Vspecsir wrote:.

Whats the difference shooting in RAW versus shooting in JPG format??.

RAW is hardly processed, JPG is processed using your in-camera settings.

What are the advantages to shooting in raw?.

You can correct whitebalance and exposure errors a lot easier. You can create your jpg just as you like..

Is there special software to edit RAW?.

Yes. Adobe Pohotshop, Nikon Capture NX, bibble and there's a lot more out there.Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..

To keep it short...

JPEGAdvantagesSmall file sizeProcessed in camera and therefore ready to print/viewUniversal standardDisadvantagesSmall loss of detail in imagesLess ability to change the image when post-processing.

RAWAdvantagesFull control over the image - process it how you wantNo loss of detail.

Finer steps in contrast, colour, brightness etc because RAW is usually 12 or 16 bit rather than jpeg 8 bitPossibility of improving your images with more advanced software in the futureDisadvantagesLarge file size (Storage/Write time issues).

All images require Post Processing though often this can be by batch conversion i.e done automatically by your PC.Raw formats differ between manufacturersThe processing software sometimes cost extra.

If you are very new to photography stick with jpeg but experiment a lot with different settings. If you have something very important to photograph and fear that you are not competant enough for the event consider using RAW and getting it right later..

I also thing there is merit in experimenting with RAW and changing your settings on the PC to see how they affect the image. You can learn a lot that way about how camera settings impact on the final image you get.Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/..

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall..

This keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg..

Yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

Hi. Although I have set my camera (Pentax istDS) to give me the jpeg image I want in regards to saturation, color, etc without post processing shooting in Raw allows me more latitude in white balance and actually takes little time to get right. The biggest advantage I found is that I can not set my camera to zero sharpening in jpeg but I can shoot in Raw and set my Raw converter to zero sharpening. This is important to me as I sell some of my images on a site that requires zero sharpening.Judy and The cutterpup'pentax and proud of it'http://orchidimages.net/..

I've little to add to this post except to say that it all depends on the jpg's your camera decides on. I've cameras that compress a lot and the jpg's are OK but I wish I had a say in it. I've others that let me chose things and I can get a jpg of about 6 or more MB from 8 mp that is so good I don't bother with raw most of the time..

But, when I can see that things are going to be tricky I switch to raw: in the same way that I use a tripod, CW or spot metering when it is needed. In other words I really depends on you: there's no rule that you must use raw all the time or else jpg's all the time..

As for WB, using something white for a reference takes a couple of seconds but, again, cameras these days are pretty good and "Auto" works most of the time. It's mostly a question/matter of knowing the camera and it's limitations..

Regards, David..

Although I am not new to SLR photography, I am very new (like 2 weeks new) to DSLR photography. I think that because of responses to questions like those answered by you two guys, I am beginning to understand a little more about the PP aspect of this, for me, new art. I am still confused by much however!.

When you "view" a raw image in a program like FastStone, am I correct in thinking that no processing has been done to the image as is automatically done in the camera for a jpeg? Is it also true that when you talk about converting a raw image, it means converting to an unaltered jpeg, that can then be PP as you like? As I can't drag a raw image from FastStone into PSE5, does that mean that a raw image cannot be altered until it is "converted" to that first jpeg? That is, when you talk about converting a raw image, what is it that the image is being converted to?.

Any info regarding this PP, to me, mystery, would be greatly appreciated. For instance, some threads have spoken about the merits of Tone Up. Then they mention that it does not have Nikon D80 support (I have a D80). Then the thread goes on to say that it works with the D80. Slightly confusing to me..

Thanks,Gary..

David Hughes wrote:.

I've little to add to this post except to say that it all dependson the jpg's your camera decides on. I've cameras that compress alot and the jpg's are OK but I wish I had a say in it. I've othersthat let me chose things and I can get a jpg of about 6 or more MBfrom 8 mp that is so good I don't bother with raw most of the time..

The issue of compression/image deterioration is really a non issue with most SLRS. All can produce good JPEGs with essentailly no loss of image detail arising from jpeg compression..

But, when I can see that things are going to be tricky I switch toraw: in the same way that I use a tripod, CW or spot metering whenit is needed. In other words I really depends on you: there's norule that you must use raw all the time or else jpg's all the time..

I shoot snaps in jpeg and serious shoots (usually low available light) in RAW. The extra dynamic range ges fully used (And I wish I had more!).

As for WB, using something white for a reference takes a couple ofseconds but, again, cameras these days are pretty good and "Auto"works most of the time. It's mostly a question/matter of knowingthe camera and it's limitations..

Very few cameras work well on "Auto" in artificial light. Using incandescent settings mostly works and, as you say, you can take a reference But mixed lighting indoors (e.g. Sunlight through a woindow and incandescent light) can be a pain.Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/..

Rockmoor wrote:.

When you "view" a raw image in a program like FastStone, am Icorrect in thinking that no processing has been done to the imageas is automatically done in the camera for a jpeg?.

Yes. - A RAW program either takes the presets e.g for white balance etc that you have given it or reads the camera settings and produces a version of the shot on screen which you can then freely change by mixing the "ingedients" differently.

Is it also true that when you talk about converting a raw image, it meansconverting to an unaltered jpeg, that can then be PP as you like?.

Mostly you convert to JPEG or TIFF (Very large files) but some programs e.g Nikon Capture NX that I use allow you to store many versions of the same shot with different proportion of the same ingredient all in the same RAW file with next to no addition in file size. I can view any of the versions and print them etc from that one RAW file. But to send to my online galleries at Zenfolio I need to convert to JPEG. I also use a different programme for printing - Qimage which cannot read RAW files from my D80 and thus I need to save as a JPEG or TIFF to print..

As I can't drag a raw image from FastStone into PSE5, does thatmean that a raw image cannot be altered until it is "converted" tothat first jpeg? That is, when you talk about converting a rawimage, what is it that the image is being converted to?.

Not familiar with FastStone but unless a programme can read your RAW files you need to produce a high quality jpeg or TIFF to work in something like Photoshop..

Any info regarding this PP, to me, mystery, would be greatlyappreciated. For instance, some threads have spoken about themerits of Tone Up. Then they mention that it does not have NikonD80 support (I have a D80). Then the thread goes on to say that itworks with the D80. Slightly confusing to me..

I know nothing of Tone Up..

If you are shooting with a D80 (as I do) and have no large investment in time or money in PP software I strongly recommend Capture NX. It will work with both RAW and JPEG photos. It gets the best out of your images. It is a pain having to pay for it but it is good value for money at the sort of prices you pay in the US (which is also what I paid!).

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/..

If your camera has a good JPEG engine, JPEGs are fine when you are in full control of the lighting, have time to accurately measure exposure and generally do not need to postprocess your photos..

In all other cases it is theoretically better to shoot raw, because raw files can take a lot more tweaking before it starts to show in the final print. Of course available memory can limit you to taking JPEGs in certain situations - raw files are either uncompressed or losslessly compressed, thus take up much more space on your memory card than JPEGs, which use lossy compression and a bit depth of 8 bits per channel only..

A man called Louis Dobson has put together an immensely useful tutorial on postprocessing raw shots of high-contrast scenes. You can find it here:http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=23564289pbase Supporter..

When you view a raw file in acr for example the program is picking up on the embedded tags in the file, like saturation, WB, etc. if in the conversion program you have the auto checks off then you see the raw image alone without the embedded tags. but with this you have no known starting points; it would quite a bit longer to process the shot..

No you cannot drag a raw to some other pp program it has to be converted first, to jpeg or tiff..

One key whether you go jpeg or raw is how much time care and pickiness you spend setting up your dslr when you first get it. by setting up I mean adjusting the saturation/sharpness/contrast/shooting mode(natural, vivid, or whatever it is called). the process is that you select the shooting/color mode make a test shot in your backyard then look at the monitor, adjust,reshoot, look, etc. you do this with every setting. this is done until you are satisfied. you are doing this with jpeg.



I did this with my dlr and have not changed it since it was done. I kept going back and forth to my backyard and looking then at the monitor till the two scenes were the same or as close as I could get it. now when shot a scene I know that the camera will render a very close duplicate to the original scene. this why I shoot jpegs; I know I am already getting the duplicate on the monitor..

As I stated in my earilier reply I shot slides for 32yrs. when I started about 95% went in to the trash. there is no pp with slides; what you shoot is what you get. as time went on 95-100% of the slides were technically right, that is the exposure. now it is an extreme rarely if I have one shot on 200-300 that is off in any way due to exposure. I now concern myself with composition, what I shoot not how..

This gives me a terrific edge in shooting jpegs; I have no intention to pp them anyway besides a minor tweak..

When I bring my pics to the pc: I do a quick sort(bad composition or just didn't like it), put them into pe5 and use the following-auto level, auto contrast, auto sharpen. then save as a tiff. on most most shots the first 2 auto buttons the effect is almost none. by now it is just a habit..

By the way in checking the camera when you set it up, I use a calibrated monitor. that way the colors are not being thrown off by bad pc electronics and or adjustments...

RAW is a total, unadulterated, pain in the a$s. I mean why on earth use a format which can neither be printed or emailed and can only be viewed with special programs?!!.

Having said that I use it all the time, the reason being that I have never to this day managed to take a photo which is perfect out of the camera..

No, wait, I did ONCE get one, but that was way back in 1947 and I had malaria at the time. Other than that one, I need to adjust almost every damn shot I take..

Things like Fill Light and Highlight Recovery are among miracles which rank with the Virgin Birth, I tell you. Imagine using a little slider which enables you to lighten all the dark parts of a photo, without lightening the white parts. Isn't that something?.

Maybe one day I'll get it right and can dump RAW. Can't wait...

Chris Elliott wrote:.

David Hughes wrote:.

I've little to add to this post except to say that it all dependson the jpg's your camera decides on. I've cameras that compress alot and the jpg's are OK but I wish I had a say in it. I've othersthat let me chose things and I can get a jpg of about 6 or more MBfrom 8 mp that is so good I don't bother with raw most of the time..

The issue of compression/image deterioration is really a non issuewith most SLRS. All can produce good JPEGs with essentailly no lossof image detail arising from jpeg compression..

In the lest ten years I've owned/used about 15 or so digital cameras and experience tells me that some do and some don't. Trouble is, some say "Fine" but you don't know what compression that is and some let you chose a compression from a list. I've noticed comments in reviews from time to time to the effect that some cameras top quality would be medium quality in others, because of vague compressions. Looking at the sizes of the D80 samples I was surprised how small they were, which was why I commented on it..

But, when I can see that things are going to be tricky I switch toraw: in the same way that I use a tripod, CW or spot metering whenit is needed. In other words I really depends on you: there's norule that you must use raw all the time or else jpg's all the time..

I shoot snaps in jpeg and serious shoots (usually low availablelight) in RAW. The extra dynamic range ges fully used (And I wish Ihad more!).

Couldn't agree more but I was brought up on slide film and compared to 55 years ago, things aren't so bad..

As for WB, using something white for a reference takes a couple ofseconds but, again, cameras these days are pretty good and "Auto"works most of the time. It's mostly a question/matter of knowingthe camera and it's limitations..

Very few cameras work well on "Auto" in artificial light. Usingincandescent settings mostly works and, as you say, you can take areference But mixed lighting indoors (e.g. Sunlight through awoindow and incandescent light) can be a pain..

Agree; I know of some emergency 12v lighting that must have tubes in it 15 years old and they work well but modern tubes are dreadfull and very orange (about 2,000 K or worse - if that's possible). Best to use a couple of flash guns then (bounce and pop-up for highlights) or improve things with a couple of candles  Pity they don't do Wratten filters big enough these days....

Luckily lights can be turned off and reflectors work well enough. And these days they give small ones away on the front of photo magazines..

BTW, in the RAW/JPG debate the point ought to be made that few people notice wide differences between shots and even poor ones will be praised by enough people to make you wonder why you bother. I've had pictures published taken with P&S's that I borrowed from my wife (as she had it with her at the time). Experience tells this old fool that subject and composition (whatever that it) carry a lot of weight, then focus and lastly exposure: the rest only get commented on when they are wildy out. Like those shots of people with green or purple fringes to their hair and the deep red faces you see. Look at TV's on display in shops....

Regards, David..

Many pros shoot high quality jpeg. Raw may be better in some cases but in most a waste of time and space. Many out of camera shots need post processing. I use the manual sliders in PS Elements 3 to get the desired results that I want. I find auto levels throw the colors off most of the time. ( I do have PS CS2 but Elements 3 is faster and easier to use and the results are great.) Photoforum 1..

David Hughes wrote:.

BTW, in the RAW/JPG debate the point ought to be made that fewpeople notice wide differences between shots and even poor oneswill be praised by enough people to make you wonder why you bother.I've had pictures published taken with P&S's that I borrowed frommy wife (as she had it with her at the time). Experience tells thisold fool that subject and composition (whatever that it) carry alot of weight, then focus and lastly exposure: the rest only getcommented on when they are wildy out. Like those shots of peoplewith green or purple fringes to their hair and the deep red facesyou see. Look at TV's on display in shops....

This is a GREAT point. Ever since getting immersed in dpr and it's enthusisatic band of pixel-perfectionists, I often find myself looking at some superb picture and saying to myself with great relish and an air of superiority, - "Haha, look how he lost detail in that little patch of white" or somethign similar..

I then have to stop and remind myself that it is a great picture and 99% of people who see it will recognise and enjoy it as such. Sometimes the search for technical perfection blinds us to the bigger picture. You are right...

When youre viewing the RAW file in FastStone, youre seeing a small res image that is imbedded into RAW file. When you press the key E (if you have FastStone set this way), youll open that RAW file in the RAW developing program that you have (in your case I believe it is ACR). No changes are made to the RAW file..

Additionally, ACR will not make any changes on the file. Depending on the settings, it will create a small xmp file with the same name of the RAW file (in the same folder). When you copy/move your RAW files, make sure you include those xmp files. Xmp contain your RAW developing setting of that file, so you can reopen it later using the same settings..

Once you are done with developing in ACR, ACR will open the file (transfer) to PSE and make it available to you for further pp. This is still not a jpeg (or tiff or something else). It is an image. Once youre done with pp, you will make that image an jpeg (or tiff,) by choosing the file format that you need..

This is how PCCS(n) ACR is working, maybe is different with PSE and you can check this, but it should be similar..

Some raw developing programs that came with the camera can "read" the RAW file better than ACR (or other third party programs), because they understand their RAW file better. With the little tweaking and learning of the third party software, this advantage will diminish. Usually, some third party programs are better than those that came with the camera..

Cheers,Alex..

Equipment list is in the profile...

A few seconds thought before squeezing the shutter button will eliminate a lot of post processing. I mark my pictures whenever I repair them; mostly by adding "B" to the file name for a mild tweak and "P" for a crop to a paper size or similar and "+" for a serious repair job..

Looking at 3 years' pictures the percentages tweaked are 17%, 20% and 05%. But I started many years ago and always used slide film and that was/is so expensive and so totally unfixable that you soon learn the hard and expensive way to get the things right before taking the picture..

Regards, David..

RAW is the full sensor data direct and unprocessed..

Processing it is usually not as difficult as people say. The software that came with you camera will almost certainly do it, and will apply the default settings ( sharpness etc. ) you used when you took the shot by default ( as a first guess, if you will ). You can adjust these easily..

For most images you will go no further..

But for some you will want to adjust the image. Using RAW you have absolutely clean data to start with. There is more detailed tonal information - the level of each component has between 1024 and 16,000-odd levels. Now noise may make some of that range useless, but you can see immediately that this is far more detail than the 256-levels in a JPEG. I cannot overstate the advantage this gives. Although strictly not the purpose, you can rescue very under-exposed photos with better results in RAW than in JPEG.



Another major advantage is that you can apply noise reduction software of your own choosing. Most of these will give superior results to the camera's own internal processing, which is limited by the lack of processing power available. This will also give you additional control, particularly to avoid what is called in-camera smearing. This is the camera over-aggressively removing noise and leaving a mess behind..

For ultimate power over your photo, use RAW..

Regarding software there are many applications that will produce a JPEG for you from a RAW file. However to post process these files effectively you should use a 16-bit capable application. Commercially the best option is Adobe Photoshop. Your camera may have come with suitable software - check this. It will likely do all you need, especially as you are starting..

There is a free 16-bit capable package called CinePaint availabel for MS Windows and Linux..

I'd suggest asking in your own camera's forum regarding specific software..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

As I see it: use raw if you need to repair a lot of your shots and jpg's if you don't..

Or, as I said, switch to raw when the subject it tricky; you'll soon learn to recognise when it's needed..

Refusing to use jpg's and always post processing is like refusing to use the spelling checker when writing a book: it just makes things harder but you can show-off about it and get all self-righteous. Many people seem to see raw as some sort of religion and jpg's as the work of the devil..

Fact is that you can set up the camera to do most of the post processing right up to the point where it saves as a jpg but people like to do it all themselves. It's a control freaks' thing at times....

Regards, Dasvid..

Not sure if I'd agree with all that ( speaking as a self-confessed control-freak  )..

While you can get the camera to do most of the processing for you, the problem is you probably will not know which ones were problems, or need tweaking, until you get home. If you have the RAW file this provides more options and better starting material to work from than with JPEG..

My argument is that RAW gives you both the RAW file and the JPEG with no effort. By default software processing usually uses in-camera settings recorded with the RAW file. All you need is the RAW file and you get the JPEG for free - what's the problem ? But because you have the RAW you have more options if you need or want them..

Like many things, once you have worked a little with RAW and found suitable tools to manage work flow that you are comfortable with, it becomes quite simple. But like most things you will not find this until you spend some time looking and trying..

Using only JPEG would be like, in film days, never keeping the negative, only keeping the print. Why do that ? .

RAW. It's free and it's better than JPEG. Why do without ? .

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

Well, yes and no. For 90% of the users 90% of the time I'd say a P&S (even without scene modes) would work. And most people are capable of learning from their mistakes; even at home after taking the picture..

But, on the other hand, I can see that some people won't be satisfied until all come out OK. It's just a question of where you draw the line..

Given a choice between spending a lifetime in front of the computer doing everything manually or using what I pass off as my brain and a bit of tweaking I get 98 to 995% OK (figures from some other post I did). And, of course, there's the histrogram and the (silly) little screen on the back to check..

If I was earning a living from it I'd be a bit more fussy but mostly I'd bracket before switching to raw..

And you say "Using only JPEG would be like, in film days, never keeping the negative, only keeping the print. Why do that ?" and I can only answer "No it isn't" because I mainly used reversal film and there's nothing you can do with a slide except put it in the bin. And as slide film is/was expensive you soon learn..

Have you noticed that your argument suggests that no one looks at the scene and thinks about exposure? And that the thinking is done after the event? Leaving it all the the camera's meter is as daft as a brush, imo: perhaps I'm the control freak....

Regards, David..

What a great thread!.

I've learned a lot from this, and had a few laughs..

Many look, but few see...

Been holding back as this topic has been aired so many times before and I have to agree with David. I'm an old guy who has used too many cameras over too many years, have shot film and slide, have been using digital for about 5yrs (will never use film again) have shot jpeg and raw and for "me" I prefer jpeg, although I take on very little work now I have mainly shot weds and industrial. Like David I take care before hitting the shutter button and do not spend much time on PC..

When people ask me whats the best way to do this or that My usual response is, If the results are "good" and acceptable to you and your client, what matters how you acheived that result, Just keep on doing it.Re: "negatives" on cameras with/without raw jpgs are still the negatives..

RegardsCarl..

David et al,.

Not to do this to death, but simply to say that :.

(a) Producing the base JPEG from RAW just isn't as big a chore as people make out. The computer does it for you automatically..

(b) Proper Exposure. We're not disagreeing here. Whatever you shoot in at least try and get the best exposure you can..

(c) There is no way to avoid saying it - RAW provides the best data to keep..

I agree that individually processing each raw file would be very time-consuming. No-one does that ( at least I've never heard of anyone doing it ), just the a very small percentage, but you don't know which ones in advance..

Raw is not primarily to correct bad exposure, it's to exploit good exposure. But it's very handy if you do find it necessary to correct poor exposure, and just as good as exposure bracketing in general, with the advantage that nothing moves..

I'm in IT, and it's probably a sort of religious thing with me, but throwing away good data for an approximation is just some weird kinda thing where I come from. Yuch. .

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

Sjgcit wrote:.

David et al,.

Not to do this to death, but simply to say that :.

(a) Producing the base JPEG from RAW just isn't as big a chore aspeople make out. The computer does it for you automatically..

Yes and the cpu in the camera will do it as well and scrap the redundant data..

(b) Proper Exposure. We're not disagreeing here. Whatever youshoot in at least try and get the best exposure you can..

Good.

(c) There is no way to avoid saying it - RAW provides the best datato keep..

Again where do we draw the line? RAW provides all the data and reality tells me I don't need it all the time. Example: I weigh myself on the bathroom scales but have still to weigh myglasses (worn to read the scales) because such trifles don't matter. Same with JPG's which work a lot (as in "most") of the time..

Un-needed raw clogs up HDD's and please don't write to say how cheap they are because I have nearly 35,000 pictures (all mine or the wife's) and have no wish to transfer them - ever..

I agree that individually processing each raw file would be verytime-consuming. No-one does that ( at least I've never heard ofanyone doing it ), just the a very small percentage, but you don'tknow which ones in advance..

Disagree here. Switch to raw when needed and you have no choice to make..

Raw is not primarily to correct bad exposure, it's to exploit goodexposure. But it's very handy if you do find it necessary tocorrect poor exposure, and just as good as exposure bracketing ingeneral, with the advantage that nothing moves..

Point I made but only switch to RAW when needed..

I'm in IT, and it's probably a sort of religious thing with me, butthrowing away good data for an approximation is just some weirdkinda thing where I come from. Yuch. .

Again where to draw the line: can you say how tall you are to that degree of accuracy? I'd say I was 5 ft. 9 ins and leave it at that but I have friends in local universities who could give me the height to a micron and screw up the conversion to feet and inches....

Regards, David..

Sjgcit wrote:.

......I agree that individually processing each raw file would be verytime-consuming. No-one does that ( at least I've never heard ofanyone doing it ), just the a very small percentage, but you don'tknow which ones in advance..

Raw is not primarily to correct bad exposure, it's to exploit goodexposure. But it's very handy if you do find it necessary tocorrect poor exposure, and just as good as exposure bracketing ingeneral, with the advantage that nothing moves..

Erm ... I PP every shot on my serious shoots! Let me explain I am really shooting at the margins using available light only for theatre and concert photography. No opportunity for a retake and I often don't know what is coming next unless I have made a rehearsal. I often push ISO 1600 with f2.8 to get my shutter speed up to 1/80th or 1/100th to stop slow action. So I am really shooting blind to what is about to happen at ISO 3200 and I trying to capture a dynamic range of circa 12 stops!.

So I take a lot of shots and sort them into Best, Maybe and Bin folders. I PP every one of the Best folder i.e the real keepers and keep the NEF and a JPEG then batch convert the Maybes to JPEGs and bin the NEFs..

So in one sense I am PPing every shot. In reality it is about 20% of what I shoot - maybe 50 photos. Often I will do little more than adjust Exposure Compensation a notch or two, crop tighter and sharpen but sometimes I need to work selectively with Brightness and Contrast toning down white shirts etc here and eeking out detail from shadows there and very often selective NR is needed for large flat areas with litle detail..

I am still learning how to get the best out of NX and sometimes go back to earlier shoots and reprocess a shot that I am not satisfied with..

To my mind the real advantage of RAW is the ability to improve a shot - because you had no time to compose it - because software algorithms have improved since you took it a couple of years ago or whatever. (It is commonly accepted that the jpeg engine in the Nikon D40x is better than the D80 is better than the D200. Using NX I can match and exceed the D40x JPEG without having to rush out to buy the latest camera.).

I think we are really all singing from the same hymn sheet. If I am taking shots of friends at a barbecue or whatever I will shoot jpeg chimp a bit & shoot again if necessary. No way would I shoot RAW. My success rate there is probably 80% keepers (There is always someone that blinks at the wrong time!). My other work is more challenging and I need every bit of help I can get.Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/..

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=15864420.

Darn good example of why oen should always shoot RAW..

Speciifcally because I am human,ocassionally, I make mistakesand, with my luck,it will be during that once in a Lifetime shot..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

David Hughes wrote:.

Well, yes and no. For 90% of the users 90% of the time I'd say aP&S (even without scene modes) would work. And most people arecapable of learning from their mistakes; even at home after takingthe picture..

Agree, Completely..

But, on the other hand, I can see that some people won't besatisfied until all come out OK. It's just a question of where youdraw the line..

I know thsoe people, They post here about variation among differing "copies" of a particular lens..

Given a choice between spending a lifetime in front of the computerdoing everything manually or using what I pass off as my brain anda bit of tweaking I get 98 to 995% OK (figures from some otherpost I did). And, of course, there's the histrogram and the (silly)little screen on the back to check..

Yes, 98% of my jpeg's are completely satisfactory. However, it's that 2% that could contain the image of the Decade. Shooting RAW means if the image that will define a lifetime of photography happens to fall into that 2%, I may be able to salvage it..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Think if Steve McCurry most famous image had come out with completely wrong color temperature. Say a decidely Blue Shift..

If I was earning a living from it I'd be a bit more fussy butmostly I'd bracket before switching to raw..

Does that fact that you do this for fun make your endeavors less than worthy, than if you did this for money?.

And you say "Using only JPEG would be like, in film days, neverkeeping the negative, only keeping the print. Why do that ?" and Ican only answer "No it isn't" because I mainly used reversal filmand there's nothing you can do with a slide except put it in thebin. And as slide film is/was expensive you soon learn..

But yoru slide was proper;y balanced for the conditions, or you used a filter to get temps right. Do you do the same for your digital files? Extremely few take a color temperature reading before each and every digital capture, and therin lies the Rub..

Have you noticed that your argument suggests that no one looks atthe scene and thinks about exposure? And that the thinking is doneafter the event? Leaving it all the the camera's meter is as daftas a brush, imo: perhaps I'm the control freak....

It;s about more than the mount of light but the temperature of that light. Soemtimes, like the esxample I give below, it's about plain old fashion goofs..

Dave PattersonMidwestshutterbug.com'When the light and composition are strong, nobodynotices things like resolution or pincushion distortion'Gary Friedman..

I don't think there is a lot to be said that has not been said..

Essentially I shoot RAW because, I can, it's adds flexibility and I know how to use it without too much pain..

I urge everyone to try it who can. If you don't like it you can stop anytime... .

As I've presented my arguments and I have little else to say, that's my summary of it..

Whatever you shoot with, try and enjoy your photography..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

OK I think we agree but - as the man said "Yes, 98% of my jpeg's are completely satisfactory. However, it's that 2% that could contain the image of the Decade. Shooting RAW means if the image that will define a lifetime of photography happens to fall into that 2%, I may be able to salvage it.".

I will just add that I doubt if I will take the picture of the decade and am quite happy with things as they are..

Looking around the house I can see a lot of things and if I were to wander round and give them all marks out of 10 I doubt if many would get 9 out of 10. I agree with you that jpg's score better than 9 out of 10 and that's good enough..

As for WB - I use a Leica and an Olympus or two, which means I am one of those guys with the white hats. I can take the hat off and use the manual WB when need be, or a Kleenex tissue or something like guessing the degrees K or even the pretty symbols (the bright sunshine seems to me to be a pretty good defaulkt in the Olympus, f'instance)..

"I don't think there is a lot to be said that has not been said. " I'll go along with that - thanks..

Regards, David..