Yet another RAW vs JPG question :)

[480sparky]

...........One of the biggest issues we have today with modern cameras is the complexity of the machines. The majority of "experts" today will not let the camera make many, or "any", critical exposure/processing decisions. Instead, the majority of "experts" today insist on setting every single exposure/processing parameter to DEFAULT, or to OFF, and then insisting that they possess special skill and knowledge, to process raw data better than the camera designers and engineers who work for Canon or Nikon or Sony...........

Not claiming to be an 'expert' who 'knows better'n the engineers', but some in-camera settings are severely crippled in terms of choices. Noise reduction, for instance. My D600 has only 3 in-camera choices. But Capture NX-2 has 1,000 possible permutations. In-cam saturation: 5 (not counting B&W).......... in post, I have one choice of -100 to +100 and I can compound it again with a -100 to 0 choice (I'll leave it to others to do the math on that one).

As for utilizing the Default (Off) settings for many choices, I prefer it that way to increase my burst rate. Turning on just a couple in-camera options can bog down the buffer almost to the point I would be better off with a $100 P&S in terms of speed. Turning them all off allows me to still shoot in raw, yet never have to worry about loosing a shot because the buffer is filled.

 

[Derrel]

My car only has 4 speeds to the transmission, and they cover the range of 1 to 120 miles an hour...but all I have to do is pull it to "D"...

I have currently 237 cable TV Channels, but I only watch CNN, ESPN, and occasionally, CBS.

Damn...I feel so...deprived! I need more choices!

 

[480sparky]

My car only has 4 speeds to the transmission, and they cover the range of 1 to 120 miles an hour...but all I have to do is pull it to "D"...

I have currently 237 cable TV Channels, but I only watch CNN, ESPN, and occasionally, CBS.

Damn...I feel so...deprived! I need more choices!

My truck has 5.............

 

[Scatterbrained]

Yes, but your camera doesn't change processing settings on the fly based on how hard you jab the shutter button. (that would be a pretty cool feature, not gonna lie)

 

[amolitor]

If Apple made a DSLR, the shutter button would accept multiple finger gestures. With horrifying results! It would be awesome!

 

[Derrel]

My car only has 4 speeds to the transmission, and they cover the range of 1 to 120 miles an hour...but all I have to do is pull it to "D"...

I have currently 237 cable TV Channels, but I only watch CNN, ESPN, and occasionally, CBS.

Damn...I feel so...deprived! I need more choices!

My truck has 5.............

I feel so, ashamed!!! Only four speeds!!! Dag-nabbit, I gotta get me a five-speed!

I just looked at your workflow on Page 1 and did a quick count: You detailed a 55-step workflow. That 5-speed transmission is probably getting some Number Envy from the Workflow Chart boys!

 

[480sparky]

I feel so, ashamed!!! Only four speeds!!! Dag-nabbit, I gotta get me a five-speed!........

Actually, your analogy only proves my point. Yes, you have four GEARS in your car, but you can vary the RPM of the ENGINE. This allows you to CHOOSE any speed between 0 and 120. Would you buy a car with only one engine speed and four gears in the transmission, forcing you to drive it like a fishing boat? Your only speeds would be 20, 40. 55 and 70 MPH.......those determined by some nameless, faceless engineer.

 

[Gavjenks]

Shoot RAW+JPEG and blend to suit, basically. It works fine, according to Ctein!

That still requires you to choose some % of the higher noise and some % of the greater bit depth, as a compromise. Better than choosing yes/no one or the other, but still less than ideal, since there's no good reason why we shouldn't be able to have 100% of each.

My car only has 4 speeds to the transmission, and they cover the range of 1 to 120 miles an hour...but all I have to do is pull it to "D"...

4 speeds is fine, but what if your car was actually a continuous transmission-capable vehicle, but yet an engineer built in arbitrary quantum stops on the continuous transmission cone, so that it could only actually operate at 4 positions?

That would be really dumb and wasteful. Even though it would still work fine, you'd just be throwing away extra gas mileage and performance for no reason.

 

[Ysarex]

The JPG has been processed to the standards of the engineers who built the program that does that in the camera. It doesn't know what it's looking at or what's important or how to make any choices at all. It just makes a series of pre-programmed adjustments, reduces the file size by discarding most of the information it started with, and spits out an image according to those adjustments and reduction. The photographer has a limited array of choices that can be made in the camera's menu prior to taking the shot, but it can take quite a bit of time and effort to drill down to make those choices on the fly. Most modern DSLRs therefore have buttons or settings that allow the photographer to pre-program several choices and switch to their preference on the fly much easier.

The RAW makes no assumptions about what the photo is about or what's important. It leaves all those decisions to a human being who must assess the individual photo on it's merits and make some decisions about how best to process that particular photo, which is done outside the camera using editing software. It throws away no information, leaving it to the human to use it or not. It provides the ultimate in getting the shot exactly as the photographer sees fit.

Shooting in RAW + JPG allows the photographer to move quickly through their images, accepting those that were rendered in JPG to the photographer's satisfaction, and still allowing the photographer to process the RAW files from those where the JPG did not render a satisfactory final image. It is, in essence, the best of both worlds.

Balancing the "worth it" factor:

• JPG takes the least amount of space on the card, but provides limited ability to process to satisfaction if it didn't come out right.
• RAW takes up more space on the card, but provides the most ability to process to satisfaction.
• RAW + JPG takes up the most space on the card, but provides the best of both worlds, as described above, and memory cards aren't that expensive these days.

:thumbup:


Regardless of how well the camera software suppresses noise, or handles CA, or corrects for lens distortions the bottom line is simple and Buckster here drove the nail home. That software has no idea what you photographed -- it's f***ing blind and so it's going to force a generic fits-all-fits-nothing solution onto your photo. Software can't see! What is it we do after all if not see?

Joe

 

[480sparky]

Regardless of how well the camera software suppresses noise, or handles CA, or corrects for lens distortions the bottom line is simple and Buckster here drove the nail home. That software has no idea what you photographed -- it's f***ing blind and so it's going to force a generic fits-all-fits-nothing solution onto your photo. Software can't see! What is it we do after all if not see?

Joe

'Splain to me facial recognition, a feature even my camera has.

 

[amolitor]

Cameras these days actually do have a notion of what they're shooting. It's a guess based on some parameters (focus distance? field of view? mathematical properties of the digital image?) but I suspect that it's right a lot of the time.

 

[Ysarex]

Regardless of how well the camera software suppresses noise, or handles CA, or corrects for lens distortions the bottom line is simple and Buckster here drove the nail home. That software has no idea what you photographed -- it's f***ing blind and so it's going to force a generic fits-all-fits-nothing solution onto your photo. Software can't see! What is it we do after all if not see?

Joe

'Splain to me facial recognition, a feature even my camera has.

 

[480sparky]

View attachment 50939

Yep.... that's a face, all right!

 

[Derrel]

Regardless of how well the camera software suppresses noise, or handles CA, or corrects for lens distortions the bottom line is simple and Buckster here drove the nail home. That software has no idea what you photographed -- it's f***ing blind and so it's going to force a generic fits-all-fits-nothing solution onto your photo. Software can't see! What is it we do after all if not see?

Joe

'Splain to me facial recognition, a feature even my camera has.

View attachment 50939

This shot sucks...it has simply dreadful, awful clownish color on the skin tones!!!

 

[snerd]

I've shot RAW+JPG since day one! I thought that's what I was supposed to do! LOL!! Plenty of room on a 64GB card, and it's 90mb/s, as if I would know if I need that speed or not. But it sure can save time on the few good shots that the camera turns out!