >misconception that raw takes longer, it's real.

    Evidently you weren't using RAW very efficiently, then. It certainly *can* take much longer, but it doesn't have to. All those programs you mention can be confusing, if you're trying to juggle through them all. Just stick with Lightroom and really learn how to use it as your total workflow solution. You'd be surprised how quick the entire job can be.


    >You might ask some big-shot high-dollar wedding shooters like
    >Yervant why they shoot jpeg too?
    >
    >Bet it's speed, consistency, and control.

    You could ask the same of any big-shot professionals who have standardized on a RAW workflow. Different people prefer different things. Just because some charge more than others doesn't mean they have the most efficient workflow in the long run.





    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 12:38 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #79. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 74


    Ignacio, US
              

    >A whole lot of wedding and portrait guys shoot
    >Fujis because they have characteristics that make them a
    >better tool for the job, specifically better dynamic range and
    >more accurate skin tones right out of the camera. That isn't
    >about art, it's about applying a tool to do a job.

    Bit of a subjective call defining better for the world don't you think?

    >Besides, it isn't your art if you are relying on the camera to
    >give you a certain look. It's Nikon's art.

    So you are saying that technical wizardy trumps good composition and exposure?

    I tend to diagree.

    >But you're still in the mindset that RAW is only for
    >correcting errors. That ain't so. But if you want to think
    >of it that way, look at it as insurance.

    No, I'm not in that mindset. I'm in the mindset of saving time and effort.

    Skipping the raw converter completely, as in never using it, saves time.

    >Again, RAW is more work only if your workflow makes it that
    >way.

    Very true, RAW is more work for me.

    By not using raw: Bridge or LR or ViewNX are ready to work in half the time. They each display, rate, and delete images in half the time. After the trash is hauled the DVD is already burnt before LR is done building a file to burn.

    Real world.

    Using jpeg means that when I get home at 1 AM Sunday morning after the wedding I don't have to stay up any longer to download 20 gig of raw files and start bacthing them to jpeg so I can start sorting jpegs the morning.

    Using jpeg means I can get 8 hours of sleep get up at 9 am and start downloading and throwing out the trash when I'm coherent (after coffee) and still deliver the client's disk by Sunday noon. 1500 images downloaded, sorted to 1000, and burnt to disk in about 2.5 hours. Drive to the hotel deliver the disk.

    >Again, five minutes of your time is a burden?

    See above. I like sleep.

    Now if you want to download 20 gig and start a batch after 10 hours of shooting be my guest, but it takes a bit more than 5 minutes to do all that.

    >The benefit is that for those few images that actually do
    >require more extensive edits or corrections, you've saved
    >yourself a lot of time in the long run.

    The images you describe here simply do not exist in my workflow after I'm done taking out the trash.

    If any image is marginal or will require extensive edits or corrections, it is trashed, period. The client will never see an image from me that is marginal.

    >>Simply shooting RAW would have cost the client $1200
    >extra
    >>with me shooting. If they had wanted every image worked on
    >top
    >>of that, the bare minimum I charge to open and edit a
    >single
    >>image is $35. $35 x 1000 = $35,000 just for the edits,
    >that's
    >>a bit pricey for most weddings.
    >
    >
    >Uhm.... price gouging at 7.8 on the Richter Scale???

    The going rate for digital editing ranges between $60 and $80 an hour.

    Your price gouging crack is suggesting that professionally finishing one image, burn dodge zits stray hair etc.. isn't worth a half hour's work. Oh that's right, I forgot, digital is free.

    Seriously, a typical digital wedding ends up producing between 100 and 200 keepers out of 1500 to 2000 shots.

    150 x $35 = $5250

    $5000 for a nice wedding album with 125-150 images is normal, it's also reasonable.

    >With RAW you start with the same, consistent data from the
    >camera that is independent of most menu settings. You can't
    >get more consistent than that.

    The problem is that you can't see raw data, it has to be rendered. Rendering is a completely arbitray process in raw. JPEG rendering, in contrast, is standard.

    >But Mark, the actual work involved in converting a RAW file to
    >a JPEG is trivial compared to the work that you would do in
    >those other applications you mention.

    You miss the point completely, the "other applications" do "other things". They all do things LR simply can't.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 04:58 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #81. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 79
    Mon 04-Aug-08 05:05 AM by TXCiclista

    Fort Worth, US
              

    Fascinating discussion! Wish I'd known it was going on.

    Steve, I'm siding with Mark on this one. I'm going to post a picture and then I'm going to answer the comments where I either believe you're wrong or don't understand where I'm coming from.



    The "Nikon look" is on the right. (Ignore the compression artifacts. hard to get down to 150k)


    >>Again, RAW is more work only if your workflow makes it
    >that way.

    I fail to see how the above comparison has anything to do with a workflow. Perhaps I'm naive, but if I can open two files in two different programs and see the results above, workflow instantly becomes moot. Whichever program gives me the left result is automatically more work. No way to get around it. The right image is a far more accurate representation of the subject. It's the JPG. The left image is RAW...

    >>Again, five minutes of your time is a burden?
    Five minute times 200? Yes. Heck, even 1 minute times 200 is a burden, especially if JPG means 0 minutes x 200...


    >>The benefit is that for those few images that actually do
    >>require more extensive edits or corrections, you've saved
    >>yourself a lot of time in the long run.

    Amen, agree 110%. But those images are 1%. But even if that 1 image would have taken 30 minutes in JPG and only 5 minutes in RAW, I'm still over an hour behind because of the other 99 RAW images I have to mess with.

    >>With RAW you start with the same, consistent data from
    >the
    >>camera that is independent of most menu settings. You
    >can't
    >>get more consistent than that.

    Consistent, yes. Usable, no (in Lightroom). I am not looking for "consistently needs post-processing."


    >The problem is that you can't see raw data, it has to be
    >rendered. Rendering is a completely arbitray process in raw.
    >JPEG rendering, in contrast, is standard.

    Mark sums it up nicely. The problem is not with RAW so much as it with the rendering. Currently, Capture NX 2 does the best job by far, but it is a DOG when it comes to dealing with more than an image or two. Just opening 200 images would be the 1 minute per RAW. Lightroom is, without doubt, the best DAM program I've ever seen, but its RAW rendering pales in comparison to Capture NX 2.

    The issue at hand is that a program that has LR's DAM capabilities and Capture NX 2's rendering capabilities does not exist. You choose one or the other and lose time either way (combining them is a rocky marriage at best). The only way (currently) to get the best of both worlds is to shoot JPG. Of course, LR 2 may be changing this--I'm trying to find out. But coming from a LR 1.4 world, every RAW required an element of PP to get the "Nikon look" which is superior in my opinion. JPG required none. And as useful as RAW is, I tend to agree with Mark that the "I have to have RAW to save this because I don't have another one that I can use instead" moments have been few and far between (less than 1/10 of a percent).

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

    Attachment #1, (jpg file)

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 11:50 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #97. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 81


    Canton, US
              

    >Fascinating discussion! Wish I'd known it was going on.

    Well, welcome to the fray!


    >The "Nikon look" is on the right. (Ignore the
    >compression artifacts. hard to get down to 150k)


    >I fail to see how the above comparison has anything to do with
    >a workflow. Perhaps I'm naive, but if I can open two files in
    >two different programs and see the results above, workflow
    >instantly becomes moot. Whichever program gives me the left
    >result is automatically more work. No way to get around it.
    >The right image is a far more accurate representation of the
    >subject. It's the JPG. The left image is RAW...

    One obvious point first: Both pictures you posted are RAW. The only difference is that the one on the right was PP by the camera according to whatever settings you chose on the menu. That's a basic concept that I think sails over the heads of many people in the RAW vs JPEG debate. Your camera has built-in RAW conversion software. The main difference is that the camera sends the RAW data into never-never land, never to be used again. And, in the process of converting, it clips the bit level of the original image forever, which results in a lower dynamic range and fewer bits to work with should you want to make any changes to that image later.

    Regarding the specifics of those two images, the one on the right had a bit more contrast and was sharpened to a greater degree, with the red maybe just a wee bit richer. But you could *easily* have done the same thing with the image on the left by applying a preset that bumped up the contrast, sharpness and red channels a bit. It isn't rocket science, nor does it take hours of your time to do so.

    >

    >Five minute times 200? Yes. Heck, even 1 minute times 200 is
    >a burden, especially if JPG means 0 minutes x 200...

    The five minutes is what it takes to make that preset that gives you the look you want, then you simply paste it onto all the images that you shot under the same conditions. The computer does the hard work and you're done before you know it.


    >
    >Amen, agree 110%. But those images are 1%. But even if that
    >1 image would have taken 30 minutes in JPG and only 5 minutes
    >in RAW, I'm still over an hour behind because of the other 99
    >RAW images I have to mess with.

    That's only true if you feel you have to mess around with each image individually. You don't.



    >Consistent, yes. Usable, no (in Lightroom). I am not looking
    >for "consistently needs post-processing."

    How is it not useable in Lightroom?



    >>The problem is that you can't see raw data, it has to be
    >>rendered. Rendering is a completely arbitray process in
    >raw.
    >>JPEG rendering, in contrast, is standard.
    >
    >Mark sums it up nicely. The problem is not with RAW so much
    >as it with the rendering.

    Actually, Mark misses the point when he says the rendering of a RAW file is arbitrary. Far from it, it is very predictable and repeatable. But you do have to know your tools and understand how each one renders.


    >Currently, Capture NX 2 does the
    >best job by far, but it is a DOG when it comes to dealing with
    >more than an image or two. Just opening 200 images
    >would be the 1 minute per RAW. Lightroom is, without doubt,
    >the best DAM program I've ever seen, but its RAW rendering
    >pales in comparison to Capture NX 2.

    That's the common view amongst many Nikon users, but it isn't really accurate. The reason many believe NX to be better is simply because it reads the Nikon camera settings right out of the box. LR will indeed give you results that are just as good, but you have to learn how to use the program to get the results you want. But once you have that down, again, presets are as simple as copying and pasting.

    With the latest version of LR, many people are reporting that the camera-specific profiles make it even easier to get that "Nikon look" right out of the box.


    >
    >The issue at hand is that a program that has LR's DAM
    >capabilities and Capture NX 2's rendering capabilities does
    >not exist. You choose one or the other and lose time either
    >way (combining them is a rocky marriage at best). The only
    >way (currently) to get the best of both worlds is to shoot
    >JPG.

    Juggling between two RAW converters usually means disaster because it is difficult to get truly comfortable with either one. My suggestion would be to standardize on LR and learn to use it to the fullest. It really does a nice job.


    >RAW is, I tend to agree with Mark that the "I have to
    >have RAW to save this because I don't have another one that I
    >can use instead" moments have been few and far between
    >(less than 1/10 of a percent).


    The point of RAW isn't its ability to save "bad" images. It's always been about having the maximum flexibility and potential for the absolute best quality you can get from your expensive dslr.

    But I agree, if your goal is to dump your pictures from the camera to a disc with no PP (even cropping) whatsoever in the shortest time possible, then JPEG is the way to go.



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 02:34 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #100. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 97


    Ignacio, US
              

    Steve,

    >>Regarding the specifics of those two images, the one on the right had a bit more contrast and was sharpened to a greater degree, with the red maybe just a wee bit richer. But you could *easily* have done the same thing with the image on the left by applying a preset that bumped up the contrast, sharpness and red channels a bit. It isn't rocket science, nor does it take hours of your time to do so.

    Many have tried, no one to my knowlwdge has ever matched Nikon's look in RAW without using NX. Close sure, same never.

    No point in trying if the camera jpeg is already right for the task anyway.

    My point here is that flexibility means nothing when you have what you want.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 09:56 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #103. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 100


    Canton, US
              

    >

    >
    >Many have tried, no one to my knowlwdge has ever matched
    >Nikon's look in RAW without using NX. Close sure, same never.


    Perhaps that is true, but it's largely a matter of perception. The differences are really *NOT* that dramatic. In many cases, the calibration of the monitor can change the perception to an even greater degree. Also, the number of variables involved in making a print can hide those subtle differences. Give a disc of those JPEGS that looked very Nikon-ish on your lcd screen to Wal-Mart for printing and they may come back with the "Wal-Mart look" rather than the "Nikon look,"

    (Not knocking Wal-Mart's processing, just saying that there are more variables involved than what initially meets the eye.)

    The point is, whatever tools you choose, learn their characteristics and use them to your advantage.


    >No point in trying if the camera jpeg is already right for the
    >task anyway. My point here is that flexibility means nothing
    > when you have what you want. My point here is that flexibility
    > means nothing when you have what you want.


    True, if that is the easiest path and you are satisfied with the results, that's what you should do. But by discounting the advantages of RAW you miss out on a whole world of opportunities to improve your photography.

    Here's one situation where I think JPEG might actually be better, though: If you are shooting at high FPS rates, the buffer fills up much faster with RAW. So if you rely on the camera's speed to capture sports or other action, JPEG may be a better option.

    (Although I have done this with RAW with some success, you just have to anticipate the action a little better and use short bursts rather than using your dslr like a movie camera,



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 04:35 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #101. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 97


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Thanks Steve. I'll give presets a go.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 03:51 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #92. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 79


    Canton, US
              


    >
    >Bit of a subjective call defining better for the world don't
    >you think?

    It's not my call, but it's the choice of the many full-time professionals who make their living shooting portraits and weddings.
    The flattering rendering of skin tones and the extra dynamic range of the Fuji sensor is quite popular with those guys. But I realize others have different preferences for different reasons.

    You still haven't answered the question as to what the "Nikon Look" is as it applies to weddings.

    >
    >>Besides, it isn't your art if you are relying on the
    >camera to
    >>give you a certain look. It's Nikon's art.
    >
    >So you are saying that technical wizardy trumps good
    >composition and exposure?

    Of course not. I'm saying that whatever "look" the camera's technical wizardry provides has very little to do with the image as compared to good composition and exposure.


    >Very true, RAW is more work for me.

    I have no doubt that is true in your case. But you have to realize that your situation is not a universal one. Many professionals and amateurs use RAW and don't find the extra time it takes them is a burden. It's all how you approach it and what you goals are.

    If all you want to do is to quickly cull out your mistakes and burn the remaining images to disc before you go to bed, then of course JPEG will be quicker. That's your method.

    Other wedding photogaphers that I know personally who shoot JPEG will open and edit each one before having them printed or burned to a disc. In their case, RAW would probably save them time in the long run.


    >The images you describe here simply do not exist in my
    >workflow after I'm done taking out the trash.
    >
    >If any image is marginal or will require extensive edits or
    >corrections, it is trashed, period. The client will never see
    >an image from me that is marginal.

    So in essence what you are doing is taking the shotgun approach and counting on a certain percentage of keepers to give you a good number of images to deliver as-is to the client.

    Now I can understand why you believe that digital photography does not require the kind of contemplation and planning that you do with film. It's just the way you look at it, but again, yours isn't the universal approach.

    >
    >Your price gouging crack is suggesting that professionally
    >finishing one image, burn dodge zits stray hair etc.. isn't
    >worth a half hour's work. Oh that's right, I forgot, digital
    >is free.

    No, the price gouging crack was in response to your suggestion that you would charge 35 grand for a wedding if you were to do any editing to each picture. That's not reality.

    >
    >$5000 for a nice wedding album with 125-150 images is normal,
    >it's also reasonable.

    Reasonable for the photographer, but very expensive for the customer considering that they will probably only look at those images a few times a year once the honeymoon is over.


    >
    >The problem is that you can't see raw data, it has to be
    >rendered. Rendering is a completely arbitray process in raw.
    >JPEG rendering, in contrast, is standard.

    You can't see JPEG data, either. And contrary to your belief rendering a RAW file is not completely arbitrary. It is flexible, but hardly arbitrary.


    >You miss the point completely, the "other
    >applications" do "other things". They all do
    >things LR simply can't.


    That's not even a point for someone to miss. So what if other applications do other things that different ones can't? They are all merely tools. You don't build a house with just a hammer; you use all the tools that are available to you to achieve what you desire.




    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    jku Registered since 28th Oct 2005Fri 01-Aug-08 03:56 PM
    1550 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #36. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    GB
              

    Wow! So many soap box replies so please forgive me if I am repeating someone's suggestion as I haven't read the replies before writing this:

    If you are going to use Picture Control but shoot only jpg, please be aware that if you messsed up, you are in for a hard time correcting in PP.

    john

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 04:24 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #42. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 36


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Yeah, I know. That's really the "kicker" for me. But again, if I blow the shot in RAW but never get around to fixing it in RAW, is it any different than having it in a harder-to-correct JPG? Sigh.


    But on a positive note, ViewNX seems to yield excellent results when converting to JPG. I may simply shoot RAW and convert overnight like so many of the suggestions here have... suggested.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    jku Registered since 28th Oct 2005Sat 02-Aug-08 07:20 PM
    1550 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #56. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 42


    GB
              

    Curious. Why can't (or don't) you use NX2 to convert overnight?

    john

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 05:06 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #82. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 56


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Honestly? I don't own it and I thought it was supposed to be terrible at batch converting. If it's not, that's something to look at for a Christmas gift.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    doctor_big Registered since 02nd Aug 2008Sat 02-Aug-08 09:29 PM
    2 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #58. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 36


    CA
              

    Hi all,

    This is my first post here, as I just purchased my first DSLR yesterday -- being a D80.

    Can I make sure I've got this straight, as I'm leaving on a two-week motorcycle trip tomorrow afternoon and I need to make a decision as to how I should capture files...

    So, I gather that if I shoot in RAW, I can batch-convert the resultant files using ViewNX and get the same quality JPEGs that I would have received had I captured the files originally in JPEG?

    Further, I understand that there is some tag-type data attached to the RAW files that tells CaptureNX what the camera would have done to the file if it HAD been saved as JPEG?

    So if I shoot my holiday in RAW, I will have the best of both worlds, right? Generally optimized JPEGs that I will create in batch after the fact, and the ability to manipulate in RAW the one Ansel Adams-quality shot that I just happen to luck into?

    Thanks for bearing with me!

    Jason

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    jku Registered since 28th Oct 2005Sat 02-Aug-08 10:19 PM
    1550 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #59. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 58


    GB
              

    Jason,

    I do not use ViewNX but I have Capture NX2 so I can tell you that if you shoot in Raw:

    1. You can batch process you raw files to generate a jpg copy. If you batch convert with no other adjustments, your jpeg will be exactly the same as straight off your D80.

    2. Yes, the tag-type data tells Capture NX what the camera would have done if it had been saved as jpeg.

    3. If you shoot your holiday pictures in raw, you have the best of both worlds if and only if you use Capture NX. Loading a raw file onto Capture NX is exactly the same as loading a jpg file. You cannot tell the difference except for the file extension at the top of the window.

    john

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 02:04 AM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #63. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 58


    US
              

    "So if I shoot my holiday in RAW, I will have the best of both worlds, right? Generally optimized JPEGs that I will create in batch after the fact, and the ability to manipulate in RAW the one Ansel Adams-quality shot that I just happen to luck into?"


    I did something similar and I regretted it immensely. If you're interested in RAW but have no experience with it, I suggest that you set your camera to save "RAW+jpg/large/fine." That is what will give you the best of both worlds.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    Cookies35 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2007Sat 02-Aug-08 01:35 PM
    1962 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #48. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0
    Mon 04-Aug-08 11:45 AM by Cookies35

    NL
              

    In my opinion the RAW/JPEG issue centers not around "which gives better results" or "which program are you using" or even "how much time do I have," but rather:

    1. How good are my photography skills?

    2. How often do I shoot something completely on the fly, without first setting my camera the way I want to for the particular moment?

    3. How fast is my computer's hard drive?

    4. How much RAM do I have?

    5. How much flash memory do I own?

    6. Which lens am I using?

    7. How soon do I absolutely HAVE to have the pix ready for sharing?

    8. How good are my archival practices?


    And, here's how I'd choose (in fact, HAVE chosen), in response to all the situations:

    1. I'm a beginner. Therefore, I shoot RAW. I'm not good enough to get my camera settings right with enough reliability that my JPEGs come out looking like I want them to more than 25% of the time. You class yourself as "Advanced Amateur," which I think I've come to understand means "Could be making a living doing this, and probably an extremely GOOD living, except that I choose to earn my keep doing something else and enjoy photography as a hobby." Do I have that right? If so, you can afford to shoot JPEG, because your shots are going to come out the way you want them to the vast majority of the time. You might switch to JPEG+RAW for special, unrepeatable occasions (Christening, Bris, first Christmas, first visit by the grandparents, etc.), but otherwise, your JPEGS will be fantastic, almost all of them, so why waste time verifying it on a computer?

    2. Completely contrary to the previous point, the more you shoot on the fly, the more you'd want to be in RAW. I disagree with the previous poster that said you might lose a shot or two but you'll always have other keepers, so you'll still not need to go looking for that "perfect shot" and process it. Maybe this is because I'm still such a beginner, but my experience is far more like "if one pic stinks, they all stink," on account of I will be shooting from the hip with some inappropriate white balance, ISO level, even lens, left over from last time. In all these occasions, boy am I glad I have the option of going to RAW to see if anything is salvagable! Yes, you can correct all these things with JPEGs, but you lose so much quality, especially if you have to do more than one fix ... and some white balance issues are sooooooo much easier to fix if you can just reset your white balance in RAW, rather than having to try to find a nice gray point to set the color cast on a JPEG (or any of the other things I'd have to do to a JPEG). If I took pix inside, and then went outside but forgot to reset the white balance (my D80 doesn't do auto-white balance all that well), then in RAW I just change the RAW white balance to "sunshine," "overcast," or "shade" and see what I get! It's usually pretty good! And I can copy that setting in a batch process to all the others, or just to the two or three I care about. Nothing remotely to do in JPEG if you have the choice of doing it in RAW.

    3. Slow hard drive? Shoot JPEG or upgrade your harddrive. It's up to you, depending on how much money you have and how much it matters. A faster hard drive makes N-I-G-H-T-A-N-D-D-A-Y difference when going through a batch of vacation photos! RAW + slow hard drive = early death from stress.

    4. Not much RAM? Get more, if you can at all afford it, and make sure it's as fast and as much as your computer can handle it. Amount of RAM and speed of the RAM makes even more difference when editing one photo -- regardless of whether it's one of a thousand or just one of two that you want to send to Grandma -- than the speed of your harddrive will make. With a harddrive, if it's got enough space and the program is stable, lack of speed can be worked around by doing everything at night (even opening up the pix you want to process!). But nothing can substitute for lots of RAM. And extra RAM helps e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g you do on your computer, not just the nasty stuff (like processing your pix).

    5. Very little flash memory? Shoot JPEG for the weekend, until you can get to the shop and buy more. There's no way on earth I'd shoot JPEG-only if the only thing stopping me from shooting JPEG+RAW is lack of CF space. Cheapest way to solve that problem is a couple more CF cards and an Optech Media Holster.

    6. If I'm using one of my 18-xyz's, the pictures isn't going to have captured but so much anyway (I'm almost always indoors in low light), and the very fact that I'm carrying that particular lens is that these aren't my Photos-of-a-Lifetime, so whadeva. But if I'm shooting with my Precious Baby, that means that (a) the lens is going to capture a heck of a lot of exquisite detail, and I really didn't buy that lens to then turn around and throw half of it away, and (b) these are the pix that I really, really want to look good. So in that case, no way I'll shoot in JPEG-only; for me, that would negate the investment of money and sore muscles (lugging it around).

    7. If I want to give the pix away soon, I HAVE to shoot JPEG. Which isn't that often actually. Then I load all the JPEGs onto a USB-stick or CD and hand them over. The other party can pick out the ones they like. Maybe I'll sift a little, depending on my own pride (don't want them to see that one ... or that one ... or for that matter, n-o-n-e of those ... But if they're just for me, I download them and process them when I get around to it. If ever. Which is not remotely related to whether they were shot in JPEG or RAW, so why not just have them in RAW. More flexibility, when I finally get around to processing them to begin with. They're there when I want them. It's amazing how many hundreds of shots I take that seem so great at the time and then a year later I really don't care about them. Good thing I didn't waste any time in PP. If I ever want one or two for a slideshow somewhere down the line, they won't have gone anywhere. My folders and folders of RAW are like my boxes and boxes of prints (from the good old days). This pressure to process everything you take is, in my opinion, misguided. I didn't get all those photos into albums, now did I? Am I sorry? Not at all. Does that mean I throw them away? NOT AT ALL. They're there when I need them.

      So for pix I'm (possibly) not going to process anyway, who cares how long it takes? Twice as fast as nothing is still nothing. In fact, it's worst than that: twice as fast might tempt me actually to dive in and process all that stuff. And that, in my case, would be the real tragedy. In my case, if I were burdened by a sense of duty to process everything I shot, then shooting in JPEG might mean that I actually processed them, in which case I'd spend far MORE time processing than if I just shot everything in RAW, which might discipline me only to process the stuff I care about.

      And the ones I DO care about ... boy am I glad I have those in RAW. I can do so much with so little loss of image quality in RAW!

    8. If my archiving is good, then in my opinion JPEG+RAW is the way to go, bar none. So much so, that I fix everything else (buy more memory cards, etc., to make it happen) and don't look back. I get all the advantages of JPEG, plus ALL the advantages of RAW. When I worked in NX, I opened my photo folders in Windows, sorted the pix according to file type to separate all the JPEGs (at the top) from all the NEFs (at the bottom), making it easy to select all the JPEGs and move them into their own sub-folder. Then I could work really quickly with the JPEGs, opening that folder in whatever program I want, etc. If I found a Shot-To-Die-For, I'd just find its partner in the NEF folder, and run with it! Now that I'm messing about with Lightroom, I can skip the sorting stage, because Lightroom deals with the JPEG+RAW combinations as one file when it displays, tags, etc., the pix. Fantastic! I haven't tried NX2, and if it does the same thing, that would be great. Otherwise, I really like this part of Lightroom: I can do sort and do the initial processing on an entire day's worth of pix in very little time. Then anything that actually needs editing I can flag it, display just those, and note which ones they are. Then I can go into an editing program and just do those, working on the JPEG or the RAW, whichever I choose.

      I've discovered (the hard way!) that on a V-E-R-Y regular basis I need to backup all the pix to another medium for storage, and as quickly as possible get them OFF my hard drive.

      I know everybody says that. I'm just not the organized type, and I'm REALLY not the "clean up your room/desk/project area type. So I figured, why on earth did I buy this mammoth hard drive space if I still have to spend half my life (it always feels like half my life if it involves cleaning up or putting away) moving things off the hard drive?

      ???

      Then I found out ...

      (maybe everybody else already knows this; maybe it's really just me being thick; but I really didn't know this; I mean I truly learned this T*H*E H*A*R*D -- read: ex-PEN-sive -- W*A*Y)

      ... that if you stuff your hard disk, your computer works far more slowly, crashes more often, and basically makes your life miserable. At a completely utter minimum your hard disk needs to have 15% of its capacity EMPTY!!! in order for your computer to function properly. I don't know where the divide is, but if your hard drive is nearly full, then the more you can remove the better. So I've discovered that if I keep the hard drive free from anything image-oriented except what I'm currently working on, then life is great, the sun shines, my photos improve straight out of the camera, and there's world peace.

      Well, maybe not all that.

      But still, keeping myself organized and my hard disk tidy solved literally HALF the problems I was having in post-processing. Once I figured that out, not only did all the rest of it get so much easier, but it also became fun to put in the time to get better at it.


    Anyway, that's my $2!

    Congratulations on what proves to be an amazing year!

    (For the rest of you, teachers live in a parallel world when it comes to time. The year starts a few weeks from now.)

    -- LaDonna

    _________________________________
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    pdinella Registered since 29th Aug 2007Sat 02-Aug-08 05:35 PM
    4 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #51. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    North Granby, US
              

    Whether you use RAW or JPEG depends on what you want to accomplish, period.

    -If you want snapshots of the kid to send to Grandma, shoot JPEG.
    -If you're taking the kid's first portrait, shoot RAW.
    -If you're taking photos of your Cub Scout kid in the Memorial Day parade, shoot JPEG.
    -If you believe you're the greatest, yet undiscovered, photograper in your State, shoot RAW all the time.
    -If you think you're a "professional" and every photo you take may turn up in National Geographic, shoot RAW all the time.
    -If you enjoy beating a dead horse, argue about this subject: "Is RAW better than JPEG?"

    Be pragmatic. It's only a hobby and you should enjoy what you're doing, even if it means arguing about this subject!



      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    IntegrityPhotos Silver Member Nikonian since 26th Apr 2006Sat 02-Aug-08 06:20 PM
    1253 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #53. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 51
    Sun 03-Aug-08 04:40 AM by IntegrityPhotos

    Deerfield, US
              

    Obviously, from the variety of responses to this post, there are many differing positions on this topic. But with all the verbiage and definitive statements about what's right and what's wrong with a given approach, the primary factors that will determine which will be better between RAW and JPEG in today's top DSLRs are 1)your skill at "getting it right in-camera", 2)the use of the images, and 3)the time you have to post process.

    For the professional photographer, these three factors are the critical issues, as "ericbowles" points out so well in post #4 above. If you are not a professional photographer, then the best choice is simply dependent on your personal preferences, many of which have been espoused here.

    OldPhotos
    "If everyone possesses some measure of this intangible quality called creativity, photography is unprecedented as an outlet for its expression." - Ansel Adams

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sat 02-Aug-08 06:43 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #55. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 53
    Sat 02-Aug-08 06:47 PM by Socrates

    US
              

    ...the primary factor that will determine which will be better between RAW and JPEG in today's top DSLRs is
    1) your skill at "getting it right in-camera,"
    2) the use of the images, and
    3) the time you have to post process.


    That's an excellent summary. In my case...
    1) I usually get it right in-camera.
    2) I do not sell my images.
    3) I have a full-time job and have no time left for post processing my images.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sun 03-Aug-08 10:28 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #76. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 55


    Canton, US
              

    >...the primary factor that will determine which will be
    >better between RAW and JPEG in today's top DSLRs is
    >1) your skill at "getting it right in-camera,"
    >2) the use of the images, and
    >3) the time you have to post process.

    >
    >That's an excellent summary. In my case...
    >1) I usually get it right in-camera.
    >2) I do not sell my images.
    >3) I have a full-time job and have no time left for post
    >processing my images.


    For me,

    1) I also usually get it right in-camera
    2) It doesn't matter if I sell my pictures or not, I want to get the best results I'm capable of
    3) I also have a full-time job, and I have time to post process my images

    The trick is that you don't have to post process all of them. Simply sort as you normally would, then reserve any post processing time for the keepers. Even then, less processing is required than you might think.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 11:34 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #78. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 76
    Sun 03-Aug-08 11:35 PM by Socrates

    US
              

    "Simply sort as you normally would, then reserve any post processing time for the keepers."

    I did some experimentation by shooting with RAW+jpg. I found that, with an hour's worth of effort, I can PP the RAW to get it almost as good as the jpg that came out of the camera. No thanks. I'll stick with the photos that look the best.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 05:10 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #83. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 78


    Fort Worth, US
              

    >I did some experimentation by shooting with RAW+jpg. I found
    >that, with an hour's worth of effort, I can PP the RAW to get
    >it almost as good as the jpg that came out of the camera. No
    >thanks. I'll stick with the photos that look the best.

    Similar experience. it wasn't an hour, but it was certainly 5-10 minutes. Multiply that by even 20 images and I just spent an hour at the computer I didn't have to had I shot (or converted to) JPG. I know I could shorten that significantly if I had the time to learn effective post-processing skills. But I don't.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 09:41 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #85. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 83


    Canton, US
              

    >>I did some experimentation by shooting with RAW+jpg. I
    >found
    >>that, with an hour's worth of effort, I can PP the RAW to
    >get
    >>it almost as good as the jpg that came out of the camera.
    >No
    >>thanks. I'll stick with the photos that look the best.
    >
    >Similar experience. it wasn't an hour, but it was certainly
    >5-10 minutes. Multiply that by even 20 images and I just
    >spent an hour at the computer I didn't have to had I shot (or
    >converted to) JPG. I know I could shorten that significantly
    >if I had the time to learn effective post-processing skills.
    >But I don't.
    >

    Here's the trick: You don't have to spend that 5-10 minutes on each image. Once you get the look you want, just save it as a preset and apply it to all the images you shot at the same time. A preset is essentially the same thing a menu setting on the camera, it's just a set of instructions that tell the computer how to process the RAW file, be it the computer in the camera or the computer on your desk.

    Remember, all cameras shoot RAW files regardless of what your output settings are. When you shoot JPEG you're just telling your camera to post process and then throw away the original data. Once that data is lost, it's gone forever.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 11:11 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #89. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 85


    Ignacio, US
              

    >Here's the trick: You don't have to spend that 5-10 minutes
    >on each image. Once you get the look you want, just save it
    >as a preset and apply it to all the images you shot at the
    >same time.

    Steve, he seems to be after that "darn" exceptional straight out of the camera Nikon look so many of us love.

    He doesn't need any post to get that look.

    No-post is always faster and easier than a any-post.

    If the result is perfect for purpose straight out of the camera then raw is the redundant part.

    Raw doesn't add any value if the jpeg is perfect for use straight out of the camera.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 02:38 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #90. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 89


    Canton, US
              


    >
    >Steve, he seems to be after that "darn" exceptional
    >straight out of the camera Nikon look so many of us love.

    But Mark, why are you even debating this point? I can't remember how many times you've told me that you don't like the digital look; preferring the looks of Velvia or Provia instead... and how digital images have less value than film images.

    But speaking of "looks," can you define exactly what the "Nikon Look" actually is? As best as I can determine, there are lots of Nikon looks, depending on how I tell my camera to PP the image before burning it as a JPEG to the memory card. Which one is "the" Nikon look? Each one is merely a matter of the tone curve that the built-in camera software applies to the RAW file when it converts it.

    >
    >He doesn't need any post to get that look.

    True, but that isn't the point.

    By saying that, you're just putting yourself into a box. You may be perfectly comfortable inside that box, but what if there was a way to use that box along with any number of other boxes that you choose? And you get to design and build those boxes yourself? How can that be a disadvantage, especially when you can always return to the original box any time you want?

    >
    >No-post is always faster and easier than a any-post.
    >
    >If the result is perfect for purpose straight out of the
    >camera then raw is the redundant part.

    I agree completely, if that's all one needs or wants. My point is that there is a bigger and better world available, and it isn't the burden that some think it to be.


    >
    >Raw doesn't add any value if the jpeg is perfect for use
    >straight out of the camera.


    Correct. JPEG is great for many situations. Just understand that in only shooting JPEG you are purposefully placing limitations on yourself. If you prefer that, that's fine. Nobody is telling anyone that they have to shoot RAW.





    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 01:27 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #98. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 90
    Tue 05-Aug-08 01:33 AM by markbarendt

    Ignacio, US
              

    >>Steve, he seems to be after that "darn"
    >exceptional
    >>straight out of the camera Nikon look so many of us love.
    >
    >
    >But Mark, why are you even debating this point?

    Because I can.

    >I can't remember how many times you've told me that you don't
    >like the digital look; preferring the looks of Velvia or Provia
    >instead... and how digital images have less value than film
    >images.

    Remember "Quigley Down Under"? Just because I prefer one doesn't mean I don't know how to use the other.

    >But speaking of "looks," can you define exactly what
    >the "Nikon Look" actually is? As best as I can
    >determine, there are lots of Nikon looks, depending on how I
    >tell my camera to PP the image before burning it as a JPEG to
    >the memory card. Which one is "the" Nikon look?
    >Each one is merely a matter of the tone curve that the
    >built-in camera software applies to the RAW file when it
    >converts it.

    Each Nikon look has a little something extra that brand X converters just can't mimic well. I've tried, but it's Nikon's secret how they get there, i.e. how it's defined.

    >>He doesn't need any post to get that look.
    >
    >True, but that isn't the point.

    That is exactly the point, no need for RAW.

    >By saying that, you're just putting yourself into a box. You
    >may be perfectly comfortable inside that box, but what if
    >there was a way to use that box along with any number of other
    >boxes that you choose? And you get to design and build those
    >boxes yourself? How can that be a disadvantage, especially
    >when you can always return to the original box any time you
    >want?

    It requires more time, faster computers, bigger hard drives, and provides no advantage because the original jpegs are "Perfect-For-Purpose"


    >>No-post is always faster and easier than a any-post.
    >>
    >>If the result is perfect for purpose straight out of the
    >>camera then raw is the redundant part.
    >
    >I agree completely, if that's all one needs or wants. My
    >point is that there is a bigger and better world available,
    >and it isn't the burden that some think it to be.

    That's exactly right, PS, InDesign, Painter. It's a big world and RAW only plays in raw converters. Now who's in the box?

    >>Raw doesn't add any value if the jpeg is perfect for use
    >>straight out of the camera.
    >
    >
    >Correct. JPEG is great for many situations. Just understand
    >that in only shooting JPEG you are purposefully placing
    >limitations on yourself.

    If the jpeg image is PERFECT for the intended use, what possible limitation could you be talking about? Remember Steve it's PERFECT, not marginal.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 10:38 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #104. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 98


    Canton, US
              

    >>But Mark, why are you even debating this point?
    >
    >Because I can.

    I sounds more like you're just debating for its own sake. After all, you are a self-proclaimed film aficianado who views digital as a lesser form of photography; rather prefering to use a slow and contemplative approach to taking pictures. Therefore, for you to debate that digital photography is best when you shoot a lot of pictures and throw away the mistakes, keeping the better ones as JPEGs because that is the path of least resistance... well... that isn't really intellectually honest, is it?


    >
    >Remember "Quigley Down Under"? Just because I prefer
    >one doesn't mean I don't know how to use the other.

    The point is, Mark, that you really don't have a desire to use the other to its fullest. You think JPEG is perfect for you when you do shoot digital, but remember, you're coming from the viewpoint that digital has less value than film.



    >

    >
    >Each Nikon look has a little something extra that brand X
    >converters just can't mimic well. I've tried, but it's Nikon's
    >secret how they get there, i.e. how it's defined.

    You still haven't defined exactly what that Nikon look is. It doesn't matter how Nikon gets there, it is you who like it for whatever reason.

    And just because *you* haven't been able to duplicate it (whatever "it" is) doesn't mean that it isn't possible. You have also stated that you do not like to work with computers, therefore how can we expect you to have used your computer to the fullest to achieve results other than what your camera gives you with JPEG?


    >
    >That is exactly the point, no need for RAW.


    As I have said several times, if you are satisfied with what you get out of the camera, then that's great.


    >It requires more time, faster computers, bigger hard drives,
    >and provides no advantage because the original jpegs are
    >"Perfect-For-Purpose"

    That depends, of course, on what that purpose is.

    Let's have a reality check here. Any computer you can buy at Circuit City or Best Buy these days has more than enough capacity to handle RAW files. So the "big computer" argument is moot.

    >
    >That's exactly right, PS, InDesign, Painter. It's a big world
    >and RAW only plays in raw converters. Now who's in the box?

    You're again missing the big picture, Mark. Shooting RAW has nothing to do with what you can do later in the process with those kinds of programs. RAW gives you more boxes to choose from as an input to those kinds of applications. That's a silly argument.


    >If the jpeg image is PERFECT for the intended use, what
    >possible limitation could you be talking about? Remember Steve
    >it's PERFECT, not marginal.

    Many folks think a dinner at McDonalds is PERFECT, too. It's fast, inexpensive, can taste good, and fills you up. But others prefer to take the time and extra expense of sitting down at a better restaurant, studying the menu, and ordering a meal that is even more nutritious and satisfying in the long run.

    You've already made your opinion known that, for all practical purposes, you consider digtal to be the "fast food" of the photography world. So how can you tell others who understand the advantages of RAW that they are wasting their time by going through unecessary complexity?

    I'll have the roast rack of lamb, please. Do you want fries with yours?




    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Wed 06-Aug-08 03:11 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #106. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 104


    Ignacio, US
              

    >>>But Mark, why are you even debating this point?
    >>
    >>Because I can.
    >
    >I sounds more like you're just debating for its own sake.
    >After all, you are a self-proclaimed film aficianado who views
    >digital as a lesser form of photography; rather prefering to
    >use a slow and contemplative approach to taking pictures.
    >Therefore, for you to debate that digital photography is best
    >when you shoot a lot of pictures and throw away the mistakes,
    >keeping the better ones as JPEGs because that is the path of
    >least resistance... well... that isn't really intellectually
    >honest, is it?

    Good evening Steve,

    When someone wants to pay me to shoot a digital job, I'll shoot Digital, i.e. Digital = Work at least on occasion. Not what I prefer but so what, pays the film bill.

    And no, I'm not debating just to debate, but I can be facicious when provoked.

    After shooting and processing several hundred thousand digital images in the last few years I have some experience that I hope might benefit the OP. I've made enough mistakes and fought enough with the various and sundry software packages and file formats to know what they are capable of and when certain tools make sence and when they don't.

    How many shots have you shot and processed in the last few years?

    >>Remember "Quigley Down Under"? Just because I
    >prefer
    >>one doesn't mean I don't know how to use the other.
    >
    >The point is, Mark, that you really don't have a desire to use
    >the other to its fullest. You think JPEG is perfect for you
    >when you do shoot digital, but remember, you're coming from
    >the viewpoint that digital has less value than film.

    Fullest? Defining best for the world again Steve?

    I don't apologize for my personal style preferences. Attacking my motives doesn't change the value of my advice or the experience I bring to the discussion.

    >You have also stated that you do not like to work
    >with computers, therefore how can we expect you to have used
    >your computer to the fullest to achieve results other than
    >what your camera gives you with JPEG?

    Just because someone likes editing on the computer doesn't make them good either.

    >That depends, of course, on what that purpose is.

    Please check OP's original post for the definition.

    >>That's exactly right, PS, InDesign, Painter. It's a big
    >world
    >>and RAW only plays in raw converters. Now who's in the
    >box?
    >
    >You're again missing the big picture, Mark. Shooting RAW has
    >nothing to do with what you can do later in the process with
    >those kinds of programs. RAW gives you more boxes to choose
    >from as an input to those kinds of applications. That's a
    >silly argument.

    Sure it does, I'm a firm believer that shooting with the end in mind creates better images. Define the subject, the composition, the look, and specific use of the images you are shooting for first: then pick the tools to get there.

    When I shoot a wedding I'm being paid to shoot my style, I'm not being paid to edit.

    WEhen I get paid to edit, I want layers and fancy layout tools for my digital editing. I want to add borders, names, dates, and grunge. I want Tryptychs and...

    RAW can't do that and I don't need the contrast, exposure, or WB corrections.

    >>If the jpeg image is PERFECT for the intended use, what
    >>possible limitation could you be talking about? Remember
    >Steve
    >>it's PERFECT, not marginal.
    >
    >Many folks think a dinner at McDonalds is PERFECT, too. It's
    >fast, inexpensive, can taste good, and fills you up. But
    >others prefer to take the time and extra expense of sitting
    >down at a better restaurant, studying the menu, and ordering a
    >meal that is even more nutritious and satisfying in the long
    >run.

    >You've already made your opinion known that, for all practical
    >purposes, you consider digtal to be the "fast food"
    >of the photography world. So how can you tell others who
    >understand the advantages of RAW that they are wasting their
    >time by going through unecessary complexity?

    It is the political season, I guess the attack ads were bound to start. (BTW Obama Rocks!)

    Steve, how many babies do you have in your house? Are you working and going to school for your PHD?

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Wed 06-Aug-08 11:12 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #107. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 106


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >When someone wants to pay me to shoot a digital job, I'll
    >shoot Digital, i.e. Digital = Work at least on occasion. Not
    >what I prefer but so what, pays the film bill.

    That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the merits of JPEG vs RAW. For those situations, JPEG is quicker for you and it satisfies the expectations of your clients. That's great, and I never suggested that you should stop doing that. But I do think your mind is closed to the possibility that for a little more effort you could reap a lot more benefit.


    >And no, I'm not debating just to debate, but I can be
    >facicious when provoked.

    Well, Mark, you have been doing a good job of being provoked when someone tries to point out to you that RAW has many advantages that outweigh its disadvantages.

    >
    >After shooting and processing several hundred thousand digital
    >images in the last few years I have some experience that I
    >hope might benefit the OP. I've made enough mistakes and
    >fought enough with the various and sundry software packages
    >and file formats to know what they are capable of and when
    >certain tools make sence and when they don't.

    Here's the key to your position: You said you've "fought enough with the various and sundry software packages and file formats," which strongly suggests that you consider these things to be a burden rather than tools that actually liberate you and make it more convenient to get even better results than you can get in-camera. I don't fight with my computer, Mark, I treat it as a friend and it responds likewise.


    >
    >How many shots have you shot and processed in the last few
    >years?

    I don't really know. I don't view photography as a macho thing, and I believe that quality is more important than quantity.


    >Fullest? Defining best for the world again Steve?

    Uhm... last I checked the dictionary, "fullest" does not mean the same thing as "best." It is a fact that RAW gives you the fullest set of options for achieving whatever it is you want to achieve.

    (BTW, if you have a problem defining absolutes for the world, you really should look into changing your tagline.)



    >I don't apologize for my personal style preferences. Attacking
    >my motives doesn't change the value of my advice or the
    >experience I bring to the discussion.

    Mark, nobody has attacked your motives or personal style preferences. Nor have you been asked to apologize for them. I don't remember how many times I've said that you should continue to do what works for you.


    >
    >Just because someone likes editing on the computer doesn't
    >make them good either.

    The discussion has never been about how good someone is, but rather the merits of one approach vs. the other.


    >
    >>That depends, of course, on what that purpose is.
    >
    >Please check OP's original post for the definition.

    Right! He asked for opinions on the merits of JPEG vs. RAW regarding his situation. He has received lots of helpful advice from both perspectives.

    Your perspective is that he should go with JPEG because RAW is a waste of time. My perspective is that RAW doesn't take as much time as most people fear that it does, and it is a more secure format that offers many quality advantages. You've stated that it takes *you* too much time and you think your results are perfect out of the camera. That's great for you, but the OP may not be as perfect as you are.


    >>
    >Sure it does, I'm a firm believer that shooting with the end
    >in mind creates better images. Define the subject, the
    >composition, the look, and specific use of the images you are
    >shooting for first: then pick the tools to get there.

    Exactly! The point you seem to miss is that RAW gives you more options and better opportunity to achieve this. When you limit yourself to JPEG, you've allowed the look to be defined for you and you've further limited your choice of tools.



    >When I shoot a wedding I'm being paid to shoot my style, I'm
    >not being paid to edit.

    That's fine, if your style is to always deliver perfect images that would never benefit from any changes or enhancements whatsoever. But from what you've been saying, it sounds like your primary motivation is speed and convenience over what would be the ultimate quality for your clients.

    You're assuming that everyone is shooting weddings and has the same time constraints and client expectations that you do. You shoot film for your personal photography, where those constraints don't exist, so how can we expect you to understand all the advantages that RAW brings to the table? Instead you just pooh-pooh it.

    Please note I'm NOT saying that you get bad results, so please don't go there.


    >WEhen I get paid to edit, I want layers and fancy layout tools
    >for my digital editing. I want to add borders, names, dates,
    >and grunge. I want Tryptychs and...

    But that's not editing, Mark. That's adding fluff. Why not let the images speak for themselves? RAW is all about getting the best image possible. What you add to it later is up to you.



    >RAW can't do that and I don't need the contrast, exposure, or
    >WB corrections.

    I don't know how many times I've tried to tell you that RAW isn't just for making corrections or fixing errors. To keep beating the horse that RAW can't add fancy borders to your pictures is like saying a train can't run on an interstate highway. That may be true, but it is totally irrelevant. RAW has nothing to do with the kinds of artsy cutsey things we do to our pictures after the fact.


    >>
    >It is the political season, I guess the attack ads were bound
    >to start. (BTW Obama Rocks!)

    And for you to say that those of us who use LR, NX, PS and the like are using them as a crutch is NOT an attack ad? C'mon, you should know better than that.

    BTW, Obama is an empty suit with an empty resume whose only selling point is a message of "change" as he reads a teleprompter. I guess you could look at him as a JPEG file -- fast and looks perfect to those who prefer the canned look; but he lacks the kind of depth and substance that RAW provides. Go ahead and vote for him if you think platitudes and slogans are better than real solutions to real problems.


    >
    >Steve, how many babies do you have in your house? Are you
    >working and going to school for your PHD?

    Zero and no. But neither would prevent me from shooting RAW because for me it is easier, more convenient and gives better results than JPEG. Why don't you ask the OP how many weddings he shoots?

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Wed 06-Aug-08 04:53 PM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #108. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 107


    Seattle, US
              

    I know that his has been a very long and debated thread, and with many good points being made. But can we please remove politics from any futre posts? I come here to get away from politics, and I do not care to hear opinions, regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

    Thanks,

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Thu 07-Aug-08 12:41 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #109. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 107
    Thu 07-Aug-08 12:44 AM by markbarendt

    Ignacio, US
              

    >>WEhen I get paid to edit, I want layers and fancy layout tools
    >>for my digital editing. I want to add borders, names, dates,
    >>and grunge. I want Tryptychs and...

    >But that's not editing, Mark. That's adding fluff. Why not let the >images speak for themselves? RAW is all about getting the best >image possible. What you add to it later is up to you.

    Fluff? Not editing? Defining the world for us again Steve?

    Got any pix at home of your grand parents generation where you don't know the names of all the people in the image? Those pix don't talk so good do they? A quick text layer in PS and that problem is solved.


    I'd also like to point out that sometimes it's the pdf slide-show or the album as a whole that is the end product, the intent of shooting.

    Many photos today are meant to be used as sets, not singles. Editing takes on a whole different meaning, when creating a set. Our DSLR's are great tools for creating those sets.

    ___________

    >>RAW can't do that and I don't need the contrast, exposure, or
    >>WB corrections.

    >I don't know how many times I've tried to tell you that RAW isn't
    >just for making corrections or fixing errors. To keep beating the
    >horse that RAW can't add fancy borders to your pictures is like
    >saying a train can't run on an interstate highway. That may be
    >true, but it is totally irrelevant.

    RAW creates an extra layer of work between the camera and the intended use. RAW, like the train, has to stay on a certain track. To use a raw image outside of a RAW converter you have to make a jpeg or psd or tiff. That conversion takes work and time, for me and the computer.

    A camera JPEG can go straight form the CF card into PS, InDesign, to a lab, to e-mail, whatever.

    Using camera jpegs can eliminates an entire layer of work and complexity.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Thu 07-Aug-08 10:01 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #110. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 109


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >Fluff? Not editing? Defining the world for us again Steve?

    Er, no. Editing by definition is modifying something which is already there. The kinds of "edits" you're speaking of all involve adding things that are foreign to the original photograph. And yes, adding cutsey frames or other things that don't add to the image itself is fluff. You wouldn't do that with your film photos, would you? So why do it with digital?

    Again, perhaps you should change your tagline if you feel that strongly about defining things for the world.



    >Got any pix at home of your grand parents generation where you
    >don't know the names of all the people in the image? Those pix
    >don't talk so good do they? A quick text layer in PS and that
    >problem is solved.

    You're once again trying to make a totally irrelevant point. You can do that regardless of how the original photograph originated.

    BTW, that would be quite the trick to produce an image of someone from my grandparents' generation shot in RAW... or JPEG for that matter. And the extra work involved in scanning one of those images is much more than what is required to work with an original RAW file.



    >I'd also like to point out that sometimes it's the pdf
    >slide-show or the album as a whole that is the end product,
    >the intent of shooting.

    Those are merely presentation methods, Mark. Besides, with LR you can import those RAW files from the memory card, sort through them, do any cropping or other edits you choose, then create that pdf slide show lickety-split, all in one program. No other program is needed. You can even add title slides and text overlays if you wish.

    >Many photos today are meant to be used as sets, not singles.
    >Editing takes on a whole different meaning, when creating a
    >set. Our DSLR's are great tools for creating those sets.

    Uhm... ever hear of a photo album or a multimedia slide show? Film is equally good at creating sets. The camera has nothing to do with it. There's nothing there unique to digital other than the software tools make it easier to put those kinds of things together.



    >RAW creates an extra layer of work between the camera and the
    >intended use. RAW, like the train, has to stay on a certain
    >track. To use a raw image outside of a RAW converter you have
    >to make a jpeg or psd or tiff. That conversion takes work and
    >time, for me and the computer.


    Right, for *you,* but you've already told us that you don't like computers or working with the various software packages. Therefore you consider any time in front of the computer to be "work" in the sense that you want to get it over with as soon as possible. Many of us don't find it to be extra work at all, and find the little extra time it takes to be more than offset by the many advantages that RAW brings to the table.

    You aren't correct that RAW forces you to stay on that train track. If you really believe that, you totally miss the point. JPEG forces you to stay on the track that is defined by your camera. It may be a nice track, but the point is that you have little option other than going where that track leads. With RAW you can get off the track, drive down the interstate, check out the county roads, even explore the little towns and villages you see along the way. Where you go is completely up to you.



    >A camera JPEG can go straight form the CF card into PS,
    >InDesign, to a lab, to e-mail, whatever.

    How many times do you do that without actually reviewing the images on that card first?

    Working with RAW can be just as quick and simple as it is to look at those images, sort them, and decide which ones to send to those other programs. The extra work you're complaining about can amount to just a couple of mouse clicks. Or it can be more involved, if you wish. It's all about freedom and having as many choices available to you as possible.


    >
    >Using camera jpegs can eliminates an entire layer of work and
    >complexity.

    Defining things for the world again, eh Mark?

    As you've pointed out before as your reasoning for preferring film, you consider the process to be just as enjoyable as the end product. You just happen to prefer a different process path, and that's great. But don't try to put those who choose to shoot digital in a box based on your preferences. Defining RAW as extra work or somehow being limiting is no different than if I were to tell you that you shouldn't shoot black and white film because it is more work and an extra layer of complexity compared to shooting slides.




    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Thu 07-Aug-08 11:12 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #111. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 110


    Ignacio, US
              

    Steve,

    I think what's happening in this discussion is we are arguing symantics about how to get to differing finish lines.

    Correct me if I'm wrong here about your intent.

    You are talking about getting the best color, exposure, contrast, and highest bit depth from any individual image without adding any image elements the camera didn't. This might include global edits to saturation, global edits to specific color, etc... In LR you might even do some dust spotting and a global vignette. No changes to content. Finished.

    Did I miss any major features you use in LR or mis-define your finish line?

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Thu 07-Aug-08 03:05 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #114. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 111


    Canton, US
              

    >You are talking about getting the best color, exposure,
    >contrast, and highest bit depth from any individual image
    >without adding any image elements the camera didn't. This
    >might include global edits to saturation, global edits to
    >specific color, etc... In LR you might even do some dust
    >spotting and a global vignette. No changes to content.
    >Finished.

    Yes, Mark, that pretty much sums it up. However, those edits can be applied to groups of images, not just single ones; and now with LR2 those edits can be local as well as global. RAW was never intended to change the content of an image, there are still plenty of programs that let you do that to varying degrees. Look at it this way, a program like LR is designed for photographers, while Photoshop and the others are really graphic design programs.



    >Did I miss any major features you use in LR or mis-define your
    >finish line?


    That's just the editing part of it. The real advantage of LR is the total workflow approach. When you look at the entire process from viewing, sorting, managing all your images, editing, and output; it is a very intuitive and simple matter. It can be as simple as applying a preset to an entire folder of images to get the same overall "look" or as complicated as futzing around with a single image all day if you want. You can export the image as a jpeg, tiff, or any format you want for further use. And all of this comes with the security of knowing nothing has ever happened to change or degrade the original image data.

    Look at it this way. When you shoot film you take care to ensure everything is the best it can be, and you like to be in control of the process as much as you can so that your results say exactly want you want them to say. RAW is the equivalent of that approach for those who shoot digital. JPEG certainly has its place, but it isn't for those who want to exercise the full capability that the digital format has to offer.

    Like you, I come from a strong film background. I find that shooting RAW gives me many of the characteristics I enjoyed shooting film while at the same time taking advantage of the very real benefits that digital offers. I understand that some people may not appreciate or want those benefits; just as I understand that some film photographers don't appreciate or want the benefits that doing their own darkroom work can offer.

    To each his own!



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 03:19 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #122. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 114


    Ignacio, US
              

    Okay, so two componants. Individual image editing and work flow.

    Workflow - I'm talking about party volume (that's the OMG I shot 700 frames at my baby's birth volume) not portrait or landscape volume.

    For global edits, it's camera settings decided on before the shots, period. I do my editing work at the camera. If fact many of the junk images a deleted in camera.

    Back to workflow.

    I use ViewNX to download and add metadata.

    Rating is real simple, I either hit my target and I hit "next" or I didn't and I hit "delete"; it can even be done as a windows slide show. No marginal images.

    In a digital setting at this point, my creative work is done and I'm ready for whatever is next. All the images that are still on disk are ready for the lab, a DVD, use in e-mail, PS, or indesign.

    With a 700 shot job, from the card to ready to use, we are talking about 45 to 60 minutes. No overnighters.

    This is my finish line, 700 images out of the camera, 500 perfect for purpose jpegs ready to use 45 minutes later, including download time. That's about 2 seconds per image total time.

    I've yet to see a RAW converter that can get me there.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 12:49 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #125. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 122


    Canton, US
              

    That's fine, Mark, and you should continue to use the tools that work best for you. RAW isn't intended for high volume shooting where you need to have results the same day. (Although it can be used for that purpose quite easily with the right software.)

    Look at RAW as being the custom lab, while JPEG is the one-hour photo service. Both have their place, depending on what your needs are. What I like most about RAW is that it gives you the option to have it both ways.

    As to workflow, I think you'd see the advantages of a program like LR if you started using it from that perspective. But what you use works for you, so there is no reason for you to change.

    Shooting with a RAW mindset is similar to your approach to film. It helps you to get better results in the long run because it forces you to think what you will do with the picture; as opposed to merely setting the camera for your best guess of the conditions, snapping a few hundred shots and culling out the bad ones. IMO those who think RAW is just for correcting mistakes or training you to use your camera settings are missing the big picture.

    Personally, if I was shooting a big job I'd rather be free from the burden of changing my camera settings as conditions change, saving that aspect of it for later in the process when I have more time to evaluate the actual images. It's much easier to evaluate the results on the computer than on the camera's LCD.

    But I'm not saying that's the way it has to be for everyone, since everybody comes from a different perspective.



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 05:43 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #95. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 85


    Fort Worth, US
              

    >Here's the trick: You don't have to spend that 5-10 minutes
    >on each image. Once you get the look you want, just save it
    >as a preset and apply it to all the images you shot at the
    >same time. A preset is essentially the same thing a menu
    >setting on the camera, it's just a set of instructions that
    >tell the computer how to process the RAW file, be it the
    >computer in the camera or the computer on your desk.

    That's true. It's an element in LR I have not used as much as I should. Guess it's time to take a deep breath and dive in

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Mon 04-Aug-08 10:32 PM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #96. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 95


    Seattle, US
              

    >
    >That's true. It's an element in LR I have not used as much as
    >I should. Guess it's time to take a deep breath and dive in
    >

    If you have not spent some time understanding presets, you are missing a big feature in LR's Develop module. They take some time to fully grasp, but they can be quite powerful. I think that it would not be fair to criticize LR's PP capabilities without knowing how presets can work to your advantage with respect to time. Now finding a preset that works for you, if you shoot under changing lighitng conditions, is a little bit trickier, but it can be done.

    Have your tried the D300 presets available at One Third Stop photo? I find them to be a good starting place for developing your own presets if you are still using LR1.X. I have not yet tried LR 2.0, but several gurus have found the new calibrations to be quite helpful. I have purchased and downloaded the new version, but have not yet had time to install it.

    I shoot both JPEG and RAW, depending on my needs and what the job requires. Some jobs do not require much PP, and that's fine with me. For my personal body of work, I am now shooting RAW, as these are the images that I usually like to polish up for presentation, and the look that I want can change from display setting to setting. Also, I like having RAW images because some day we are going to have more software and hardware that will break out of the 8-bit limit, and I would like to take advantage of that as technology progresses.

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 04:37 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #102. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 96


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Thanks Ken. I'll look into that website.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sat 02-Aug-08 06:35 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #54. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 51
    Sat 02-Aug-08 06:36 PM by Socrates

    US
              

    -If you want snapshots of the kid to send to Grandma, shoot JPEG.
    -If you're taking the kid's first portrait, shoot RAW.
    -If you're taking photos of your Cub Scout kid in the Memorial Day parade, shoot JPEG.
    -If you believe you're the greatest, yet undiscovered, photograper in your State, shoot RAW all the time.
    -If you think you're a "professional" and every photo you take may turn up in National Geographic, shoot RAW all the time.
    -If you enjoy beating a dead horse, argue about this subject: "Is RAW better than JPEG?"
    >
    >
    Were you born dogmatic or did you learn it?

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    greyface Gold Member Nikonian since 30th Jul 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 12:36 AM
    1584 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #60. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 54


    New Bedford, US
              

    I love the internet for, no not the porn, the info. I just got a D80
    and discovered the NEF file ,which I thought was a RAW file does not open in PS7. Guess I will need capture nx, bibble or lightroom. More homework to do. Have used PS7 to edit jpegs for web site use and scanned in my own negs & slides. Have just finished reading this thread and have learned some useful stuff.
    Being new to digital shooting, but not digital processing, I hesitate
    to give my opinion but, use what is best for you. You can get to the same point from different directions. Try different ways. Ok sometimes it's a matter of money, software costs $. I agree Raw has more info and is good to archive for future use. Do you need to shoot in Raw all the time if you can get what you want in a jpeg? You want to improve your skills, practice. Yes you have other things, family,job, etc.... Sneak in some time, read. Get info. I got a lens on info from the salesperson, not sure if it was the right one. It's
    not a nikon lens and time will tell. Choosing the " right " lens is a whole 'nother topic, but the same issue, use what works for you.
    My fingers are cramping up. NOT good for a bass player. Thanks for some interesting reading.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 01:45 AM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #61. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 60
    Sun 03-Aug-08 01:46 AM by Socrates

    US
              

    Go to the Adobe web site and download the free plug-in for D80.

    I've found that, after a mere hour or so of effort, I can make the RAW image look almost as good as the jpg that came right out of the camera.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
    greyface Gold Member Nikonian since 30th Jul 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 02:00 AM
    1584 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #62. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 61


    New Bedford, US
              

    Thank you for the info. Will download and check it out

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
    greyface Gold Member Nikonian since 30th Jul 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 06:41 AM
    1584 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #64. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 62


    New Bedford, US
              

    The plugin will not work in PS7. I think it is for PS CS3, the newer
    version. PS7 can now see the DSC file, but can't open it.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 02:12 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #67. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 64


    US
              

    >The plugin will not work in PS7. I think it is for PS CS3,
    >the newer
    >version. PS7 can now see the DSC file, but can't open it.
    >
    That's really weird as the plug-in even works with PSE!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                
    Cookies35 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2007Sun 03-Aug-08 02:51 PM
    1962 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #69. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 67


    NL
              

    >That's really weird as the plug-in even works with PSE!

    He's right though. The version compatibility has nothing to do with the sophistication of the program, but rather with the age of the program. The current version of ACR doesn't support anything older than CS3 or PSE6! There are versions available online for PSE5 (Windows), and perhaps even for CS2 or CS, but at some point the ACR versions are so old they don't support the D80! (Btw, Grey, it would help a lot if you'd fill out your profile ...)

    -- LaDonna

    _________________________________
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 04:02 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #70. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 69


    US
              

    >>That's really weird as the plug-in even
    >works with PSE!

    >
    >He's right though. The version compatibility has nothing to do
    >with the sophistication of the program, but rather with the
    >age of the program. The current version of ACR doesn't
    >support anything older than CS3 or PSE6! There are versions
    >available online for PSE5 (Windows), and perhaps even for CS2
    >or CS, but at some point the ACR versions are so old they
    >don't support the D80! (Btw, Grey, it would help a lot if
    >you'd fill out your profile ...)
    >
    >-- LaDonna
    >
    >_________________________________
    >A little knowledge is a dangerous thing


    I have PSE-4 but for the Mac and that also might make a difference.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    Cookies35 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2007Sun 03-Aug-08 04:15 PM
    1962 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #71. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 70


    NL
              

    >I have PSE-4 but for the Mac and that also might make a difference.

    Yup, definitely. I think the "current" Mac PSE's have lower numbers than the "current" Windows PSE's. But whenever you go to download Adobe Camera Raw, the download page states clearly (if you know to look for it!) which versions of which programs it works with, and you're never more than a couple clicks away from seeing precisely which cameras are supported as well. That's something it's easy to take for granted, since you'd think all software manufacturers would do that, but it just isn't so. Kudo's in this case for Adobe.

    -- LaDonna

    _________________________________
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 05:13 AM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #84. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 71


    Fort Worth, US
              

    Well, PSE 6 is the most current for Mac, but it was PSE4 until january. Adobe skipped 5 and went straight to 6, they took so long. There's a good chance that since 4 was out for such a long time that Adobe kept it going. PS7 was, of course, replaced 5 years ago or more on both PC and Mac.

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                    
    greyface Gold Member Nikonian since 30th Jul 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 07:33 PM
    1584 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #72. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 69


    New Bedford, US
              

    Have added to my profile. Let me know if something more specific needs to be added. I am new to this.
    Since I have PS7 is the only thing I need is a raw conversion program?
    PS7 will save in raw file. Need to keep costs down, am selling off some bass gear to help pay for the D80. Would nikon capture nx work of is the nx2 version worth the extra money? Can anyone recommend the nik color effx I see advertised with the capture nx?

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                        
    Cookies35 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2007Sun 03-Aug-08 08:26 PM
    1962 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #73. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 72


    NL
              

    >Have added to my profile.
    Thanks! Very helpful!

    >I am new to this.
    No worries!!! We all start out that way ...


    >PS7 will save in raw file.

    I really don't understand what this means. Do you mean PS7 will save a NEF? And if so, how, if it doesn't open NEFs? Or do you mean that PS7 will save DNGs?

    >Since I have PS7 is the only thing I need is a raw conversion
    >program?

    Given your experience with image editing, what I think you're looking for is a program which will allow you to open an NEF and process it (adjust white balance, exposure, etc.), before you then save it and/or open it into another program for further processing. If all the program does is convert it to JPEG for you, then you're not much better off than you would be if you just shot in JPEG to begin with.

    Trial editions of Capture NX, Capture NX2, Lightroom, Photoshop CS3, and Photoshop Elements 6 are all available on-line, for free! To open the NEFs in either of the Photoshops you need to install the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in (you've already been to that page), but that's free as well. Here are what I'd recommend as your top three options:

    1. Start with the trial version of PS Elements 6 (since you're already familiar with a lot of the Photoshop basics and you're on a budget), download and install ACR, mess about with some of the on-line help videos, and see if you like the set-up.

    2. If that doesn't suit you, then I'd get Brian Long's Capture NX (fantastic book), download the trial version of NX, and see if you like the results better.

    3. Lightroom is absolutely fantastic for organizing your pix and do the minimal kinds of processing you need if the pix are basically ok the way they are, but it's really not an image processor in the PS sense of the word. So Lightroom will allow you to open NEFs, adjust the settings (white balance, exposure, etc.), and do a little bit of editing, but won't change your photo to show anything that wasn't in the picture to begin with. On the other hand, Lightroom does allow you to open and process an NEF, and then save it as a PSD file, which you can then open in PS7 I'd think. If that's the case (you could try it to find out, or perhaps someone else who's still using PS7 can tell you?), and then you'd have the best of both worlds! Lightroom to open/process/convert/save, and PS7 to edit if necessary. If you want to try that route, I'd highly recommend Scott Kelby's book Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book for Digital Photographers to get the most out of that program. Kelby keeps his unique sense of humor under control in this book, and he really is a superb teacher. Lightroom does SOOOO much, absolutely none of which you'll figure out (or even know about) without a book to guide you.


    >Would nikon capture nx work of is the nx2 version worth the extra money?
    My experience with software is that nearly every upgrade is worth the money, and from what I've read Capture NX is no exception. However, "worth the money" and "having the extra money" are two different things. I'd say try them both and see for yourself! I'd also be quick. It's not often that a software company keeps a link accessible which will let you try out an earlier-than-current version of their software, so the trial version of Capture NX might disappear quickly! If you do that, you could keep yourself outfitted in Capture NX for 90 days before you have to pay for anything.

    -- LaDonna

    _________________________________
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    greyface Gold Member Nikonian since 30th Jul 2008Sun 03-Aug-08 09:04 PM
    1584 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #75. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 73


    New Bedford, US
              

    >
    >>PS7 will save in raw file.

    >I really don't understand what this means. Do you mean PS7
    >will save a NEF? And if so, how, if it doesn't open NEFs? Or
    >do you mean that PS7 will save DNGs?
    >
    PS7 has in the file types pulldown menu- camera raw (.tif .crw .nef.raf .orf) and raw (.raw) I can save an open file to thesefile types. cannot open D80 raw file from nikon transfer program or copy off the card using the card reader.
    Guess the best way is to download trial versions and see the diferences. I like learning new things so changing from PS7 to capture nx or lighroom is not a hassle. I also like some of the things the nik color efx can do. Will check out the books too.

    Would like to use one program for conversion/ editing.

    Thank you very much for your imput

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Cookies35 Silver Member Nikonian since 18th Apr 2007Sun 03-Aug-08 11:17 PM
    1962 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #77. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 75


    NL
              

    >PS7 has in the file types pulldown menu- camera raw (.tif .crw
    >.nef.raf .orf) and raw (.raw) I can save an open file to
    >thesefile types. cannot open D80 raw file from nikon transfer
    >program or copy off the card using the card reader.

    I get it now! My guess is that PS7 does support NEFs, but doesn't support the D80, simply on account of the D80 didn't exist yet when PS7 was replaced with a newer version. That's like nowadays with the D700. I can open my D80 and D200 files with Lightroom, but I can't open D700 NEFs with Lightroom v1 on account of the D700 didn't exist yet. By the time the D700 showed up, Adobe had created Lightroom v2, so my guess is that Lightroom v1 might never support the D700, even though Lightroom surely supports the "brand" Nikon's raw files. It's the hazzard of buying new hardware (or buying new software, for that matter, as I've discovered to my chagrin): upgrading one side of the equation sometimes forces you to upgrade the other side as well, just to make sure the two sides you happen to own are on speaking terms.

    >Guess the best way is to download trial versions and see the
    >diferences. I like learning new things so changing from PS7 to
    >capture nx or lighroom is not a hassle. I also like some of
    >the things the nik color efx can do. Will check out the books
    >too.

    It should be fun! Especially with a good book in your lap.

    > Would like to use one program for conversion/ editing.
    In that case, skip Lightroom. It's really designed to work WITH one of the Photoshops if you want to edit as well. Although I must say that since you can open the files for editing in Photoshop from within Lightroom, moving from Lightroom to Photoshop and back to Lightroom probably isn't any more hassle than moving from Capture NX's organization mode to editing mode and back again. And I can tell you from experience moving from Lightroom to Photoshop Elements (to edit) and back to Lightroom is a LOT less hassle than moving back and forth from the Organizer to the Editor and back within Photoshop Elements, if I'm working with RAW files. So if you'd like, you can al-most pretend that Lightroom+Photoshop is "one program." Otherwise, stick to NX.

    >Thank you very much for your imput
    Much obliged! I've picked the brains of folks on this site so much that it's nice to be able to "give back" once in a while!

    -- LaDonna

    _________________________________
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                            
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 10:16 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #87. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 73


    Canton, US
              

    >

  • Lightroom is absolutely fantastic for organizing your pix
    >and do the minimal kinds of processing you need if the pix are
    >basically ok the way they are, but it's really not an image
    >processor in the PS sense of the word. So Lightroom will
    >allow you to open NEFs, adjust the settings (white balance,
    >exposure, etc.), and do a little bit of editing, but won't
    >change your photo to show anything that wasn't in the picture
    >to begin with.

    Hi LaDonna,

    I don't think you're giving full credit to Lightroom's processing capabilites. Its ability to make changes and corrections is quite extensive, and the latest version has even greater ability to apply those changes to local areas of the image. In all honesty, the kinds of edits that Lightroom can do is more than what is required for the vast majority of images. The really neat thing is that it can do these things while the image is still a RAW file and doesn't actually apply them to the image until you save it as a JPEG or a TIFF or whatever... the original data remains untouched.

    That's the power of Lightroom or any other good RAW conversion program. Imagine shooting a roll of film and having the ability and freedom to develop it in an infinite number of ways, while never damaging the latent images on that roll of film. You can "develop" your digital "film" as easily as dropping a roll of film off at the local Wal-Mart, or you can fuss with each image yourself to your heart's content as if you had a film darkroom in your basement. The choice is up to you.

    But if, as you say, you want to put something in the picture that wasn't there to begin with, then you need a graphics program such as Photoshop. But in that case you've begun to leave the realm of photography and entered the kingdom of digital art.



    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

  • Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 10:57 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #88. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 87


    Ignacio, US
              

    >But if, as you say, you want to put something in the picture
    >that wasn't there to begin with, then you need a graphics
    >program such as Photoshop. But in that case you've begun to
    >leave the realm of photography and entered the kingdom of
    >digital art.

    Hi Steve,

    Umm, so?

    Is there something taboo about crossing that line?

    What's the use of an image if you don't use it somewhere or express an idea with it?

    Personally I'd suggest that in the digital world, not using PS or InDesign, or Illustrator, or... is putting creativity in a very small box.

    It's not even always about modifying the photo. Most of the time it's about layout. i.e. making holiday cards, printing a collage for the wall on one canvass, adding names/dates at the bottom of a photo.

    Got any old photos of your family where you wish you knew the history of it?

    Try putting a paragraph of history on an image in LR.

    RAW can't do that.

    Actually NX can do this better than LR because you can use a colorize edit step an a Wacom pad to write on the image. It isn't elegant but it works.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Mon 04-Aug-08 03:06 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #91. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 88


    Canton, US
              

    >>But if, as you say, you want to put something in the
    >picture
    >>that wasn't there to begin with, then you need a graphics
    >>program such as Photoshop. But in that case you've begun
    >to
    >>leave the realm of photography and entered the kingdom of
    >>digital art.
    >
    >Hi Steve,
    >
    >Umm, so?
    >
    >Is there something taboo about crossing that line?

    Did I say there was anything taboo about it? No, I didn't. Seriously, Mark, are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?



    >What's the use of an image if you don't use it somewhere or
    >express an idea with it?

    Are you saying that an image can't do those things on its own without being manipulated in some way?



    >Personally I'd suggest that in the digital world, not using PS
    >or InDesign, or Illustrator, or... is putting creativity in a
    >very small box.


    Very interesting, coming from someone who recently said that those in the digital world use those kinds of programs as a crutch.


    >It's not even always about modifying the photo. Most of the
    >time it's about layout. i.e. making holiday cards, printing a
    >collage for the wall on one canvass, adding names/dates at the
    >bottom of a photo.


    So what's stopping you from doing that when shooting RAW? RAW is just what you use during the original capture; what you do with it afterwards is wide open - the sky is the limit. It gives you more possibilities for the base image that you feed to those manipulation programs.

    >
    >Got any old photos of your family where you wish you knew the
    >history of it?
    >
    >Try putting a paragraph of history on an image in LR.
    >
    >RAW can't do that.

    Uhmmm... try driving from New York to Paris. A car can't do that. But a car can easily get you to the port. I'd rather ride in the bigger, more comfortable, and higher performance car that RAW gives me.


    >Actually NX can do this better than LR because you can use a
    >colorize edit step an a Wacom pad to write on the image. It
    >isn't elegant but it works.

    I still don't think you understand what RAW is even though you claim you've used it for a long time.

    If you want to make collages, use a collage program. If you want to make greeting cards, use a greeting card program. If you want to put text on a photo, use a program that allows that. None of this takes away from the reasons to use RAW or a program like Lightroom.

    If for some reason you're just hung up on the idea of using more than one program to do those special kinds of projects, simply use Photoshop for everything... you can convert the RAW file with the built-in ACR and then go from there.

    In my situation, I find that the combination of LR and PS Elements is more than enough to do everything you mention, and then some.

    Really, Mark, you aren't making much sense if you are trying to use this as an example of why JPEG is better than RAW.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 02:19 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #99. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 91


    Ignacio, US
              


    >Did I say there was anything taboo about it? No, I didn't.
    >Seriously, Mark, are you arguing just for the sake of
    >arguing?

    Have you counted the times you use "but"?

    >>What's the use of an image if you don't use it somewhere
    >or express an idea with it?
    >
    >Are you saying that an image can't do those things on its own
    >without being manipulated in some way?

    What I'm saying is you are drawing a non-sensical line in the sand. Someone could just as easily define changing WB as digital art.

    Categorizing the alternatives to raw out of the "photographic realm" is a silly tactic.

    >>Personally I'd suggest that in the digital world, not
    >using PS
    >>or InDesign, or Illustrator, or... is putting creativity
    >in a
    >>very small box.
    >
    >
    >Very interesting, coming from someone who recently said that
    >those in the digital world use those kinds of programs as a
    >crutch.

    They do and I'm not the only one who says that.

    Ever heard of Scott Kelby, probably the most well known PS trainer bar none ever. He admonishes people hot to get into the mind set of fixing it in PS. It is a mainstream problem when the big-wig PS guru tells a bunch of pros at a seminar to use their cameras right.

    >>It's not even always about modifying the photo. Most of
    >the
    >>time it's about layout. i.e. making holiday cards,
    >printing a
    >>collage for the wall on one canvass, adding names/dates at
    >the
    >>bottom of a photo.
    >
    >
    >So what's stopping you from doing that when shooting RAW?

    PS, InDesign, Painter and all those programs can't read raw. AND a lot of what they do can't be done in 16 bit.

    >I still don't think you understand what RAW is even though you
    >claim you've used it for a long time.
    >
    >If you want to make collages, use a collage program. If you
    >want to make greeting cards, use a greeting card program. If
    >you want to put text on a photo, use a program that allows
    >that. None of this takes away from the reasons to use RAW or
    >a program like Lightroom.

    You mean other than you can't use raw in any of those other programs.

    >If for some reason you're just hung up on the idea of using
    >more than one program to do those special kinds of projects,
    >simply use Photoshop for everything... you can convert the
    >RAW file with the built-in ACR and then go from there.

    That's the rub Steve. "convert". There is no point in using raw to get to these other programs if the camera jpeg is perfect already, none.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Tue 05-Aug-08 03:15 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #105. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 99


    Canton, US
              

    >

    >
    >Have you counted the times you use "but"?

    No, but why do you ask?


    >
    >What I'm saying is you are drawing a non-sensical line in the
    >sand. Someone could just as easily define changing WB as
    >digital art.

    >Categorizing the alternatives to raw out of the
    >"photographic realm" is a silly tactic.


    Sorry, I never did that. Perhaps you were too busy counting the word "but" to realize it.

    I never said that alternatives to RAW were out of the photographic realm. That's your strawman. When I said that, I was specifically referring to the practice of adding things to an image that were not there to begin with. That has nothing to do with changing white balance, tweaking contrast or colors, etc. It's about cloning in objects or otherwise manipulating the physical elements of the picture.



    >>Very interesting, coming from someone who recently said
    >that
    >>those in the digital world use those kinds of programs as
    >a
    >>crutch.
    >
    >They do and I'm not the only one who says that.

    You contradict yourself, Mark. Out of one side of your pencil comes an admonishment about using these programs as a crutch, and out of the other side of that pencil comes praise for using those kinds of programs to be creative outside of RAW. Which way do you want it?


    >
    >Ever heard of Scott Kelby, probably the most well known PS
    >trainer bar none ever. He admonishes people hot to get into
    >the mind set of fixing it in PS. It is a mainstream problem
    >when the big-wig PS guru tells a bunch of pros at a seminar to
    >use their cameras right.


    Where's the conflict there? He's right. It's always better to get it right in the camera no matter what format you use. You still have the completely wrong idea that the main reason for RAW or PS is to fix mistakes. That is not true. No amount of RAW adjustment will fix an image that is out of focus, blurred from a shutter speed that is too slow, or exposed outside of the limits of the image sensor. That's what he's talking about.

    It would appear that you simply have such a low view of digital that you think those of us who take the format seriously shoot like monkeys and expect the computer to clean up after us. Sorry to burst that bubble, it ain't true.

    >
    >PS, InDesign, Painter and all those programs can't read raw.
    >AND a lot of what they do can't be done in 16 bit.

    You keep beating that totally irrelevant horse.


    >You mean other than you can't use raw in any of those other
    >programs.

    Again, totally irrelevant. Whatever you do to an image to add non-photographic elements to it has nothing to do with the original photograph or how you produce it. In the vast majority of cases, the picture that comes out of LR or NX is the finished product. Period.



    >
    >That's the rub Steve. "convert". There is no point
    >in using raw to get to these other programs if the camera jpeg
    >is perfect already, none.

    Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect" can often be improved on. You see what you get straight of the camera as being perfection, so just be happy with it.

    Quite honestly, though, if you're feeding an image to painter or whatever to substantially change its character, there is really no reason to start with a RAW image. What you consider to be "perfect" is going to be changed anyway. However, if it's already PERFECT in your mind, that begs the question of why you would do anything else to it anyway. You're still trying to have it both ways.






    >

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Thu 07-Aug-08 11:13 AM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #112. "[i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect" ca"
    In response to Reply # 105


    US
              

    "Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect" can often be improved on. You see what you get straight of the camera as being perfection, so just be happy with it."

    Let's get away from reference to "perfect" and, instead, refer to the "best that can be done." I deliberately shot an important event with "RAW+JPG" files. When finished, I did what I was able with the RAW files, using CaptureNX and PhotoShop Elements at home as well as the full PhotoShop at work. I was unable to make the RAW images look as good as the JPGs that came out of the camera. I'd have to be completely anal to continue using RAW under these circumstances.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Thu 07-Aug-08 02:30 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #113. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect"
    In response to Reply # 112


    Canton, US
              

    >Let's get away from reference to "perfect" and,
    >instead, refer to the "best that can be done." I
    >deliberately shot an important event with "RAW+JPG"
    >files. When finished, I did what I was able with the RAW
    >files, using CaptureNX and PhotoShop Elements at home as well
    >as the full PhotoShop at work. I was unable to make the RAW
    >images look as good as the JPGs that came out of the camera.
    >I'd have to be completely anal to continue using RAW under
    >these circumstances.

    That may be your experience, but others find just the opposite to be true. First you have to define what "just as good as" means. Second, just because you weren't able to duplicate that look doesn't mean the original was "better" or that the process itself is not capable. If RAW produced inferior results, nobody would use it; and neither camera nor software companies would spend all the money they do to develop that technology.

    What it comes down to is that if you think a processed RAW file has to look identical to what would come straight out of the camera, then there is no point to shooting in RAW.

    Some people won't shoot color negative film because they can't make a print that they feel looks "as good" as an original Velvia slide. Yet the advantages of negative film are not diminished in any way.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Thu 07-Aug-08 04:30 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #115. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect"
    In response to Reply # 113


    US
              

    >That may be your experience, but others find just the opposite
    >to be true. First you have to define what "just as good
    >as" means. Second, just because you weren't able to
    >duplicate that look doesn't mean the original was
    >"better" or that the process itself is not capable.
    > If RAW produced inferior results, nobody would use it; and
    >neither camera nor software companies would spend all the
    >money they do to develop that technology.
    >
    >What it comes down to is that if you think a processed RAW
    >file has to look identical to what would come straight out of
    >the camera, then there is no point to shooting in RAW.
    >
    >Some people won't shoot color negative film because they can't
    >make a print that they feel looks "as good" as an
    >original Velvia slide. Yet the advantages of negative film
    >are not diminished in any way.

    I never used the term "identical." I said that "I was unable to make the RAW images look as good as the JPGs that came out of the camera." Why the need to define "better?" When you look at two photos and say "This one looks better," do you have a definition?

    You referred to a comparison between negative film with Velvia slides. If a photographer believes that Velvia produces better images than negative film, then that photographer should use Velvia. Period. Why in the world should anyone knowingly use a product that produces inferior results? Personally, I wasn't much of a Velvia fan - my all-time favorite was Kodachrome and, if it were still readily available (and processing was easily obtained), I would have never bought a digital camera.

    Granted, others may well have had opposite experiences and they should certainly continue in whatever satisfies their preferences.

    PS - Kodachrome trivia... It was developed (no pun intended) by two PhD guys in the late thirties, Dr. Godansky and Dr. Mannes (the "s" is silent). Kodachrome was described (only partially in jest) as "the best available from God and man."

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 01:12 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #126. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect"
    In response to Reply # 115


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >I never used the term "identical." I said that
    >"I was unable to make the RAW images look as good as the
    >JPGs that came out of the camera." Why the need to
    >define "better?" When you look at two photos and
    >say "This one looks better," do you have a
    >definition?

    Sorry if I assumed you meant "as good as" to be the same thing as "identical." So exactly what do you mean by "as good as?"

    My point was that just because you couldn't achieve the "quality" you were looking for doesn't mean that the process was not capable of it.



    >You referred to a comparison between negative film with Velvia
    >slides. If a photographer believes that Velvia produces
    >better images than negative film, then that photographer
    >should use Velvia. Period. Why in the world should anyone
    >knowingly use a product that produces inferior results?

    That's the point. Some like Velvia, some like other films. But to say one is inferior to the other isn't really accurate. Although, to be honest, I don't understand that anyone would have actually preferred the overly-blue cast that Ektachrome always gave.


    >Personally, I wasn't much of a Velvia fan - my all-time
    >favorite was Kodachrome and, if it were still readily
    >available (and processing was easily obtained), I would have
    >never bought a digital camera.


    I was also a long-time user of Kodachrome. I loved the colors and detail it gave. But one could easily say that it was an "inferior" film because it was painfully slow and too contrasty. But it was certainly the "best" choice among the crop of slide films available in its day.


    >
    >
    >PS - Kodachrome trivia... It was developed (no pun intended)
    >by two PhD guys in the late thirties, Dr. Godansky and Dr.
    >Mannes (the "s" is silent).


    And all along I thought it was invented by Paul Simon... or at least by Al Gore.


    >Kodachrome was
    >described (only partially in jest) as "the best available
    >from God and man."


    True, that is, until RAW came along.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Thu 07-Aug-08 04:39 PM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #116. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub. You think the camera JPEG is either perfect or you throw it away. That's a rather narrow approach, wouldn't you say? What you miss is that even what you think is "perfect"
    In response to Reply # 112


    Seattle, US
              

    >Let's get away from reference to "perfect" and,
    >instead, refer to the "best that can be done." I
    >deliberately shot an important event with "RAW+JPG"
    >files. When finished, I did what I was able with the RAW
    >files, using CaptureNX and PhotoShop Elements at home as well
    >as the full PhotoShop at work. I was unable to make the RAW
    >images look as good as the JPGs that came out of the camera.
    >I'd have to be completely anal to continue using RAW under
    >these circumstances.

    I am curious, did you develop or print your own images when you shot film?

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Thu 07-Aug-08 07:28 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #117. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 116
    Thu 07-Aug-08 08:10 PM by Socrates

    US
              

    I am curious, did you develop or print your own images when you shot film?

    --Ken


    Kodachrome? You're kidding, right?

    Since you apparently have no Kodachrome experience, suffice it to say that the cost would cause Bill Gates to hesitate.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Thu 07-Aug-08 11:20 PM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #119. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 117


    Seattle, US
              

    >Kodachrome? You're kidding, right?
    >
    >Since you apparently have no Kodachrome experience, suffice it
    >to say that the cost would cause Bill Gates to hesitate.

    Actually, I have shot many a roll of Kodachrome. And, while the K-14 process cannot easily exist outside of a commercial lab, I was not aware that you exclusively shot Kodachrome. So, if I am understanding your response correctly, you have not printed or developed other films yourself.

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Fri 08-Aug-08 12:11 AM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #120. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 119


    US
              

    >Actually, I have shot many a roll of Kodachrome. And, while
    >the K-14 process cannot easily exist outside of a commercial
    >lab, I was not aware that you exclusively shot Kodachrome.
    >So, if I am understanding your response correctly, you have
    >not printed or developed other films yourself.
    >
    >--Ken
    >
    My serious shooting was 100% Kodachrome so the answer is "No, I didn't develop or print myself." Even printing with Kodachrome was not a "do it yourself" project unless you wanted to go the "el crappo" route of an inter-negative.

    Just for the fun of it, I did a bit of an Internet search. As near as I can determine, there is currently only one lab in the world that will process Kodachrome today. They're located in Kansas. European users still mail rolls to a Switzerland address and Kodak picks up the cost to/from the U.S.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Replytoken Silver Member Nikonian since 08th Mar 2008Fri 08-Aug-08 01:06 AM
    1184 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #121. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 120


    Seattle, US
              

    Thank you for the reply. I want to be clear that I was not asking questions to make any kind of judgement. A close friend of mine only shot slides, and he would never be caught dead anywhere near a darkroom, and he had more talent in is little finger than I could ever hope to acquire over an entire life. I do not equate a love of PP with photographic talent.

    What I am trying to understand from people who express an aversion to PP in the digital age is whether they spent time doing it, and enjoyed it, in the days of film. Personally, I spent some time working in a color lab, and I tried to do B&W at home. While I liked the concepts, I hated the urgency of working with chemistry. Digital freed me of the time pressure, and it also allowed me to explore a variety of creative options with an image, all without pressure. I still find PP work to be difficult, but its a side of photography where I want to further develop my skills. But, I can fully understand the approach of getting it right in the camera, like we did when shooting film with little latitude, and enjoying the results without the need for much, if any, PP. Life is too short to be living it on anybody else's terms, with the possible exception of my wife. Thank you again for your replies; they have been very helpful.

    --Ken

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Fri 08-Aug-08 10:36 AM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #123. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 121
    Fri 08-Aug-08 10:39 AM by Socrates

    US
              

    Cheers!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    markbarendt Silver Member Nikonian since 24th Sep 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 10:50 AM
    894 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #124. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 121


    Ignacio, US
              

    I did and do enjoy it. The ungency of the chemistry is interesting.

    I've also done a lot of digital PP. For me, from a creative point of view it's too easy to the point of boredom, there's hardley any risk of failure. I have to jump over the Moon to do things many clients or buddies can't or won't do.

    It is more interesting, more fun, and easier to set myself apart with good camera work (digital or film) and with film because most people are not willing to mess with the chems or enlargers.

    Mark

    A Nikonian in Durango Colorado.

    Actually, I'm not all that interested in the subject of photography. Once the picture is in the box, I'm not all that interested in what happens next. Hunters, after all, aren't cooks.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 03:27 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #128. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 124


    Canton, US
              

    >I did and do enjoy it. The ungency of the chemistry is
    >interesting.
    >
    >I've also done a lot of digital PP. For me, from a creative
    >point of view it's too easy to the point of boredom, there's
    >hardley any risk of failure. I have to jump over the Moon to
    >do things many clients or buddies can't or won't do.
    >
    >It is more interesting, more fun, and easier to set myself
    >apart with good camera work (digital or film) and with film
    >because most people are not willing to mess with the chems or
    >enlargers.

    If I still had my darkroom I'd be agreeing with you wholeheartedly. However, I simply can't justify the cost of rebuilding one in my current house, let alone the price of chemicals and photographic paper these days.

    Don't let the apparent ease of digital fool you. In many cases it can be much easier than working in the darkroom, but much of that is simply a matter of convenience. Anything is easy if you've done it enough. Developing a roll of film is as simple as being able to read a thermometer and a clock, right? The real trick to darkroom work is getting a print to show what you what to show.

    Good camera work, good darkroom work, good digital PP work, the common factor is good work. It's all important, and to me there are no shortcuts whether you choose to shoot in digital or film.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 03:18 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #127. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 121


    Canton, US
              

    I think you describe the different approaches very well. Those of us who approach photography with the goal of getting a perfect slide in the camera would naturally be attracted toward doing the same thing with digital. In that case, JPEGs are probably the closest thing to what one is accustomed to.

    Others, however, approach photography from the perspective of what is done in the camera to be merely a starting point, with a print or other form of output being the goal. (I'm often reminded of Ansel Adams' famous statement about the negative being the score and the print being the performance.) From that approach, what is done in the darkroom is every bit as important as what is done in the camera. To me, this is the RAW approach to digital.

    Both approaches are equally valid. In fact, that's what I did when I shot film. I had my 35mm bodies loaded with slide film and my 6x7 loaded with negative film. What I found is that although films like Kodachrome indeed gave the "nice bright colors of summer," many if not most pictures benefited from the more subtle graduation of tones that negative film offers. And if the end goal was prints for albums or exhibit, negative film was heads and shoulders above slide films. That's why professional wedding and portrait photographers NEVER shot slides, but used wonderful negative films like Vericolor.

    Me, I liked it both ways, but I prefered working with negatives because of the greater control and expanded options they gave me. Others preferred slides because of the bright colors they could get right out of the box. It's really the same thing as the RAW vs JPEG decision.


    The nice thing is that with digital we can have our cake and eat it, too! Shoot JPEG if you like the slide approach; shoot RAW if you like the negatives approach. My point is that with RAW you have the most complete set of options to you: you can process with presets to simulate the slide approach, or you can process for a specific result to simulate the negatives approach. For me it's a win-win.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Fri 08-Aug-08 04:10 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #129. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 127
    Fri 08-Aug-08 04:12 PM by Socrates

    US
              

    "And if the end goal was prints for albums or exhibit, negative film was heads and shoulders above slide films. That's why professional wedding and portrait photographers NEVER shot slides, but used wonderful negative films like Vericolor."

    You're partially correct. Kodachrome prints for albums or exhibits were absolutely stunning if done properly (which, of course, was impossible at home). I'd go so far as to say that there wasn't and isn't a negative film that so much as comes close.

    Slide film (especially Kodachrome) was not suitable for wedding and portrait photographers because the contrast made close-ups very unflattering. Further, such photos frequently (by design) did not reflect reality. With slide filme (again especially Kodachrome), it was difficult to air-brush out the pimple on her nose.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 05:54 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #130. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 129


    Canton, US
              

    >
    >You're partially correct. Kodachrome prints for albums or
    >exhibits were absolutely stunning if done properly
    >(which, of course, was impossible at home). I'd go so far as
    >to say that there wasn't and isn't a negative film that so
    >much as comes close.

    The key is "if done properly," and that was very dependent on the lab that did it for you. In that case, you had little control over your own results. Processes like Cibachrome gave nice bright and contrasty prints, but they weren't necessarily the best if you wanted prints that were more subtle.

    IMO the best prints from slides did indeed come from an internegative. Slides are meant to be looked at when backlit or projected, which gave them that artificially snappy look. An internegative was often the best way to translate that look to something that would render well on paper. Direct positive papers often just overemphasized the high contrast of the original slides.

    I think some of the most beautiful prints from slides came from the laser process. Remember that? An early form of "digital" where the slide was scanned by a machine that used a laser to burn an image onto a film internegative, which was then printed by conventional processes.

    >
    >Slide film (especially Kodachrome) was not suitable for
    >wedding and portrait photographers because the contrast made
    >close-ups very unflattering. Further, such photos frequently
    >(by design) did not reflect reality. With slide filme (again
    >especially Kodachrome), it was difficult to air-brush out the
    >pimple on her nose.

    No photograph truly reflects reality, as all photographs are *interpretations* of a snippet of time from three dimensional space to an artifically frozen two-dimensional world. You're right that the main problem with Kodachrome was that it was not very flattering for people pictures. Its forte was green landscapes and deep blue skies. One could argue that it rendered a bland world into an unrealistically colorful one. Color negative films did a much better job of accurately rendering skin tones and subtle shades of peoples' clothing.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sat 09-Aug-08 12:17 AM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #133. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 130
    Sat 09-Aug-08 12:22 AM by Socrates

    US
              

    "I think some of the most beautiful prints from slides came from the laser process. Remember that? An early form of "digital" where the slide was scanned by a machine that used a laser to burn an image onto a film internegative, which was then printed by conventional processes."

    I fully agree with your conclusion but I didn't realize that an interneg was involved. I can't remember the details but something is gnawing at me that the printing was direct. Are you certain about the interneg?

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    greyface Gold Member Nikonian since 30th Jul 2008Sat 09-Aug-08 05:04 AM
    1584 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #134. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 133


    New Bedford, US
              

    Printing from a slide was also available using Ilford cibachrome A process, I believe. You had to use their paper and chemicals. The wet paper was very fragile. I used it in the early 80's.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Sat 09-Aug-08 10:12 AM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #135. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 133


    Canton, US
              


    >
    >I fully agree with your conclusion but I didn't realize that
    >an interneg was involved. I can't remember the details but
    >something is gnawing at me that the printing was direct. Are
    >you certain about the interneg?


    I recall that when I used them back in the 1980's they sent back the interneg with the print. It's possible, of course, that other labs developed a direct laser printing process since then.


    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                                                
    Socrates Silver Member Nikonian since 01st Apr 2008Sat 09-Aug-08 08:25 PM
    760 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #137. "RE: [i]"Yes, there's the rub..."
    In response to Reply # 135


    US
              

    >I recall that when I used them back in the 1980's they sent
    >back the interneg with the print. It's possible, of course,
    >that other labs developed a direct laser printing process
    >since then.
    >
    >
    I suspect that there was a direct process. I can kind of remember ads making that claim. Oh well, it's academic now.

    I'm out of this thread. We've beat it to death.

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Thu 07-Aug-08 10:21 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #118. "All kind of moot now (for me)"
    In response to Reply # 0
    Thu 07-Aug-08 10:22 PM by TXCiclista

    Fort Worth, US
              

    The announcement of a free upgrade to NX 2 has made this all kind of moot now. At least, moot from the "I'm switching from RAW to JPG" since having NX 2 in my arsenal means I can get the best results from RAW. It came down to $100 for Lightroom 2 upgrade or $109 for NX + NX2 upgrade. That was an easy enough decision.

    Still, this has been a great discussion. Seems like, with the exception of a few prolific posters ( ) this really stayed off the soapbox. I'm hoping this will serve as a useful resource for future readers. And fwiw, if I ever make a "moving from RAW to JPG" post again, please link to this post and then tell me to "#### off."

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
    smb_ohio Registered since 18th Mar 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 05:57 PM
    1290 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #131. "RE: All kind of moot now (for me)"
    In response to Reply # 118


    Canton, US
              

    Well, as one of the more prolific posters in this thread, let me wish you the best of luck with your decision. Soapboxes or not, there are plenty of people here to give you advice on whatever program(s) you choose to use. If nothing else, I hope you've seen that there is no one approach that is "correct," it all depends on a huge number of factors.

    Steve

    A Nikonian in northeastern Ohio

    http://stephen-bishop.com

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
    TXCiclista Registered since 15th May 2006Fri 08-Aug-08 08:50 PM
    1791 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #132. "RE: All kind of moot now (for me)"
    In response to Reply # 131


    Fort Worth, US
              

    You bet

    -----
    This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    pauljm Registered since 31st Jul 2008Sat 09-Aug-08 12:08 PM
    10 posts Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin    Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profile
    #136. "RE: Switch from RAW to JPG. Critique my rationale..."
    In response to Reply # 0


    GB
              

    Exactly my argument used in my post above. No time, no time, no time!!

      

    Alert Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    Forums Lobby MASTER YOUR TOOLS - Hardware & Software Digital postprocessing & workflow (Public) topic #45716 Previous topic | Next topic


    Take the Nikonians Tour and learn more about being a Nikonian Wiki /FAQ /Help Listen to our MP3 photography radio channels Find anything on Nikon and imaging technology - fast!

    Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2014
    All Rights Reserved

    Nikonians®, NikoScope® and NikoniansAcademy™ are trademarks owned by Nikonians.org.
    Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.