[Rondec]

I have been thinking about it and RAW to me is very useful a) in situations with weird white balance (mixed lighting, odd tints, etc) b) high iso shots. In both of these situations, I get significant improvements shooting RAW versus Jpeg. Unfortunately, an awful lot of my photos get taken in exactly these settings -- family gatherings, a gymn, etc. For me, it makes a lot more sense to use RAW and get the full benefit, rather than gripe at the Jpeg engine that makes a muck of iso 3200 on my K20.

At the same time, there are lots of people who shoot jpeg and love it -- in fact most people I know do and are happy. Not trying to change the world, just say what works for me.

[cardinal43]

Let's have a discussion about the benefits of boxers over 'tighty whitey's' next.

That's an easy decision. Can you say "commando style."

[aerodave]

At the same time, there are lots of people who shoot jpeg and love it -- in fact most people I know do and are happy. Not trying to change the world, just say what works for me.

Rondec, you're being quite open-minded and tolerant. You have obviously stumbled into this thread by mistake.

[GeneV]

OK i'll be a right arsehole. I still disagree.

It never takes more time, not usually Again, I don't think people understand the workflow, the only extra effort is literally pressing the export button ... that's it, there is no extra effort. You can still choose to walk away from the RAW files and batch everything rather than hand process a single image just like you're shooting jpg. Difference being when (not if) you want to make changes, you have a RAW file, even if it's one file in a hundred.

As for disk space, surely you jest? It's like $70 a terabite.

Regarding file management, what file management????? I don't think you get the workflow, you can't or you'd understand that there are LESS images to manage not more because if I want to create an image for a 4x6 print or an 8x10 or a web sized image ... i just press EXPORT and it's generated from the RAW files.

For the 100th time, it's not slower, it's faster and easier if you know what you're doing.

Well put. Good photographers are certainly shooting terrific jpegs. I just haven't seen the downside to PEF.

[Mark Castleman]

True. Although if you can quality for the educational discount, you can get LR for $100. And some of the other programs that support a LR-style workflow are a bit cheaper than LR (ACDSee Pro, Lightzone, Bibble 5).

I think part of the upshot of this discussion should be to help people quantify the differences between the various applications out there. I love free software as much as the next person - haven't touched Microsoft Word since installing OpenOffice.org, am typing this on Firefox, etc. But there are some *major* advantages to Lightroom and programs like it that specifically relate to the topic at hand: the tradeoffs between shooting RAW versus shooting JPEG. Basically, the free tools out there are pretty much all such that shooting RAW really does seem like a chore compared to JPEG. Those of us stressing that shooting RAW is *as easy as if not easier than* shooting JPEG are assuming one has access to tools that make this so.

Of the free tools out there, only Picasa to my knowledge currently supports the sort of workflow I am talking about, although it's got some significant limitations of its own. I guess for someone interested in shooting RAW, intrigued by the notion that it can be in fact as easy or easier than JPEG, but unconvinced enough to spend a couple hundred bucks to find out, playing with Picasa a while would be a reasonable way to experiment. Of course, LR and its competitors all offer free trials - usually a month, which may or may not be long enough to really come up to speed.

If you work in, or know someone else who does, the education discounts can be pretty good. iPhoto and Aperture also make for pretty smooth workflows but they are limited in being Mac only programs. Sometimes you can get a really good deal at university bookstores. Aperture's education price is $179 (only $20 off and not eligible for cheap upgrade) but if you can get it at the institutional price (which I did ) it can be had for $69. That is a price I am willing to pay for the ease of use.

[zxaar]

Well put. Good photographers are certainly shooting terrific jpegs. I just haven't seen the downside to PEF.

the downside to pef is that you got to open everyfile to see if you want to process it or not. Often opening it also opens up an intermediate dialog and it also take up some time to go to photoshop. If you got to do this thing for all 500 or more files you shot in that day you end up wasting lot of time with files those were throw aways.
If it were only jpeg, window file preview browser take one click to display next file.
This was the reason I did not shoot raw with k100d.

kx shoots both so i browse with jpeg and process selected raws.

Further I do not agree that processing raws is any faster, but raw definitely give more flexiblity and it is good idea to keep raw files of selected important photos.

File management is definite headache if files are more, it be jpeg or raw.

[Mark Castleman]

the downside to pef is that you got to open everyfile to see if you want to process it or not. Often opening it also opens up an intermediate dialog and it also take up some time to go to photoshop. If you got to do this thing for all 500 or more files you shot in that day you end up wasting lot of time with files those were throw aways.
If it were only jpeg, window file preview browser take one click to display next file.
This was the reason I did not shoot raw with k100d.

For OS X users the Quick Look feature will let you look at PEF and DNG files without having to open any application

That's an easy decision. Can you say "commando style."

So what's the photographic equivalent of that then?

[Blue]

For OS X users the Quick Look feature will let you look at PEF and DNG files without having to open any application

There's ways to do with PC as well.

[GeneV]

the downside to pef is that you got to open everyfile to see if you want to process it or not. Often opening it also opens up an intermediate dialog and it also take up some time to go to photoshop. If you got to do this thing for all 500 or more files you shot in that day you end up wasting lot of time with files those were throw aways.
If it were only jpeg, window file preview browser take one click to display next file.
This was the reason I did not shoot raw with k100d.

kx shoots both so i browse with jpeg and process selected raws.

Further I do not agree that processing raws is any faster, but raw definitely give more flexiblity and it is good idea to keep raw files of selected important photos.

File management is definite headache if files are more, it be jpeg or raw.

Really, none of those things actually work out to be significant with just a little learning about the software. With an easy codec update, my Windows Vista views PEF files as easily as jpegs. With my XP machines, the same was done by associating the PEF files with Fastone--free and very easy to use.

You do not have to see the intermediate dialogue in Photoshop if you batch process. In addition, you can batch process using Photoshop auto settings, which I find to be accurate more often than the Pentax AWB, and you can substitute superior software like Noise Ninja or Noiseware for the camera's noise reduction software, and you can substitute sharpening software tweaked just the way you want it.

Shooting both formats and having a few more files really wouldn't cause any significant problem to me, but I can see it might be a minor annoyance to some. I have used Photoshop so many years that it seems as natural a part of the flow as developing film did. Perhaps if I were not using Photoshop, processing the raw files would not seem as simple.

[Alfisti]

the downside to pef is that you got to open everyfile to see if you want to process it or not. Often opening it also opens up an intermediate dialog and it also take up some time to go to photoshop.

GAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, no, no and freakin no

There is no intermediate dialog, just open LR or even Faststone (which is lightending fast) and the files are right there, it's just like jpg.

I swear to god people are intentionally not listening.

[GeneV]

GAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, no, no and freakin no

There is no intermediate dialog, just open LR or even Faststone (which is lightending fast) and the files are right there, it's just like jpg.

Or even the picture viewer in Windows Vista.
(after installing the free PEF codec)

[Blue]

Or even the picture viewer in Windows Vista.
(after installing the free PEF codec)

Exactly !

[UnknownVT]

Or even the picture viewer in Windows Vista.
(after installing the free PEF codec)

This is right for Vista - for those still on XP - well you're sool (think about it) -
not really there was an old dp Magic Community Edition - which worked well on XP
- it is now discontinued by the originator - but can be found using Google via some Korean or Japanese sites search on dpMagicCeSetup.exe.

This will display .PEF files at least from my K100D -
I'll have to see if the .PEF from the K-x is OK -
it ought to be, as these only show the embedded JPGs in the RAW files.......

[Marc Sabatella]

That was my quote and I did not complain about my PP results.
Heck, I don't even do any PP.

For the record, and since it appears clarification is in order here is the quote:

I can adjust my images 'till i'm blue in the face, it's somewhat like adjusting your new HD TV, to many options and never being happy with the results.

To much of a "good" thing can just kill the whole experience of getting a natural image.

I guess I made the mistake of assuming that "I can..." meant you had actually tried, and that "never being happy with the results" meant you in fact were *not* happy with the results when you tried it. Maybe you really were just hypothesizing that this is what would happen *if* you tried, or suggesting tht this is what other people experience?

Anyhow, my comment stands: it is absolutely true that the plethora of options and controls in PP can allow an unskilled operator to ruin an image, or to waste a lot of time in a vain effort to improve an image. But that in no way means the tools aren't useful to people who know what they are doing, or that it wouldn't be worth the effort of doing so.