why shoot in raw? (Page 2): Sheesh... when I first read the title I thought it said "why shoot in THE raw" I thought where would I put my lens cap?

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Sheesh... when I first read the title I thought it said "why shoot in THE raw" I thought where would I put my lens cap?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

wlgoode wrote:

Another thing to consider is that JPEG is a lossy format. Each time it is viewed and restored it loses just a bit of detail. This problem will not be evident on the first few views but in time the image will visibly degrade.

I agree that JPG is a lossy format; however, I disagree that each time it's viewed it loses data... Just viewing a JPG does not further degrade the image. Moreover, most main-stream post processing apps include a non-destructive edit feature, so these worries of losing "visible" image data are completely unfounded.

flashgordonbrown Loc: Silverdale, WA

wlgoode wrote:

Another thing to consider is that JPEG is a lossy format. Each time it is viewed and restored it loses just a bit of detail. This problem will not be evident on the first few views but in time the image will visibly degrade.

your statement is not completely correct-you can open and close a JPEG as many times as you like without losing any data. It is when you save it with the same file name that you start losing data. If you save it with a different file name you will still have the original file intact and a new file under the new file name with the changes that you made.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

To mdorn & flashgordonbrown- I'll defer to you, it wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood digital formats. I knew film cold and practised it for years. Then became disabled with long lasting illness. By the time I was well enough to pick up my Nikon FM or my Canon EOS 10s, there was no place locally to buy film. Now re-equipped with a digital camera (starting with Panasonic DMC FZ28) it's sort of like "old dog new tricks". Its frustrating to be totally comfortable with a portion of a subject but almost novice-like in the rest. I have yet to find reference material suitable for someone like me.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

flashgordonbrown wrote:

your statement is not completely correct-you can open and close a JPEG as many times as you like without losing any data. It is when you save it with the same file name that you start losing data. If you save it with a different file name you will still have the original file intact and a new file under the new file name with the changes that you made.

I'm sorry. I disagree with this as well... theoretically, every time you "save as" regardless of file name, data will be lost. However, if you just rename a JPG file, no additional loss will occur. Many photo editing apps these days will even preserve the data within an editing session, but once you "save as", data is lost.

How much data is lost? Certainly NO visible data! Of course, I'll qualify this by saying no visible data in a 4x6 or even 8x10 print. You would need to open and "save as" several (more than 30) times before you should even consider counting pixels.

Nikon_DonB Loc: Chicago

Pepper wrote:

Sheesh... when I first read the title I thought it said "why shoot in THE raw" I thought where would I put my lens cap?

Could get mighty breezy also.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

i didn't understand what all the fuss about raw vs jpeg untill i upgraded my computer and photoediting software which allowed me to use it. i find that on my d-100, shots in raw seem more vibrant, and have a deeper range in hue and tone then when shot in jpeg fine. still mastering not only the conversion part, but the file management, file naming, and converting those shots i want to post on the hog to jpeg. i like the ability to tweek whitebalance and all the options adobe camera raw gives me. if its quick shots that i need to post right away ill shoot jpeg. if not ill shoot raw or in my case NEF.

oh and shooting in the raw in florida gets you a nice all over body tan, a few bucks thrown at you , and the full attention of local law enforcement!!

JJ9 Loc: Sussex County, DE

I have the same camera, Panasonic DCMz28 and it takes wonderful pictures and has the longest zoom around. But the resolution values are not that great. It takes really soft photos, but if you are not competing, it really doesn't matter.

The way they set up the aperature and Manual stuff is really confusing. Best to use the others on the dial, like, sports, landscape, etc. and let the camera do the work. It is a computer, and could see what you can't. And the art is really in developing what you have on your SD. And that again requires a whole lot of time and experimentation. But that part is also where the excitement is.

I too knew the 35 and larger mechanics very well...and you are right...this is frustrating. Just bought a camera with exchangable lens, hoping to get some of that feel back..and with some better controls. This too will take some time to learn. But when all is said and done...it is what keeps us young.

Have fun....with the camera. 8-)

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

I have not found that softness you speak of, I've found decent resolution and sharpness.

JJ9 Loc: Sussex County, DE

You really made me laugh out loud. Many thanks for the chuckle.

JJ9 Loc: Sussex County, DE

I compete often and bring work in for my camera club professional photographers to critique. I din't know about the softness until more than one of the professionals brought it to my mind.

Went to look up the specifications on CNET on the DMCZ28 and while it brags about the camera in the "PROS"...when it comes to the "CON" is says..."has a tendency to take soft photo's." So I guess it really does. Our camera group is a very big group who invites well known pros to critique and judge specific contests. While I have won a couple, because of the story they told...the complaint has been the lack of "true" resolution. Tell you the truth...they looked plently sharp to me. But when several of the pros say the same thing....you gotta start to wonder.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

Can you say specifically where/how the softness appears?

JJ9 Loc: Sussex County, DE

Goode wish I understood it. But if you put your photos on Picassa...a program which comes with windows, it shows the resolution to be 180 on the X and Y axis. That is low.

It has something to do with a slow lens and the fact ithat it is a small wideangle. Speed, aperature, and ISO all impact noise in the photo and distortion. ( this you already know ) In Macro...the images are very clear. The smaller the photo size the greater the clarity.

The complaints are that the photos are flat...that it lacks depth and clarity. It doesn't pop. But my lily...in macro will knock your socks off.

Have tried to compensate for it in the photoshop, but...I may be too new to this process to make a real difference.

This is really learning a whole new science. And I am struggling along with every shot. With my former Mamiya 35mm and leica lens, I had what I needed to do whatever I wanted . Now control is a wish, and not yet a reality.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

JJ9-Actually I'm one of the few who doesn't go near Windows. I use Linux (no it is not for geeks, it is easy for newbies) I have Picassa installed but rarely use it, I am slogging through the steep learning curve of GIMP (one of the cool things about Linux is you never have to pay for an app again, you don't even need anti-virus). Maybe someone more familiar with Picassa can answer that better than I. One thing is for sure Photoshop has a steep learning curve too. As far as the transition from film to digital I Feel You! I feel like I had some level of mastery in film workflow. Digital is a whole new animal, we could stay in touch and learn together.

ward5311 Loc: Georgia

Just a thought but there are free PS actions that will do an incredible job for you. There are some for sharpening. You download the file into PS Actions and let it do its work. Google "free photoshop actions". Google how to install actions in Photoshop.