Photoclubalpha

I am a new convert to RAW, largely because I now have an imaging programme (PSE6) which will give RAW thumbnails in the Organiser and allow easy conversion at the Develop / Fix stage. Prior to this I used PS7 / PSE2. I'm not even sure whether PS7 permitted the use of ACR - PSE2 certainly did not. Having seen the flexibility and transformative power of ACR to develop ARW files I wonder if there is any point at all now in using in-camera processing, whether in the A700 or A900, whether it be AWB, DRO, or any of the imaging styles. It even seems that you have a lot of latitude to correct exposure in ACR as well. I suppose that using JPGs does give you more image space on the cards but CF cards are really cheap now - even an 8GB card does not break the bank - that I can't see any purpose in economising in that arena. Am I missing something here or is the current ease of RAW conversion a recent phenomenon?

well with JPG you can maintain the maximum shooting speed on the camera without having it lock up on you momentarily after a burst while it clears the buffer.

Also DRO which only works on JPG, not RAW. OK, so you can get similar results from RAW, but it is more time consuming.

good point. if your going to have a 1000 pics at the end of the day and say .. 6-800 keepers in the end. thats a lot of processing if the shots are varied and can't use batch tools to your advantage.

My sixpenthworth: It took a while for me to be convinced but now I only ever use RAW.

I discovered a cracking bit of freeware called "RAW to JPEG" which gives a right click menu option to extract the mini jpegs imbedded in RAW files (to enable them to be displayed in camera). It creates a sub-folder of them with the same file numbers enabling rapid view in windows before delving into the serious Bridge and PS programmes.

Now I never have my alpha set to anything else. (And RAW + JPEG is a complete waste of card space IMHO)

RAW is a digital negative, jpeg is the 'print'. Would you shoot film w/o a negative? (yes, Polaroid users did).

Shooting RAW+JPG give you the advantage of a quickie, processed photo, such as DRO, as well as all of the advantages of the RAW. There are times I don't have the time to PP my RAW files before I need to send someone a shot, and there have been a few times I was so pleased w/ a jpeg that I didn't bother to PP it.

I would never shoot just JPG, and would only shoot RAW only if I was really tight on card space.

Dusty

I'm with Dusty on this one. As a relative newb and still learning the art of PP I like to keep the jpg around so that when I have finished PP'ing the raw file I can compare it with what the camera reckoned it should look like. If my pp'd effort is better then great - if not, well I still have the jpg

I don't trust my monitor, so I use the camera's jpg engine. When I take the picture, I have the image as captured and the subject right in front of me--no better time for getting the right color. So, if I use the right WB then I should have got the exposure I wanted. Also, I'm lazy.

This is an interesting discussion and since I was wondering what folks prefer I set up this poll

Brian

KevinBarrett wrote:I don't trust my monitor, so I use the camera's jpg engine. When I take the picture, I have the image as captured and the subject right in front of me--no better time for getting the right color. So, if I use the right WB then I should have got the exposure I wanted. Also, I'm lazy.

Sooner or later you'll blow a shot you can't re-do. With RAW, you have a lot more ability to fix it. If you don't trust your monitor, download Calibrize. http://www.calibrize.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That should put you in the ball-park with color correction.

Dusty

Dusty wrote:Sooner or later you'll blow a shot you can't re-do. With RAW, you have a lot more ability to fix it. If you don't trust your monitor, download Calibrize. http://www.calibrize.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
That should put you in the ball-park with color correction.
Dusty

Thanks Dusty, that's helpful. I've not come across that one before so I'll give it a look.

Dusty wrote:If you don't trust your monitor, download Calibrize. http://www.calibrize.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That should put you in the ball-park with color correction.

I ran this on my home PC, and it came out almost exactly as I had it already set - a good sign. I was quite impressed - looked a nice little freebie.
So I ran it on my work laptop and it right screwed it up! Everything is now blue/magenta. I cannot get it to set it correctly at all so will have to go back through it by hand.

harveyzone wrote:I ran this on my home PC, and it came out almost exactly as I had it already set - a good sign. I was quite impressed - looked a nice little freebie.
So I ran it on my work laptop and it right screwed it up! Everything is now blue/magenta. I cannot get it to set it correctly at all so will have to go back through it by hand.

Try Monitor Calibration Wizard. It lets you do adjustments at several points in all 3 colors, plus black and white adjustments.
http://www.hex2bit.com/products/product_mcw.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dusty