I just spent two days reading the loooong line regarding Mac's vs PC's and I learned more than I ever imagined I could about the relative merits of the systems. But Rob, you wrote a reply to Ellis about why you shoot RAW files whenever possible, and I was surprised at how many photographers shoot RAW. It seems to me to take up way to much space and is very slow. So my question is this: so far, on the printed page (and onscreen) I simply cannot detect any real, visible, significant quality difference between RAW images and the highest quality JPEGs.(And I suspect the 1Ds will make this question academic.)
Some background:I shoot in theatres - a lot of opera and onstage theatrical productions, and I now am shooting only with my Canon 1D. Shooting for Disney recently, I and my associate shot 2,300 images in one four-hour photocall.During the shooting my partner was emptying flash cards onto my Powerbook as we shot, and burning CD's.... 12 CD's in all. I don't think I could have possibly moved that fast shooting RAW images... not even sure if I would have had the flashcard space. And the pics used in a souvenir book - several 11x17, are excellent.
So what would make me want to shoot RAW? Rob, could you expand your answer to Ellis?
photoken7
PS:I hope this exact question has not been covered before - I couldn't find the answer I was looking for in the forums lists.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
*I wouldn't have tried to shoot RAW for an event like that either, since as I read your description it sounds like what mattered most was shooting, transferring and backing up to CD as quickly and efficiently as possible, with a keen eye on ensuring that very good quality was achieved in the process.
*A low compression JPEG from most any digital SLR delivers pretty good quality, no doubt. I made this point in the posting you refer to. What the differences are between RAW and JPEG, in sheer quality, will vary with the camera, then. With the D1H, for instance, the differences are just about undetectable between a RAW file converted to an 8 bits per colour file on the computer, and a JPEG Fine created in the camera, assuming all the same processing settings. etc. The 1D's JPEG, even at the Large Fine default of 8, is only so-so however, which means that opening up shadows and that kind of thing sometimes reveals an in-camera JPEG-induced pattern that isn't present if the same photo were shot on RAW instead. This pattern is subtle, but can show in print (it has for me), especially in higher ISO photos (which I'm guessing is what you were shooting). So, if you were shooting available light at higher ISOs with the 1D, and shooting RAW, I think there's a good possibility that the 11 x 17 enlargements you refer to from the book might have looked cleaner in the open shadows. Enough to justify shooting RAW, given the volume of pictures you had to shoot? Probably not. Since, as I say, when I need very good overall quality and maximum efficiency, JPEG is what I shoot too. Doing otherwise would be foolish in most cases.
*In the posting you mention, I made another case for RAW, one that, on a daily basis, is more significant to my shooting style than the sheer, absolute quality of RAW. That is its flexibility: fix white balance errors, fix exposure errors, override tone, sharpening and other settings. If you were in fact shooting in available light for Disney, and it was a typical theatrical production with ever-changing brightness and colour, RAW offers the ability to tune the colour and brightness in each photo with an effectiveness that simply can't be achieved when you start with a JPEG. Having shot digital now full-time since 1995, I've learned how to make a proper exposure, and I'm also diligent about setting the white balance before I press the shutter button. But, there are more than a few concert photos I've taken over the years that were absolutely saved by my use of the RAW format (back when it was nothing but Kodak digital SLR cameras and they only offered RAW). That's because of a peak moment occurring simultaneous with a big lighting change adding up to one nasty exposure. I can imagine you would be facing the same thing shooting opera and theatrical productions. So, you might find that shooting RAW improves the quality of your photos by offering you the ability to override certain errors after the fact.
None of this is really meant to persuade you to shoot RAW, especially if you're already happy with the quality and efficiency of your current workflow. But because of the above reasons, I'll look to shoot RAW whenever I think it's practical to do so. Given the overall quality and flexibility RAW offers, I can't imagine any other approach, and I hope that the camera manufacturers, CompactFlash manufacturers, computer manufacturers and software vendors will continue to improve their pieces in the digital workflow so that shooting RAW will not be an impediment to any photographer's workflow, even one that needs to be super-efficient.
-Rob Galbraith
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Choice of RAW converters. Different RAW converters have different color rendering (calibration) and also different interpolation. Capture One DSLR gets me today better results from 1D photos I shot a year ago.
Of course this is for fine art photography more important than your more real-time work. But still your best shots improve over time by just better RAW conversion software.
Uwe
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Thanx, guys - this is exactly what I was looking for. I will start looking into what's involved with shooting RAW images. The post production seems complicated ... sigh! more to learn.. Meanwhile,the jpegs are very satisfactory. If you're interested, there's some of my work at www.operajaponica.org - click my blue name and it'll go to an interview.web page
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I shoot virtually everything at ASA 800 - digital and the color neg I used to shoot with. I looked at Neatimage a while ago and I work with a Mac, so it's not usable for me yet.
At 800 I don't have much problem with noise, but just a little higher to 1,000 and it gets much worse. Also, as the Neatimage article says, when I go to sharpen it, any noise pops out. But the 11x14 cropped images I've made for displays are better than any film I've used.
Of course, if Canon would get their head outta the ground and price the 1Ds reasonably, I'd have no questions at all.
ken
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
