reignite the debate, to raw or not to raw

I know that this has been debated ad naseum but once again into the fray.
Since purchasing my 20D I have taken all my shots in RAW. The files are all
about 7 - 8 mg and I back up to two hard drives and one external hard drive
(Maxtor and love it). The camera is used primarily in Ap priority mode and
from an exposure/colour temp perspective doesn't often make to many mistakes
with me driving. Hence very little appears to be gained from RAW mode. I
am now considering moving to JPG and based on my conversion practices to
date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images as they don't
generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok, there must be a
downside, lets hear it.

regards

--
Don From Down Under

"Don" wrote in message
news
I know that this has been debated ad naseum but once again into the fray.
Since purchasing my 20D I have taken all my shots in RAW. The files are
all about 7 - 8 mg and I back up to two hard drives and one external hard
drive (Maxtor and love it). The camera is used primarily in Ap priority
mode and from an exposure/colour temp perspective doesn't often make to
many mistakes with me driving. Hence very little appears to be gained from
RAW mode. I am now considering moving to JPG and based on my conversion
practices to date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images
as they don't generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok,
there must be a downside, lets hear it.

regards

--
Don From Down Under

No downside at all, horses for courses really, under ideal conditions jpg
may well do what you want, when the conditions are difficult then shoot in
RAW so you can extract the last bit of useable info.

"Don" wrote in message
news
I know that this has been debated ad naseum but once again into the fray.
Since purchasing my 20D I have taken all my shots in RAW. The files are
all about 7 - 8 mg and I back up to two hard drives and one external hard
drive (Maxtor and love it). The camera is used primarily in Ap priority
mode and from an exposure/colour temp perspective doesn't often make to
many mistakes with me driving. Hence very little appears to be gained from
RAW mode. I am now considering moving to JPG and based on my conversion
practices to date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images
as they don't generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok,
there must be a downside, lets hear it.

Well, for one, you'll fit twice as many shots on a card, and you'll be
able to click off even more shots per moment. If you're curious, shoot RAW
+ Large JPG and copy off just the JPGs. Then see if you even refer to the
RAWs.
As a sports shooter, for me JPG is the only way to go. I'm not saying
to just pray-n-spray, but speed is a major advantage when you can't
manipulate the scene.

Dave

Don wrote:
I know that this has been debated ad naseum but once again into the fray.

Necromancer you are not:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...ecromancer.htm

Austin

Just curious: what did/do you use to process your raw files? And why did
you
pick that program?


"Don" wrote in message
news
I know that this has been debated ad naseum but once again into the fray.
Since purchasing my 20D I have taken all my shots in RAW. The files are
all about 7 - 8 mg and I back up to two hard drives and one external hard
drive (Maxtor and love it). The camera is used primarily in Ap priority
mode and from an exposure/colour temp perspective doesn't often make to
many mistakes with me driving. Hence very little appears to be gained
from
RAW mode. I am now considering moving to JPG and based on my conversion
practices to date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images
as they don't generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok,
there must be a downside, lets hear it.

regards

--
Don From Down Under



----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 293 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!

David Geesaman wrote:

If you're curious, shoot RAW
+ Large JPG and copy off just the JPGs. Then see if you even refer to the
RAWs.

Yes, this is the way to answer the question for oneself. I find I can
almost always get better results from the RAW if I'm willing to spend
the time. I'm not always willing though.

I have shot professionally, but todayI primarily shoot like most other
amateurs...vacation, family, etc. I honestly can stated that in the 4
years I have had a digital camera with RAW capabilities, I never used
RAW to its full potential until just recently! My point... many/most
people shooting digital will NEVER need the advantages of RAW! I have
found, in the past, that my non-professional needs generally were met
well enough, simply by using Photoshop LE to edit JPEGs. But...
Last month I attended a wedding as a guest, andI brought my Canon
20D to get photos that could be passed on to bride's parents (our
friends). In shooting many weddings on film in the past, I would rely
largely upon the pro lab to color balance, etc. and use the latitude
inherent to color negative film to help get all my exposures, even in
some marginal conditions. But digital is more unforgiving, like
slides...unless you shoot RAW use RAW editors! I was able to perfectly
color balance even difficult mixed lighting shots, and I was able to
salvage shots underexposed simply because I didn't wait long enough for
the in-camera flash to recycle. (Yeah, shooting professionally with a
pro-level flash that uses a power pack and recycles in 1 sec, puts
some really bad habits into you, like shooting before your in-camera
flash has had what seems half a lifetime to recycle!).
I can say, even after that recent wedding, that MOST shots I have
taken with my 20D I probably would never process in RAW -- simply
because I was not intending to SELL the photos or enlarge them to very
large sizes! This recent wedding (even though unpaid) deserved the
time to process RAW to extract the most from each shot simply because I
wanted to provide the absolute highest quality to my friends. But most
people looking at your photos on a computer monitor probably would
never truly appreciate the extra level of effort you put into working
RAW files!
So it comes down to how YOU wish to use your photos, and whether
you think you will exploit the advantages of RAW...or if Photoshop'ing
JPEGS meets all your needs! I currently use RawShooter Premium 2006
and Paint Shop Pro 10 and can recommend both highly.

--wilt

Don wrote:
date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images as they don't
generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok, there must be a
downside, lets hear it.

In my experience, if you don't need to do much to the picture, then
you might as well be shooting JPG. But I have found that if I want to
tweak brightness or saturation or anything more than a tiny bit, it
tends to bring out all the artifacts in the JPG. Make no mistake, with
JPG you are losing information. Whether that matters or not depends on
whether you need that information later.


--
Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression
and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me
anymore.
-- William Cowper

"Don" wrote in message
news
Since purchasing my 20D I have taken all my shots in RAW. The files are
all
about 7 - 8 mg

If you run your CR2's through the adobe DNG converter, you can knock these
down to about 1/2 that size using lossless compression - know that they're
in an "industry standard" format, and do away with XMP files to boot!

(Maxtor and love it). The camera is used primarily in Ap priority mode and
from an exposure/colour temp perspective doesn't often make to many
mistakes
with me driving. Hence very little appears to be gained from RAW mode. I
am now considering moving to JPG and based on my conversion practices to
date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images as they don't
generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok, there must be
a
downside, lets hear it.

The advantage of RAW that I like is that the initial adjustments can be made
whilst the gamma is still at 1.0 (ie linear) - giving you more "headroom"
for adjustments in certain tonal ranges before it starts to show. Personal
choice at the end of the day - in my experience, if you use Adobe Bridge for
your sorting and initial selects than it's really no more difficult to work
in RAW - and you'll know that you've got the best opportunity to capture the
best quality data. And if your shots don't require any adjustment then you
can always get ACR to batch convert to JPG for you whilst you go watch a
rerun of Bewitched.

I have Raw shooter professional as well as Breezbrowser Pro along with
Canon's DPP (which I don't like). I tend to use Breezbrowser but have only
just started to play with RSP. Don't know which I will stay with. One of
the respondents to the post has indicated that shooting in raw and then
converting to DNG for space saving may be the way to go. Comments on that
proposal welcome as always.

regards

Don from Down Under


wrote in message
. ..
Just curious: what did/do you use to process your raw files? And why did
you
pick that program?


"Don" wrote in message
news
I know that this has been debated ad naseum but once again into the fray.
Since purchasing my 20D I have taken all my shots in RAW. The files are
all about 7 - 8 mg and I back up to two hard drives and one external hard
drive (Maxtor and love it). The camera is used primarily in Ap priority
mode and from an exposure/colour temp perspective doesn't often make to
many mistakes with me driving. Hence very little appears to be gained
from
RAW mode. I am now considering moving to JPG and based on my conversion
practices to date, I will not appear to loose much control over my images
as they don't generally need much fixing when going from RAW to JPG. Ok,
there must be a downside, lets hear it.

regards

--
Don From Down Under



----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 293 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!