[MetteHHH]

Well yes, Anders, actually I want to strongly recommend raw+ as well (if I didn't make enough of a point of it above!)

I began shooting raw in 2009, and now when I use photos from before that date now, I am strongly annoyed by the missing ability to play around with WB and exposure - even if I didn't specifically mess it up, a picture might still benefit from slight adjustments. I enjoy digital "development" too, and the thing is, even if you don't want to play with your raw files now, with raw+ you can just use the jpgs, and consider your raw files as your digital "negatives" to be stored for some later date where you might need them.

After all, SD cards are cheap, hard drives are cheap. In a costly hobby like photography, these are really minor issues. So, why not.

[DSims]

@elliott "How is a camera going to know if you screwed up?" By analyzing the picture looking for "significant" over- or
underexposure. That seems feasible to me.

I believe you're right - the camera could take a look at the histogram and make a determination. It would probably inherently be conservative - saving the RAW more often than it actually needs to, because it can't tell what you intended.

[asp1880]

I believe you're right - the camera could take a look at the histogram and make a determination. It would probably inherently be conservative - saving the RAW more often than it actually needs to, because it can't tell what you intended.

It could be made configurable - save the RAW if more than X % of the pixels are black or white. Or three "low-medium-high" misexposure levels to choose from.
The feature itself could be enabled as a fourth file format option besides "jpeg, raw, jpeg+raw, jpeg+autoraw".

Regards,
--Anders.

[DSims]

It could be made configurable - save the RAW if more than X % of the pixels are black or white. Or three "low-medium-high" misexposure levels to choose from.
The feature itself could be enabled as a fourth file format option besides "jpeg, raw, jpeg+raw, jpeg+autoraw".

Regards,
--Anders.

Yes, I think this could work. There are a number of disadvantages to shooting RAW or JPEG+RAW with every shot, so it's not frivolous as it might appear at first glance.

[Fogel70]

I believe you're right - the camera could take a look at the histogram and make a determination. It would probably inherently be conservative - saving the RAW more often than it actually needs to, because it can't tell what you intended.

IMO, this type of feauture needs to check more things than just exposure. One example is if WB is set way off it can be fixed by having RAW data, but is difficult to correct on a jpg. There are a few other settings that can ruin a jpg, but is possible to save by using RAW.

One problem with this type of feature is that it will probably have to save both jpg and RAW and then compare those images between shots. So in burst mode it might be even slower than shooting in RAW+jpg.

[MetteHHH]

Fogel70 brings up an important point - since burst speed would probably be a main justification for this feature (or else why not just raw+?)

Sorry if this is an ignorant suggestion (I'm not much into the details of computer tech) But... how about then increasing buffer size by something like x10? Then Anders could get his "autoraw" setting to evaluate and save image files _after_ the burst shooting had ended - and, incidentally, it would also allow my "salvage unsaved photos from buffer" feature (Honestly, Anders, not trying to hijack your thread! )

I'm guessing there is a hitch here, beyond the reach of my knowledge, or else buffers would probably be larger in general...

[Parallax]

How is any of this any benefit over just shooting in RAW, or RAW+ jpeg? Why would you want some crystal ball emulating feature that attempts to read the photographer's mind? The reason for buying a DSLR instead of a P&S is so you can decide what the picture should look like instead of letting the programmer who wrote the firmware decide.

[D0n]

the only time I found raw+jpeg useful is for event photography where I'm handing out prints and uploading jpegs to facebook..

here's what I do...
set the jpeg to 2mp and use aperture ....

I print 4x6's and do the photo uploads off my mac on jpegs right from the camera and the raw files are saved for any other uses like if somebody askes for an enlargement or press release..

the 2mp files print faster off the inkjet printers and the files upload faster with less compression on facebook..

add an automator and applescript workflow to the mix and I find the process is nearly fully automattic and rns very fast.

other than that I shoot raw and use aperture.

[Anvh]

@elliott "How is a camera going to know if you screwed up?" By analyzing the picture looking for "significant" over- or
underexposure. That seems feasible to me.

But that isnt that simpel.

Can you tell me which one is over or under expose?

1


2


3


4

[Anvh]

IMO, this type of feauture needs to check more things than just exposure. One example is if WB is set way off it can be fixed by having RAW data, but is difficult to correct on a jpg. There are a few other settings that can ruin a jpg, but is possible to save by using RAW.

Lossy DNG would be the answer for that.
It allows for WB adjustment, it's still a bit limited though since it's lossy but you it gives you the WB setting as in RAW and you can change it like that but if you're way out the image would degrade though.

Lossy DNG would also have more dynamic range since the tone-cruve is adjusted to hold the most information so you can recover highlights and shadows better then with JPEG.

Keep in mind though the range of adjustment is less then with normal RAW but more then with JPEG, it's trully an in between formatt.


For file size.



more info
ChromaSoft: Lightroom's new lossy DNG compression

This is certainly not for me but i can see it beeing useful for those shooting in JPEG now but want a bit more options in PP