Another case of Canikon snobbery?

vonBaloney · 06-15-2015, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Don't get me wrong. Workflow, for everyone is different, as are the needs etc. and being accustomed to decision making prior to shooting was part of the film work flow, that I had for the first 20'years of taking pictures.

If I had not shot so much with film, to the point of having 3 bodies all loaded differently unless I was shooting an event where i was simply avoiding changing lenses by having multiple bodies, I might also consider spending more time in post.

It's a personal choice

Interesting. Having been trained on film (and in the darkroom) is the main reason why I could never consider not shooting RAW. Using JPEG (as seems to be indicated here, with minimal or no post-processing) is like shooting Polaroids to me. Now some people can make (and are interested in) making great art with Polaroids, but not me. It basically comes down to putting artificial limitations on myself -- you don't lose anything by shooting RAW, and you can batch process a whole bunch of them and it is no different (or better, if your batch-processing algorithm is "better" than what you can do in-camera) than shooting RAW and not even any extra time. (It can all be done as it transfers off the camera or card.) But of course you do gain plenty by shooting RAW, so why give it up for nothing?

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-15-2015, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

You do what you want man. A well done workflow will almost completely hide any difference from a workflow point of view independantly of the file format you choose to use, be it raw or jpeg.

The main argument for JPEG is being able to share instantly (for example to family) while raw you'll need to export... Likely you'll do the same if you do some cropping/straightening anyway.

There could be the size argument but with a modern computer that should be quite ok now. 2TB is like 90$ and it's already 65 000 raws from K3. That should quite a few years already if you keep only the shoots worth keeping.

The main argument for raw will be the post processing will simply give better results. Sometime this is more theoric (cropping, horizon...) and not very relevant. Sometime this quite visible (pushing shadows, noise reduction, white balance, correcting exposure, getting back burned highlights).

What can I say? My father was against raw until he was using photoshop element. He used the full argumentation for JPEG and against RAW. Simply because element made RAW processing a hassle. Now that he asked we offer him lightroom, there no more difference in workflow between RAWs and JPEG, he started to use Raws just as test in a few more case and changed completely his mind on the usefullness of it. Now he start to use Raws more and more.

Maybe other would find no interrest for it, even after many tries.

I think you misuderstood the intent of the comment.

I do not disagree with respect to the need for sometimes, minor edits, etc. and maybe, for example, i am using the wrong photo editor, and would find raw more interesting with another program, who knows. all i intended to show was that the possible need for framing work in PP is often used as the justification for raw. "You are going to be doing PP anyway so why not use RAW" is the argument you often hear, but the need to crop and straighten is simply not enough on its own, for me to justify RAW. that is all i intended

I am not Anti RAW, i see it as a tool, as are many other things you can do, and it is something people need to decide for themselves,. As you say "Do what you want" .

normhead · 06-15-2015, 06:27 AM

There i nothing more frustrating than using my Optio 90W, that only shoots in jpeg...and getting a great image, that just needs a bit of a tweek to make it a fantastic image, but you don't have enough bits to make it happen. Jpeg is 8 bits, the biggest number is 255. So 255 values in each colour channel. That gives you a lot of options, buttony 16 values in the back range.

12 bits gives you values of 4096 bits. and over 128 values in the black range. So if you wan't smooth natural looking transitions in your shadow detail you have much more chance of dong that with Raw.

The whole RAW Jpeg discussion comes down t that for me... 16 against 128. Raw gives you half the values to work with in the shadows, that jpeg does altogether. And it's the same at every segment of the spectrum.

Nicolas06 · 06-15-2015, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by normhead

There i nothing more frustrating than using my Optio 90W, that only shoots in jpeg...and getting a great image, that just needs a bit of a week to make it a fantastic image, but you don't have enough bits to make it happen. Jpeg is 8 bits, the biggest number is 255. So 255 values in each colour channel. That gives you a lot of options, buttony 16 values in the back range.

12 bits gives you values of 4096 bits. and over 128 values in the black range. So if you wan't smooth natural looking transitions in your shadow detail you have much more chance of dong that with Raw.

The whole RAW Jpeg discussion comes down t that for me... 16 against 128. Raw gives you half the values to work with in the shadows, that jpeg does altogether. And it's the same at every segment of the spectrum.

Honestly I never understood why nobody tried to use Jpeg2000 format that support 16bit/color channel instead of 8... Not like camera manufacturer let us a choice anyway... But that would justify raw only for noise reduction.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-15-2015 at 08:24 AM.

06-15-2015, 06:27 AM	#78
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	There i nothing more frustrating than using my Optio 90W, that only shoots in jpeg...and getting a great image, that just needs a bit of a tweek to make it a fantastic image, but you don't have enough bits to make it happen. Jpeg is 8 bits, the biggest number is 255. So 255 values in each colour channel. That gives you a lot of options, buttony 16 values in the back range. 12 bits gives you values of 4096 bits. and over 128 values in the black range. So if you wan't smooth natural looking transitions in your shadow detail you have much more chance of dong that with Raw. The whole RAW Jpeg discussion comes down t that for me... 16 against 128. Raw gives you half the values to work with in the shadows, that jpeg does altogether. And it's the same at every segment of the spectrum. Last edited by normhead; 06-15-2015 at 10:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Will the Pentax K-30's AF rival that of Canikon?	Adam	Pentax K-30 & K-50	169	07-06-2012 03:33 AM
Thinking of jumping ship to CaNikon	CrazyNuts	Pentax DSLR Discussion	70	02-05-2012 06:20 PM
We hear about people switching to Canikon, anyone switched from Canikon to Pentax?	Eric Seavey	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	08-08-2010 06:54 AM
Brand Snobbery? Is it just here or everywhere?	GLXLR	General Talk	171	01-12-2010 08:41 AM
Had my first experience with Canikon snobbery.	dws1117	Photographic Technique	23	06-17-2008 03:10 PM

06-15-2015, 06:11 AM	#76
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Don't get me wrong. Workflow, for everyone is different, as are the needs etc. and being accustomed to decision making prior to shooting was part of the film work flow, that I had for the first 20'years of taking pictures. If I had not shot so much with film, to the point of having 3 bodies all loaded differently unless I was shooting an event where i was simply avoiding changing lenses by having multiple bodies, I might also consider spending more time in post. It's a personal choice Interesting. Having been trained on film (and in the darkroom) is the main reason why I could never consider not shooting RAW. Using JPEG (as seems to be indicated here, with minimal or no post-processing) is like shooting Polaroids to me. Now some people can make (and are interested in) making great art with Polaroids, but not me. It basically comes down to putting artificial limitations on myself -- you don't lose anything by shooting RAW, and you can batch process a whole bunch of them and it is no different (or better, if your batch-processing algorithm is "better" than what you can do in-camera) than shooting RAW and not even any extra time. (It can all be done as it transfers off the camera or card.) But of course you do gain plenty by shooting RAW, so why give it up for nothing?

06-15-2015, 06:26 AM	#77
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by Nicolas06 You do what you want man. A well done workflow will almost completely hide any difference from a workflow point of view independantly of the file format you choose to use, be it raw or jpeg. The main argument for JPEG is being able to share instantly (for example to family) while raw you'll need to export... Likely you'll do the same if you do some cropping/straightening anyway. There could be the size argument but with a modern computer that should be quite ok now. 2TB is like 90$ and it's already 65 000 raws from K3. That should quite a few years already if you keep only the shoots worth keeping. The main argument for raw will be the post processing will simply give better results. Sometime this is more theoric (cropping, horizon...) and not very relevant. Sometime this quite visible (pushing shadows, noise reduction, white balance, correcting exposure, getting back burned highlights). What can I say? My father was against raw until he was using photoshop element. He used the full argumentation for JPEG and against RAW. Simply because element made RAW processing a hassle. Now that he asked we offer him lightroom, there no more difference in workflow between RAWs and JPEG, he started to use Raws just as test in a few more case and changed completely his mind on the usefullness of it. Now he start to use Raws more and more. Maybe other would find no interrest for it, even after many tries. I think you misuderstood the intent of the comment. I do not disagree with respect to the need for sometimes, minor edits, etc. and maybe, for example, i am using the wrong photo editor, and would find raw more interesting with another program, who knows. all i intended to show was that the possible need for framing work in PP is often used as the justification for raw. "You are going to be doing PP anyway so why not use RAW" is the argument you often hear, but the need to crop and straighten is simply not enough on its own, for me to justify RAW. that is all i intended I am not Anti RAW, i see it as a tool, as are many other things you can do, and it is something people need to decide for themselves,. As you say "Do what you want" .

06-15-2015, 08:18 AM	#79
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by normhead There i nothing more frustrating than using my Optio 90W, that only shoots in jpeg...and getting a great image, that just needs a bit of a week to make it a fantastic image, but you don't have enough bits to make it happen. Jpeg is 8 bits, the biggest number is 255. So 255 values in each colour channel. That gives you a lot of options, buttony 16 values in the back range. 12 bits gives you values of 4096 bits. and over 128 values in the black range. So if you wan't smooth natural looking transitions in your shadow detail you have much more chance of dong that with Raw. The whole RAW Jpeg discussion comes down t that for me... 16 against 128. Raw gives you half the values to work with in the shadows, that jpeg does altogether. And it's the same at every segment of the spectrum. Honestly I never understood why nobody tried to use Jpeg2000 format that support 16bit/color channel instead of 8... Not like camera manufacturer let us a choice anyway... But that would justify raw only for noise reduction. Last edited by Nicolas06; 06-15-2015 at 08:24 AM.