Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: What is your job level and what format do you shoot?
Pro-RAW 227.72%
Pro-JPG 51.75%
Pro-RAW+JPG 93.16%
Amateur-RAW 15454.04%
Amateur-JPG 3813.33%
Amateur-RAW+JPG 4816.84%
Just show me the results 93.16%
Voters: 285. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-09-2008, 08:28 AM   #31
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,007
I'm an amatuer who grew up in film and only a couple of years into shooting digital. I shoot JPEG probably 98% of the time. I occasionaly shoot a RAW shot but I really don't like spending the extra PP time. I treat most of my shots the same way as film, the way they come out of the camera is the way they stay pretty much. I don't like spending a lot of time computer editing.

09-09-2008, 09:01 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
I chose Am. RAW+JPEG. I choose RAW when I feel I need to shoot RAW. Otherwise I am doing mostly JPEG shooting.
09-09-2008, 10:54 AM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Posts: 851
I think the reason that even the $8000 camera's offer both formats is because they are both necessary. I shoot events where over 2000 photos go directly from my camera to the internet for distribution and so jpg is the best format. Obviously if you are doing a studio session you will want to shoot RAW. I choose the format to shoot the same way I set the white balance... just pick which one suits the situation
09-09-2008, 12:07 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 217
RAW is for amateurs

QuoteOriginally posted by roentarre Quote
I shoot JPG all the way. No need to shoot RAW anymore (Too troublesome for an amateur)
I use Picasa2 on the PC (with GIMP) and iphoto on the macbook... I cant see what trouble there is with RAW.

The ONLY extra step I have ever been forced to do is export to jpg to upload to costco for prints. But I think I would have to export to an upload directory even if the original was JPG. So the extra trouble amounts to a click or two with the mouse.


????????

-k

09-09-2008, 01:02 PM   #35
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 64
Amateur and started using RAW a few months ago.
09-09-2008, 03:20 PM   #36
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by kmccanta Quote
I use Picasa2 on the PC (with GIMP) and iphoto on the macbook... I cant see what trouble there is with RAW.

The ONLY extra step I have ever been forced to do is export to jpg to upload to costco for prints. But I think I would have to export to an upload directory even if the original was JPG. So the extra trouble amounts to a click or two with the mouse.


????????

-k
Too troublesome for an amateur like me.
09-09-2008, 04:55 PM   #37
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
Perhaps this will clear things up?

QuoteOriginally posted by marcdsgn Quote
I'm not too sure about that. Speaking from the commercial prepress POV, if you're a professional who cares about the final print, then you should be shooting RAW, or the closest thing your camera provides to RAW format. Printing presses are very unforgiving to JPG images, and any subtle changes that you decide may need to be made to your image once you've received your proofs for review, can only be done from an image that has retained the maximum amount of original data from the RAW image.

JPGs are mere ghosts of the original image and the stripped-back data is practically useless to work with at a professional post-processing level. There may be professionals out there who are happy with the limited post-processing abilities that JPG provides, but any professional who has an understanding of commercial printing standards will (or should!) always post-process from RAW images.

Then, for best result with commercial printers, provide TIF or EPS conversions. Not JPG.

Well there are two areas at play here: The photographer; and the printing process. It's not about whether professionals make mistakes when taking a shot or not, it's about compensating for camera-to-printer data translation. In other words: Being able to tweak that brilliant shot so it looks just as brilliant when printed.
QuoteOriginally posted by garth1948 Quote
I agree that most professional digital photographers have come from the film world and use the camera settings to get the shot they want. Journalists, travel photographers, shopping mall portrait people - ie most people who make money with their camera and want quick images without a computer do not shoot raw. The K20D is capable of producing a Jpeg equal to the best processed raw on a PC. The end product print or screen images are limited in dynamic range, spatial resolution and 8 bits per channel.
Most posters advocating raw capture cite correction of their mistakes as the reason for raw.
Proffessionals make fewer mistakes!
RAW is often a requirement for many professional image shops - especially for stock photography or print house work. It's been clearly covered by several posts in this thread - thank you marcdsgn and others!

There are often minimum DPI requirements - often well above a JPEG's native 72 DPI, and a JPEG is throwing away information that only a RAW image will capture. I am not saying it's not very good, it's simply a requirement for press houses, etc. The last competition I finished required:
  1. RAW and TIFF images on DVD
  2. TIFF files - 400 DPI
  3. AdobeRGB(1998) Color Space
  4. JPEGs in sRGB color space (for judging)
These images are potentially being printed in a large format hardcover book - that's the reason for the high DPI TIFF files. You'd have to interpolate a JPEG - it looks OK, but not nearly as good. Plus if there are issues (which I've seen before when doing large prints with high-res JPEGs), the RAW capture can allow you to start over, since it's a lossless format.

I also received this response from a reliable stock photo agency (Delimont) which specializes in nature photography and travel photography:
"... the images usually need to be available as RAW files interpolated to roughly 50MB when uncompressed, usually in the AdobeRGB (1998) color space... "


I began shooting in RAW because my *ist DS was very, very good in this mode, and kept shooting when I bought a K10D. Sure the K20D JPEGs are very, very good, as are the K10D JPEGs with certain changes from default. I now shoot almost all my images in RAW for the (very compelling) reasons mentioned above. I will only shoot JPEG if card space is low (unlikely to happen) or the outdoor event dictates only smaller prints from JPEGs will be sufficient. I am not saying anyone is wrong here - to say RAW is only for correcting mistakes is too general a statement, and inaccurate in more than a couple of situations. Hope this helps.

Regards,
Marc
09-09-2008, 05:11 PM   #38
Senior Member
marcdsgn's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 266
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
Also, taking a tif into illustrator or any other program then saving as an eps it's still a bitmap image. EPS is vector art such as what illustrator puts out. Tifs can't really be made into vector. It's still bitmap.
The idea of converting to EPS is not to make it a vector image (which is impossible), but to convert it to a universal format that commercial printers can read - TIF and EPS being the standard options. (these are the options we suggest by default, to avoid files being provided as native-file programs that we can't read). If you have the means to convert to TIF, then that would be the first option for photographic images. After that, EPS is the next best thing. Yes, JPGs can be used, but it limits editing capabilities should images need to be tweaked at prepress stage.

Also just FYI, several bitmap programs (eg: Photoshop) have the option of converting straight to EPS, in which case there's no need to pull an image into a vector program to do so.

09-09-2008, 05:11 PM   #39
Veteran Member
sewebster's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 533
You can print a jpeg in any dpi you want by adjusting the output size. The 72 dpi is utterly meaningless.

I still don't see how jpeg is "easier" or "less complicated" though. How are people even looking at their images? Windows Explorer?

It seems to me that IF you are using one of the "usual" programs (lightroom, aperture, picasa etc.) that jpeg won't be any different than RAW at all.
09-09-2008, 05:18 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,330
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Langille Quote
  1. RAW and TIFF images on DVD
  2. TIFF files - 400 DPI
  3. AdobeRGB(1998) Color Space
  4. JPEGs in sRGB color space (for judging)
These images are potentially being printed in a large format hardcover book - that's the reason for the high DPI TIFF files. You'd have to interpolate a JPEG - it looks OK, but not nearly as good. Plus if there are issues (which I've seen before when doing large prints with high-res JPEGs), the RAW capture can allow you to start over, since it's a lossless format.

I also received this response from a reliable stock photo agency (Delimont) which specializes in nature photography and travel photography:
"... the images usually need to be available as RAW files interpolated to roughly 50MB when uncompressed, usually in the AdobeRGB (1998) color space... "
But how can you edit a RAW file then still supply it as a RAW file?
09-09-2008, 05:33 PM   #41
Site Supporter
Marc Langille's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NW Arkansas, USA
Posts: 4,702
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
But how can you edit a RAW file then still supply it as a RAW file?
Stirring the pot.... You can save the edits into a TIFF file.... normally the basic edits are saved into a .xmp file for the RAW image...

The RAW file is used to ensure only global exposure adjustments, etc. are made - no dodging, burning, selective highlights, etc. and that no cropping is done. There's more, but those are the most important reasons.

Photoshop will not allow you to save it in the native electronic (RAW) format - in this case PEF. I must supply the TIFF often in 16 bit color mode, so RAW is necessary then too.

Cheers,
Marc

Last edited by Marc Langille; 09-09-2008 at 05:44 PM. Reason: clarification
09-09-2008, 07:34 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,134
I have not shot jpeg with my k10d, ever. I don't shoot RAW + either. I shoot RAW only. I have used film for a very long time - since 1958 with a Yashica 35mm rangefinder - since 1961 with Pentax SLR - and I will not throw away my digital negative. The jpeg is the equivalent to the print from the drugstore. If you want a larger and more detailed output, you need the original data, be it from Velvia or Sony CCD or Samsung CMOS. Why throw away data? What a waste of your talent. Every time you save a jpeg, it loses more data. Look it up. Every time you save a jpeg, it loses data. Every time. No exceptions. Once you have done post on your jpeg, you cannot go back and undo it.
09-09-2008, 08:23 PM   #43
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
But how can you edit a RAW file then still supply it as a RAW file?
You're not really editing the raw file. When you "edit" in Camera Raw it creates a file (.xmp) that is just a set of instructions that tells Photoshop what adjustments are needing to be made. It is a totally non-destructive process. It's like when you want to adjust levels, you can do it right to the layer which is final once the file is closed or you can create an adjustment layer which can be turned on or off at any time.
09-09-2008, 08:24 PM   #44
Senior Member
marcdsgn's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 266
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
The jpeg is the equivalent to the print from the drugstore.
Best analogy!
09-09-2008, 09:04 PM   #45
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 293
The penny drops!

Have checked where possible occupations of this thread's posters.

Heavy post-processors and advocates of raw capture are predominately professional graphic design artists and studio photographers.

I am in the professional image capture camp where the camera is used to capture the moment, scene, activity etc for distribution as a record.

Vastly different purposes and there is no way one camp can convince the other to change their work flow.

Good that we have access to tools that can satisfy all.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First Paying Job? murviper Photographic Technique 16 07-13-2010 02:28 PM
Rebuilding the 35 MM Format FA* line to the DA* APS-C Format Adrian Owerko Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 01-20-2010 11:04 AM
trying to find a job?! catsman50 Photographic Industry and Professionals 7 11-28-2009 03:20 PM
500 Job graphicgr8s General Talk 41 06-26-2009 07:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top