sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I think as long as remains an option by manufacturers, RAW will continue to be converted and manipulated by those that enjoy it. Perhaps the challenge as previously stated is whether or not some manufacturers can produce cameras that produce JPEG images that are indistinguishable from RAW data?
This could be a very interesting challenge. Contest with votes maybe?

zneb240 Loc: New South Wales - Australia

I agree with you sirlensalot. I appreciate that photographic artists and those who enjoy and seriously manipulate images will continue to do so.... and I believe manufacturers will continue to cater for these folks. However, I also believe future cameras will provide images of such quality that further manipulation will be virtually unnecessary. Discerning photographers, as distinct from P&S, will be able to skillfully pre-programme the camera (which is a computer in itself) perhaps by touch screen or voice command. A little PP in camera and presto.... brilliant image. The skill will be in assessing the scene then programming the camera to produce what is envisaged - a shift from post to pre-processing. Of course the artistic principles regarding composition, cropping and the like will remain strictly under the photographer's control.

In fact we're almost there now. We can already set the camera (ie. pre-process) to lighten shadows, boost colours, sharpen, bracket exposures - not only aperture, shutter speed, WB and flash effect, but also boost ISO if necessary. Plus a host of other actions which we couldn't dream of a few years ago. The future is exiting indeed.

Interested to hear your views. :thumbup:

(Disclaimer: All IMO only).

Regards - Warren

stephena Loc: Carmel, Indiana

You have posed an interesting question. I believe there will always be a RAW-type post process of some sort or another, and likewise, there will always be a JPEG OOC which is magnificent as more camera research efforts bend to the public likes of quick images. But I believe the future will hold several steps further in presenting RAW in the camera like Fuji and some others have today. Unlike with film where chemicals and dyes where key to the end result, today's processing is based on algorithms in concert with the with the sensors and lens compatibility: all mathematically in harmony; setting the computer and its software off to the side . . . I think that day is coming sooner than we think. Steve

billjohdoittoday Loc: Arkansas

Amen!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bill

erbPIX Loc: Greater New York City area

Agreed!

James M Loc: Arlington, VA

Did you ever shoot film? Did you ever have your film developed at a kiosk/shop and throw the negatives away and just keep the prints? That's what you are doing when you capture your digital images in JPEG only. You have discarded your negatives in effect. If you are happy with your JPEG "prints", always get perfect images and don't expect to ever need anything better, that's great. However, many experienced photographers prefer to work from the negative, i.e. the RAW file. I do. RAW files include a lot of pictorial information that is discarded to make the JPEG and you have no control over what is discarded and will never, ever, be able to retrieve it. One reason I capture RAW only is that I mess up a lot. I'm 78 years old and forget stuff, like resetting the White Balance from my last shoot. When I discover that I have a card full of images with a blue or green cast, if I am in RAW, fixing them is a piece of cake. If I only have a JPEG file to work from, it's going to be a struggle and I may never get it right. If my flash doesn't fire on a critical image and its a JPEG, it's probably going to be a cull. If it's in RAW, I can probably save it. And so it goes. Life is already enough of a struggle, I prefer not to do things that make it even more frustrating. I shoot RAW. I also convert my RAW files to DNGs. RAW will never be obsolete.

halman Loc: Foothills of Colorado

I must agree... being an old forgetful one as well. I usually keep my storage setting on jpeg+RAW. Best of both worlds. h2

James M Loc: Arlington, VA

I used to do that until I realized that the JPEGs were never used and just took up space. I use Lightroom now and work straight from the Raw files. Most of the images that I use end up being JPEGs sized for display on a computer monitor, but they all start out as Raw files, converted to DNGs and then exported as TIFFs or JPEGs, depending on how I want to used them. I keep the Raw files in an archive. Regards.

billjohdoittoday Loc: Arkansas

Amen! (I'm finding a lot of wisdom to agree with here at UHH lately.)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Bill

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Agree 100%.

halman Loc: Foothills of Colorado

Great idea, James. Although, I just find it easier to snag a jpeg from the chip into my email client without going "shopping" as the email client requires a jpeg format. My Raw files get archived as well on an external drive. I like your equation of Raw = negative.
h2
By the way welcome to the UHH!

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Enjoyed your response. Agree that the best is yet to come.
Rather than redundant remarks by self, I think Stephena pretty much mirrors what I would have said. You would think that eventually, cameras would evolve into some magical final product that will capture then process images automatically. That technology may be here already, but I do not think we could afford it. In the meantime, we look forward to the next incremental step in consumer and pro camera evolution. I am not so much a fan of upgrading as I used to be, so for me it will be awhile before taking the next step up. If I do, It just might be to Sony from Canon. It appears to to me to be a company that is committed to innovation more so than the big two right now. That may change if Sony starts eating into their sales, either in the near or distant future. Exciting? Yes. Either way, we win, as long as we are willing to pay the price to keep up.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

As more photographers come to appreciate the increased...indeed, the maximum image data quality afforded by the correctly exposed RAW file the proposed question will appear more and more ... strange.  RAW's significantly greater bit-depths and its additional accessible dynamic range affords image data quality (tonal spectrum and S:N ratio) not just unrivaled, but unapproached by the woefully limited 8-bit JPEG file format. And RAW's additional virtues of non-destructive processing with a wide range of creative options and image files unsullied by the hazards of lossy re-compression are just icing on the cake.  Add to all this the increasing ease with which Adobe Camera Raw permits almost 95% or better of p.p. to be expeditiously accomplished (using sliders in its first menu) makes the number of persistent JPEG fans simply inexplicable.

Of course, there will likely remain a number of hardware-dictated needs for occassional recourse to the JPEG image format.   But barring those unfortunate engineering lapses that, it is hoped, may soon be overcome, RAW will continue to rule-the-roost for the photographers demanding the ultimate in image data quality and creative options.

Just my humble, albeit objectively based opinion.
Dave in SD

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

As more photographers come to appreciate the increased...indeed, the maximum image data quality afforded by the correctly exposed RAW file the proposed question will appear more and more ... strange.  RAW's significantly greater bit-depths and its additional accessible dynamic range affords image data quality (tonal spectrum and S:N ratio) not just unrivaled, but unapproached by the woefully limited 8-bit JPEG file format. And RAW's additional virtues of non-destructive processing with a wide range of creative options and image files unsullied by the hazards of lossy re-compression are just icing on the cake.  Add to all this the increasing ease with which Adobe Camera Raw permits almost 95% or better of p.p. to be expeditiously accomplished (using sliders in its first menu) makes the number of persistent JPEG fans simply inexplicable.

Of course, there will likely remain a number of hardware-dictated needs for occassional recourse to the JPEG image format.   But barring those unfortunate engineering lapses that, it is hoped, may soon be overcome, RAW will continue to rule-the-roost for the photographers demanding the ultimate in image data quality and creative options.

Just my humble, albeit objectively based opinion.
Dave in SD

James M Loc: Arlington, VA

That is natural for me since I still shoot film and develop and print my own stuff. I belong to a group known derisively as "the dinosaurs". I also do a lot of digital, all for my own pleasure. Each discipline brings its own set of frustrations, but for me film and the darkroom provide the most person satisfaction.