nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

The client doesn't give a monkey's how the image is made

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

Yawn...

bwa

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

That is not true. Otherwise, why would the client hire a pro? Sometimes the method is actually a selling point. Of course, maybe you are saying that it doesn't matter how you get there, just so long as you do get there. That is what the article is about - how to get there. For me, working with raw files is the best way to get there, and the client usually cares that I do get there. But even if the client didn't care, I do.

Mike

TBerwick Loc: Houston, Texas

I just rolled my eyes, posted this comment & moved on.

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

Some pros, like myself, only shoot jpegs,we get correct exposure, white balance, etc., through experience. So the need for Raw is moot.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

You shoot raw files, not JPEGs, and the camera converts the raw file to the JPEG format in the camera. Lots of pros let the camera create JPEGs for them for various reasons - deadlines, for example. Nothing wrong with that if that is what works and is needed. The implication that those working with raw files must therefore not get correct exposure, white balance, etc., through experience, however, is false. I don't work with raw files because I don't get "correct exposure, white balance, etc., through experience." The choice is not between getting it right or working with raw files. That is a common misconception.

Mike

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The two key phrases I read here are, I am not certain, and I don't think.

You're not certain that RAW files are unprocessed data files? I'm certain of it. As for being able to see the image, what part of embedded JPEG thumbnail didn't you understand?!

What make mistakes means is, didn't get all the processing parameters set correctly for the camera to process the RAW data into best case JPEG images. Once the data is processed and compressed, you can't get it back, the camera throws it away.
Again, RAW is NOT, NOT, NOT an image format, it's the data that came off the image sensor, passes through the image processor and is then written to memory. It's all the data, repeat, all the data that came from the sensor and some more data the cameras image processor tacked on, like that thumbnail. That's pretty much why Nikon RAW files are different from Canon RAW files. Their proprietary data is different, but the concept is the same. It's kinda like but not the same as, the difference between EBCDIC and ASCII.
The reason you can and do get better images or at least better control over the images when you process them is, RAW is all the data; no compression, nothing removed; it's all the data. JPEG'S are not...
I'm pretty sure you work with RAW because it gives you all the data which gives you control over the final quality of the image. Instead of having the camera process the data into images, you do it yourself. It's quite easy to do if you have the right software and have a clue, and obviously you do.

Here's where I'm coming from. Data is data is data. There are all kinds of data. Processed data, raw data, whatever. I worked in the information technology industry for close to 40 years and my specialty was data. Data capture, data integrity, data design and formatting, just about anything pertaining to the actual client data before it was loaded onto our systems and after. My teams motto was, "Data R Us". I have maybe, a wee bit (or byte) of an understanding of, data. The stuff gathered by and stored on digital cameras is nothing more than data. The fundamental difference being the end result. Digital images, photographs, instead of financial reports or spread sheets or statements or checks or deposit tickets. It's all data to me... And, I know, or use to, a bit about programs that manipulate, modify and or process data. I've written thousands of programs over the years using standardized and proprietary languages. I've worked with several different data base management systems over the years and have even designed my own proprietary database complete with custom designed file formats, linkages, pointer systems, compression logarithms and mnemonics. And some of it even included embedded image data.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

That's because you have the option to set the parameters the camera is using to process the raw data into jpegs. Hopefully you're not using factory defaults and you modify the parameters to fit each situation. The beauty of raw is you control the processing of the data into an image format. you can make adjustments to the image that just aren't possible with a jpeg because with a jpeg, the data needed to make the adjustment is gone.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with setting the cameras parameters to process the raw data into jpegs, nothing at all. It's not better and it's not worse. It only limits what you can do with the data in post processing, that's it. The need for raw is not moot. Without raw the camera has no data to process. It doesn't pull jpegs of the image sensor. One other thing, something I learned some time ago, experience gives one little control over changing environment.
Bottom line, if you don't want to shoot raw, don't. Like shooting full manual, shooting raw is not a badge of honor. It simply is what it is.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I said I was not certain mostly out of courtesy. Canon's proprietary program interprets Canon's proprietary raw data files and displays an image. There can be no question about that. That is not an embedded JPEG thumbnail. Other programs interpret JPEG format data, and display an image. Two types of data files, two types of programs to read and display the files. That is why I said that it is not certain that a raw file is unprocessed data while a JPEG file is not. In fact, I am quite certain that it is not so. Should Canon make their format open source, then who knows, maybe browsers would be able to read and display .cr files some day. What we do know is that the raw data in the file can be displayed, and there is no JPEG creation involved. That is a 99% certainty, and would be a 100% certainty if the raw file formats were not secret.

Mostly I work with raw files because the subtle color gradations, which makes a big difference for what I do. I can make a better JPEG as needed than is possible in camera. Working with raw files is faster, easier and produces higher quality output.

Mike

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

A monkey's what? A monkey's left hand? A monkey's tail? A monkey's right shoulder? Or are you to squeamish to say, a monkey's butt?!

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Ahh, I'm sorry, you are making little sense or you are having a TIA plus I'm fairly sure you know not much of what you speak (type).
1. No, the raw data can't be displayed as an image because it has not been processed, thus the name RAW
2. RAW is NOT an image format, it is unprocessed data. Yes, a certain amount of processing has taken place by the cameras image processor. But, the processing has not created a full blown image file, just the data needed to do so.
3. The reason most is not all camera manufacturers embed a thumbnail into the raw data is so it may be viewed without being processed first. It would be pretty silly, no stupid, to have data that you don't know what it represents. Think about it...
4. When you rebutted everything I said, yes, you definitely were asking for an argument. You just didn't realize the person on the other side has a clue.
5. I may not have worded some things as accurately or pretty as I'd like due to time restraints; just trying to not get carried away.
6. Who said RAW is a acronym? It is called RAW because it is unprocessed, uncooked. Get the picture?!
7. It's late and I've got things to do tomorrow morning... Good Night.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Sorry, I am looking at a rendition of a Canon raw file right now in Canon's DPP program. It is not a JPEG. It is most definitely not a "thumbnail." No "processing" is involved.

All data files are "unprocessed" until a program that can read them renders them. Have you ever opened JPEG file with a text editor?

JPEG, and TIFF etc. are capitalized because they are acronyms.

Mike

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

OMG, How dense is dense. DPP is Canon's proprietary program to read and process CR2 RAW data. The embedded thumbnail is in the file header along with EXIF data. Minimal processing is involved because DPP had to read the data and the instructions the image processor put in the header data, including but not limited to the JPEG thumbnail.
I never mentioned anything about JPEG and TIFF acronyms, all I said is RAW is not an acronym, but, CR2 is an acronym. Canon Raw version II (two).
You can sometimes open a formatted image file with a text editor but all you will see is mostly gibberish because it's not text data. Some text editors won't even open the file because they know it's not text and if one accidentally saves the data in may be damaged.
I thought you said you shoot RAW. Yea, so do I. If I'm shooting just for me I usually shoot only raw. If I'm shooting for someone else, for example, I did a 4 year olds birthday party this past afternoon, I shoot RAW and JPEG. The JPEG'S are copied on to a thumb drive so the person who requested the photos may choose which one to print. The JPEG'S are the smallest, lowest quality my 5D mk IV or 5Dsr can produce.

nekon Loc: Carterton, New Zealand

Mike, you have missed my point.,If you get things right using resulting jpegs, then there is no need for Raw manipulation.