Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Reason for less RAW support??

Reply
Thread Tools

Reason for less RAW support??

 
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Raphael Bustin wrote:

> That's a fairly charitable (and dubious) view IMO -- given
> the complexity of the existing menu trees. It's easy enough
> to set JPG as the default -- in which case "clueless" newbies
> could happily remain ignorant of RAW mode.
>
> I'm afraid Roger and Dave L. are on the mark in their
> assesment of the matter. If you buy that assesment,
> loss of RAW mode isn't quite such a huge deal due to
> the inherent noise of these sensors.
>
> And speaking of Canon in particular, I've observed in
> other cases where the UI of low-end products bespeaks
> a rather low opinion of the typical user.


I honestly don't understand why every digital camera doesn't offer RAW,
after all every digital camera captures in its own RAW format and its
up to Adobe et al. to convert it into a useable image. In camera jpeg
creation requires in camera software, converted from RAW. It would be
like a publisher only offering a French version of a book that was
written in English.

mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bert Hyman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) () wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:

> I honestly don't understand why every digital camera doesn't offer
> RAW, after all every digital camera captures in its own RAW format
> and its up to Adobe et al. to convert it into a useable image.


A copy of Photoshop (for Windows) goes for about $600. Do you think
the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print 4x6 glossies
wants to buy that and then post-process every image?

The overwhelming majority of digital camera users wouldn't know what
to do with a RAW image if you gave it to them, and if you tried to
explain it, they'd tell you to get lost.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bert Hyman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
(E-Mail Removed) () wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:

> It would be like a publisher only offering a French version of a
> book that was written in English.


Your proposal sounds like publishing every book in Interlingua and
requiring the consumer to translate it to his native tongue.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Bert Hyman wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) () wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:
>
> > It would be like a publisher only offering a French version of a
> > book that was written in English.

>
> Your proposal sounds like publishing every book in Interlingua and
> requiring the consumer to translate it to his native tongue.


Not a very good comparison, when you installed the operating system on
your computer you would have been asked what language you wanted to
use, you would have had many choices because computer users around the
world speak many different languages. Forcing people to use some jpeg
conversion program is like asking a film camera owner to specify their
print dimensions and surface texture at the time of taking the photo. I
prefer having the neg to use as I desire.

How did we ever get to the situation where a file format (jpeg) that
was designed as a file format to display images on a monitor became
the "standard" format for digital cameras that people may want to
print?

Mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
markbau@iprimus.com.au
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

Bert Hyman wrote:

> A copy of Photoshop (for Windows) goes for about $600. Do you think
> the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print 4x6 glossies
> wants to buy that and then post-process every image?
>
> The overwhelming majority of digital camera users wouldn't know what
> to do with a RAW image if you gave it to them, and if you tried to
> explain it, they'd tell you to get lost.


Well why not make all cars automatic transmission? After all, most car
drivers would tell you that automatics are much easier to drive.

The unavoidable fact is that the instant you take a photo on a digital
camera the info is in a RAW format, it then gets processed by software
in the camera to come up with a jpeg. As all digital photos must go
through some sort of computer in order for them to be printed it only
makes sense that RAW should always be an option. My old S 50 took
stunning pics on RAW, its jpeg conversion was pedestrian. The ONLY
advantage of cameras converting their RAW images into jpegs is to be
able to cram more pics onto the miserly memory cards that most
manufacturers supply.

The bottom line, for me, is that Canon have lost a customer because
they don't see fit to make a compact with RAW capability.

Mark

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
On 31 Oct 2006 07:18:48 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>Bert Hyman wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) () wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:
>>
>> > It would be like a publisher only offering a French version of a
>> > book that was written in English.

>>
>> Your proposal sounds like publishing every book in Interlingua and
>> requiring the consumer to translate it to his native tongue.

>
>Not a very good comparison, when you installed the operating system on
>your computer you would have been asked what language you wanted to
>use, you would have had many choices because computer users around the
>world speak many different languages. Forcing people to use some jpeg
>conversion program is like asking a film camera owner to specify their
>print dimensions and surface texture at the time of taking the photo. I
>prefer having the neg to use as I desire.
>
>How did we ever get to the situation where a file format (jpeg) that
>was designed as a file format to display images on a monitor became
>the "standard" format for digital cameras that people may want to
>print?
>
>Mark


Maybe because it works well enough for that application.
Excellence comes at a price; not everyone is willing to pay the price
when 'good enough' is good enough.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 
Reply With Quote
 
timeOday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On a similar subject, I'm amazed by the number of serious film
> photographers that make the move to digital and can't see any benefit
> to shooting RAW.


I wonder how much the benefit really is. Certainly some informations is
lost in the conversion to jpeg, the question is how much visual
difference it makes. I understand there are some cameras that will save
each shot in both jpg and raw automatically. It would be interesting to
take the raw shot, process it, then try to match it by processing the
jpeg and see how well it could be made to match. Anybody seen a web
page with such an experiment?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ken Weitzel
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
timeOday wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> On a similar subject, I'm amazed by the number of serious film
>> photographers that make the move to digital and can't see any benefit
>> to shooting RAW.

>
> I wonder how much the benefit really is. Certainly some informations is
> lost in the conversion to jpeg, the question is how much visual
> difference it makes. I understand there are some cameras that will save
> each shot in both jpg and raw automatically. It would be interesting to
> take the raw shot, process it, then try to match it by processing the
> jpeg and see how well it could be made to match. Anybody seen a web
> page with such an experiment?


Hi...

The sp-350 not only does that, but it even lets you choose the
size/quality of jpeg it creates.

And - it lets you edit in camera your raw pics, outputting the result
as a new jpeg in your choice of size/quality.

Take care.

Ken
 
Reply With Quote
 
Maurice Hood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006
watch it , the olympus sp350 digital camera only has i.s.
on movie not stills
>
>



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
Reply With Quote
 
rafe b
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-31-2006

"Bert Hyman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns986D5C3E2C789VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> (E-Mail Removed) () wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com:
>
>> I honestly don't understand why every digital camera doesn't offer
>> RAW, after all every digital camera captures in its own RAW format
>> and its up to Adobe et al. to convert it into a useable image.

>
> A copy of Photoshop (for Windows) goes for about $600. Do you think
> the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print 4x6 glossies
> wants to buy that and then post-process every image?



That's a fallacious argument. There are plenty of
free and/or inexpensive tools these days that do
a good job of converting numerous RAW formats.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
raw at less than max pixel count?? ray Digital Photography 8 01-28-2012 01:27 AM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! jiajia wu ASP .Net 0 10-01-2009 01:50 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! lllll Ruby 0 06-08-2009 02:10 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! 6668 Ruby 0 05-14-2009 12:33 AM
How raw is RAW format? Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 4 12-22-2003 07:33 PM



Advertisments