Why use raw?

Michael Johnson wrote:
John Sheehy wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote in
:
I also have the
hacked firmware on my 300D so I can shoot a JPG right along with the
RAW file. I then rip out the JPGs with Breeze Browser Pro. It gives
me the best of both formats with the disk space penalty, of course.

I really miss the embedded ful-res JPEGs of the 10D. The 20D, 30D,
and 400D all embed 1.5 and 2.5 MB JPEGs, which are useless for zooming
in on the review, and too small if they are good enough that I don't
need to convert the RAWs. The only way to see full res on the review
LCD with the later cameras is to shoot JPEG-only! Canon makes some
*really* pathetic decisions.

I never seem to get much useful information from the LCD anyway.
Anymore, I am barely able to focus my eyes on something that close.
Getting old sucks.

I usually don't have time to zoom in on most of my shoots, so anything
larger than a postage stamp is a waste for me.
Lightroom produces 1:1 previews reasonably quickly.

--
john mcwilliams

thepixelfreak wrote in news:2007062110104275249%not@dotcom:

Get a Mac. Two native Mac Applications both support RAW. Preview and
iPhoto both support RAW. For that matter, even the Finder (The window
where you can see icons in folders, shows the raw image) supports RAW.
Also, Photoshop has support for RAW. Probably you're too out of date
with Photoshop. There are RAW updates for CS2 and CS3 comes with RAW
support out of the box.

The issue is not "supporting RAW". The issue is supporting the
undocumented S3IS RAW.




--


John P Sheehy

BaumBadier wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 01:44:31 GMT, John Sheehy wrote:

Weighing in at 35MB, I guess RAW becomes quite cumbersome, especially
on a camera not desgned to write such large files. I can't imagine
how the RAWs can be that big;

Typical usenet. Someone makes an error in typing and you all jump on
it.

We can only respond to what is typed, and such inefficiencies are not
unheard of.

I even commented on how unlikely that figure was, yet your response.

--


John P Sheehy

(Michael Johnson) wrote:

Getting old sucks.

It's *marginally* better than the alternative though. ;-)

Andrew McP

(Andrew MacPherson) wrote:
(Michael Johnson) wrote:

Getting old sucks.

It's *marginally* better than the alternative though. ;-)

Isn't true anyway!

*Getting* old is the fun part. It's being old that
sucks...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
(Michael Johnson) wrote:

Getting old sucks.

It's *marginally* better than the alternative though. ;-)

It won't be long before I will be thankful to have lived this long
instead of complaining about getting old. I'm in a transition phase.

HokusPokus wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:07:29 -0400, Michael Johnson wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote in
:

I also have the
hacked firmware on my 300D so I can shoot a JPG right along with the
RAW file. I then rip out the JPGs with Breeze Browser Pro. It gives
me the best of both formats with the disk space penalty, of course.

I really miss the embedded ful-res JPEGs of the 10D. The 20D, 30D, and
400D all embed 1.5 and 2.5 MB JPEGs, which are useless for zooming in on
the review, and too small if they are good enough that I don't need to
convert the RAWs. The only way to see full res on the review LCD with the
later cameras is to shoot JPEG-only! Canon makes some *really* pathetic
decisions.
I never seem to get much useful information from the LCD anyway.
Anymore, I am barely able to focus my eyes on something that close.
Getting old sucks.

Easy solution ... get rid of last-century's technology and get an advanced
all-digital P&S camera with an EVF where you can adjust the diopter of the
eye-piece for use without glasses. I use reading glasses but have to use my
camera without them or it's just annoying to have to keep taking them off and
putting them back on all the time. The +/-5 diopter adjust for the EVF covers
all bases (thought I only need +1.25 of it)..

With CHDK on my Canon P&S camera ...

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

... there's so much info available to pick and choose from: DOF calc, Hyperfocal
distances, 35mm equivalent or true focal lengths, 7 different RGB-Y histogram
layouts in color, under/over-exposure regions (the cut-off limits
user-adjustable) that flash or scroll (5 modes) in user-selectable colors, the
usual aperture, shutter, etc. info, composition aids, battery levels accurate to
1/1000th of a volt, IS modes, ... this list of available info that can be
displayed could fill up this page.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHD...firmware_usage

So much to display that I have to leave much of it turned off and only enable
information as needed. There's a reason the author of CHDK included shortcut
buttons to turn off sections of its info-display capabilities. If we get into
the mini printer console right in the viewfinder display while running a complex
interactive script, the amount of information and data displayed could be
overwhelming to someone new at this. Last I read on the CHDK Wiki pages was
someone working on a script to display the true horizontal and vertical angular
FOV at any of 129 zoom-steps to help with composing intricate panoramas.

Another person wrote a modified version of CHDK to assist with 3D stereo-pairs,
adding yet another layer of complex pre-shooting info displayed directly to the
EVF.

http://stereo.jpn.org/eng/sdm/index.htm

Ditch that ancient mirror-slapper that keeps you from getting and seeing all the
valuable info that you could put to good use. Data that you get and need BEFORE
you even press the shutter. Today's DSLRs are akin to last-century's dark-room.
You have to develop the image before you can see what you need to change for the
next shot, and then try again, and again, and again, and again.

What a waste of creativity-time -- and your life.

There are a multitude of reasons why a P&S of any type can't replace a
DSLR. Some reasons that are important to me are focus speed/capability,
high ISO performance, lens selection and general flexibility from all
aspects of exposure control. I do own a P&S for those times carrying a
DSLR is not convenient but it is no substitute for a DSLR when shooting
important events.

Besides, there is nothing I shoot where I need to see that much
information. Heck, having to deal with all that mess would take 90% of
the fun out of my hobby. The best way for me to ensure I get decent
photos is to take more than one shot, if possible, and to shoot with
RAW. This gets me where I need to be 90-95% of the time. If I took
time to review all the data you mention before pushing the shutter button

"HokusPokus" wrote in message
...

Easy solution ... get rid of last-century's technology and get an advanced
all-digital P&S camera with an EVF where you can adjust the diopter of the
eye-piece for use without glasses. I use reading glasses but have to use
my
camera without them or it's just annoying to have to keep taking them off
and
putting them back on all the time. The +/-5 diopter adjust for the EVF
covers
all bases (thought I only need +1.25 of it)..

Like hell it does.
It doesn't cover enough range or astigmatism.
Virtually useless to a large number of people.

Most of the viewfinders are far too small and/or have too little eye relief
for many users.. the designers probably think, like you, that the user
should take their glasses off and use the diopter adjustment even if it
means they can't see anything in the damn finder.

(Michael Johnson) wrote:

I'm in a transition phase.

My transition phase started at about 30, when my hair gave up the fight
and started retreating towards my back. There's nothing quite like facing
a bald bloke in the mirror every day to remind you things ain't what they
used to be. :-)

Andrew McP

Andrew MacPherson wrote:
(Michael Johnson) wrote:

I'm in a transition phase.

My transition phase started at about 30, when my hair gave up the fight
and started retreating towards my back. There's nothing quite like facing
a bald bloke in the mirror every day to remind you things ain't what they
used to be. :-)

My hair is just relocating to my ear canals. I figure I'll be deaf by
the time I hit fifty. I started noticing it in my late thirties.