What is so bad about RAW?

[Gavjenks]

The age of DSLR is over. The age of jpeg, dramatic pauses, and ridiculously heavy vignetting has begun.

 

[tecboy]

After seeing so many crockett's videos, he seems convincing that mirrorless will replace DLSR. He seems like a prophet or something, and that is what angered a lot of professional photographers. The mirrorless cameras cost about the same as entry level DSLRs. I have not seen photographers transition from dslrs to mirrorless cameras, but may be possible in the future. I don't own mirrorless camera, so I don't know how true what he is saying. He claims mirrorless cameras have better autofocus and accurate auto white balance than all dslrs. Is that true?

 

[Gavjenks]

Mirrorless cameras WILL replace DSLRS, if and when:

1) Sensor-based autofocus becomes as fast and accurate as bottom-of-camera autofocus, and
2) The live view screen can update with little enough lag that it is indistinguishable to human perception from the light speed updating of an optical viewfinder

I see no reason why both of those things can't happen, perhaps even very soon. If/when they do, there will be absolutely no point anymore in having a mirror or pentaprism other than nostalgia or wanting to not rely on batteries.... or something.



Add on an image-transfer speed of about 1/4000th of a second for a full sensor's worth of pixels sometime in the future, and you won't even need a shutter anymore. = Camera with no moving parts at all except for the buttons for humans to push.

 

[tecboy]

If and when... Nobody knows what the future holds. Crockett did a very good job convincing some pro-photographers to switch from dlsr to mirrorless. You should see some of their testimonials. These are pretty bizarre. I think crockett is a losing battle at what is doing. Mirrorless camera sales don't reflect potential

However, I like his tripod.

 

[skieur]

I'm not insulting anyone. I just don't like fact about giving wrong information about jpeg is better picture quality than unprocessed raw image.

Both are generalizations that involve a number of variables.

1. If you have a raw processing program with limited adjustments then you may be able to produce better quality jpegs in camera or with plug-ins.
2. If you have the best and latest raw processing program then with the appropriate skills you will be able to produce better quality images.
3. If you can edit jpegs in 16 bit then you may be able to produce quality equal to working with raw images.

Time is money for pros, so speed is also an issue. In general terms RAW is a larger file, slower to shoot, slower to process, and slower to save, upload or download. For a lot of successful photographers it comes down to the importance of the shot, as whether to use jpeg or raw. For public relations or prints in small size advertising folders (for example), productions for projection, jpeg will certainly do the job. For art shots, celebrity portraits, magazine covers, posters, museum work, etc. RAW would probably be best.

There is no simple black and white answer to which is best all the time.

 

[tecboy]

Umm...I think everyone knows what are the differences between raw and jpeg. Like I said before, I use raw for heavy editing and export to high quality jpeg. I can't tell the difference on the picture quality of both raw and jpeg. If you read further or watch the videos, crockett said raw is not a photograph, raw doesn't have enough contrast and saturation. He also said we think raw is faster processing than jpeg. Even everyone has a choice to follow him or not, however, I just don't like he distorts the facts and confuses others about photography.

 

[Gavjenks]

Well, it is pretty much a fact that it takes longer to process. It's an extra step added in on the way toward the same finished product. Just like double knotting your shoes is pretty much objectively slower than single knotting them. But you may still need to double knot your shoes in tricky situations to make sure they don't fall off... so it doesn't mean you should never double knot your shoes. But it's also not "distorting the facts" to say it takes longer.

 

[tecboy]

Well, it is pretty much a fact that it takes longer to process. It's an extra step added in on the way toward the same finished product. Just like double knotting your shoes is pretty much objectively slower than single knotting them. But you may still need to double knot your shoes in tricky situations to make sure they don't fall off... so it doesn't mean you should never double knot your shoes. But it's also not "distorting the facts" to say it takes longer.

It is distorting the fact saying raw is not a photograph. Beside, I don't know where he gets the idea that people say raw is faster processing than jpeg.

 

[Solarflare]

I will switch to MILC once they offer me the same quality and practical usefulness as DSLRs in a more compact and more lightweight shell.

For example, my D600 can do 900 to 1200 shots on one battery. I can shoot action with it. I can manage lowlight quite brilliantly with it. No MILC I know of offers this kind of shots. Only some MILC like Nikon 1 can manage action, and they need good light for it. Only Fuji X is actually quite brilliant in low light; good enough that I would tolerate it (now Fuji X with a full 36x24mm sensor would be fun).

 

[Kolia]

I can't but help see a parallel with film vs Polaroid. Much fast to get a Polaroid print...

Honestly, would a client know the difference if you gave them an out of body jpeg instead of a reworked from RAW ? The point that the guy is making is a valid one. If jpeg is "good enough" then any extra work is a waste of time and money.

 

[tecboy]

In my experiences, when I shoot jpeg, I have a hard time determine which white balance to use because the weather condition. Should I use cloudy or daylight? There are times I will make mistake changing setting and shoot about 100 shots. There will be times I'm not happy with the colors, contrast, sharpness, etc, and I still have to edit in photoshop. Based on videos I watched from hybrid photograph, they have to set their milcs to get the right saturation, contrast, sharpness, and etc before shooting. Looks like is pretty hard to look at a 2-3 inch screen while adjusting. Unless, you have MILC, you can spend a lot time looking through the viewfinder. I like working in lightroom, it gives better tweaking in shadows, colors, white balance, and etc. I still shoot jpeg with my point & shoot camera and my iPad when I don't feel like carrying my dlsr.


Crockett said dlsrs will end. So far, when I hang around the photography community, I haven't see anyone uses milc. I gotta stop watching his videos. I think I'm getting brainwashed.

 

[Gavjenks]

Tecboy, I recently believed that the in camera contrast and saturation settings were as powerful as RAW software, not too long ago, if you knew what you were doing and took the time to set them. I even had a whole big thread about it on this forum.

But was proven wrong. The cameras SHOULD offer as strong of adjustments in camera for their jpegs as is possible with RAW conversion. There's no technical reason why they shouldn't. But the reality is that they just don't. Maximum contrast adjustment does not result in nearly as pulled apart jpegs as you are allowed to do in RAW conversion software.

So the theory is sound that if you are willing to put in the time to set your settings all correctly in the field, that the jpeg have all the same data as a converted RAW. But the reality is that the software in camera is, for some reason, usually crippled by artificial ceilings on how much you can adjust it, making this sometimes a physically impossible strategy, when you need more contrast or less contrast or whatever than the in camera settings allow (even though RAW could do more). In addition, of course, to the time investment in the field that you would expect to be an inherent tradeoff for such a strategy.



I assume that if enough people like Crockett pushed for it as customers, camera companies might start allowing a wider range of settings in camera with fewer artificial limits. If so, it would become more possible to do the same thing as RAW processing afterward, but in the field, assuming you made the correct adjustment decisions. But probably not enough people want to do that, or don't realize that the limits are, indeed, more constrained currently.

 

[tecboy]

Tecboy, I recently believed that the in camera contrast and saturation settings were as powerful as RAW software, not too long ago, if you knew what you were doing and took the time to set them. I even had a whole big thread about it on this forum.

But was proven wrong. The cameras SHOULD offer as strong of adjustments in camera for their jpegs as is possible with RAW conversion. There's no technical reason why they shouldn't. But the reality is that they just don't. Maximum contrast adjustment does not result in nearly as pulled apart jpegs as you are allowed to do in RAW conversion software.

So the theory is sound that if you are willing to put in the time to set your settings all correctly in the field, that the jpeg have all the same data as a converted RAW. But the reality is that the software in camera is, for some reason, usually crippled by artificial ceilings on how much you can adjust it, making this sometimes a physically impossible strategy, when you need more contrast or less contrast or whatever than the in camera settings allow (even though RAW could do more). In addition, of course, to the time investment in the field that you would expect to be an inherent tradeoff for such a strategy.

I assume that if enough people like Crockett pushed for it as customers, camera companies might start allowing a wider range of settings in camera with fewer artificial limits. If so, it would become more possible to do the same thing as RAW processing afterward, but in the field, assuming you made the correct adjustment decisions. But probably not enough people want to do that, or don't realize that the limits are, indeed, more constrained currently.

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Because what crockett said doesn't change the fact I have to shoot jpeg all the times and thinking that jpeg has better picture quality than raw. That also doesn't change the fact that I have to buy a mirrorless camera because he said it is the future. If I don't want to edit photo, maybe I'll just set my dslr to full auto and expect all my photographs to be high quality.

 

[Tailgunner]

Well, it is pretty much a fact that it takes longer to process. It's an extra step added in on the way toward the same finished product. Just like double knotting your shoes is pretty much objectively slower than single knotting them. But you may still need to double knot your shoes in tricky situations to make sure they don't fall off... so it doesn't mean you should never double knot your shoes. But it's also not "distorting the facts" to say it takes longer.

I double knot my shoes every time...do it once and never have to worry about it the rest of the day

 

[Gavjenks]

I don't quite understand what you are saying. Because what crockett said doesn't change the fact I have to shoot jpeg all the times and thinking that jpeg has better picture quality than raw. That also doesn't change the fact that I have to buy a mirrorless camera because he said it is the future. If I don't want to edit photo, maybe I'll just set my dslr to full auto and expect all my photographs to be high quality.

I'm saying that the camera has settings you can set for +3 contrast or -4 contrast or whatever. And what they do is take the RAW that temporarily exists and convert it along those parameters to the jpeg that gets saved if you shoot jpeg. So theoretically, you should be able to set whatever you want in camera and have the jpeg turn out as well as a RAW conversion, if you make the right choices.

However, the in-camera settings have arbitrary limits on them. Like -4 might be as low as it goes, but the RAW conversion software on the computer might be able to do the equivalent of -7. There's no rhyme or reason to why the camera has built in limits, but it seems they do.

So if you want to do everything in camera like Crockett wants to do, it turns out you physically can't, even if you know what settings you want, because some settings aren't available in camera for no apparent reason.