Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Reason for less RAW support??

 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> 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.


I have already stated that the Canon S70 has raw.
So does the S60. Only the newer S80 does not
have raw.

Roger

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
Scott W wrote:

> Bert Hyman wrote:
>
>>Do you think the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print
>>4x6 glossies wants to post-process every image?

>
> So just because the camera can shoot raw why does that force anyone to
> use it at
> all much less all of the time?
>
>>Those who want raw file formats can find cameras that provide them.
>>
>>The idea that every camera should output some raw format is silly.
>>

> The question is that if raw is of value to even 5% of the uses why
> leave it off?
>
> I do think that it is a matter of control, the camera makers want to be
> in total control of how the final image is produced. This is the same
> reason that some camera manufacturers try to keep their raw formats
> proprietary. For some of these P&S camera the only way to keep the
> myth alive that they do will at high ISO settings it to filter out the
> noise heavily, something that don't really want to talk about.
>
> Scott


Scott,
This could be a marketing gimmick. With the megapixel
count of P&S equal to DSLRs, they need more features
to separate the products to force those who want raw
to buy a higher end camera. More profit.

Sort of like DEC when they came out with the VAX 730:
it was a 750 with no-ops inserted into the instruction
code to slow the cpu down! If they didn't do that,
people would have stopped buying 750s!

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Raphael Bustin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:12:33 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> What you say is logical and makes sense for camera owners, even
>for most of those that intend to never use RAW formats. But it
>doesn't make as much sense for camera manufacturers that want to
>position their products into different market segments.



Ah, you're saying it's simply a marketing decision -- that RAW
is a feature now relegated only to "high end" cameras.

Yes, that could be. But Dave L. and Roger have suggested
another explanation, which make sense to me.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
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?


Digital Camera Raw Converter Shadow Detail and Image Editor Limitations:
actors in Getting Shadow Detail in Images
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....shadow.detail

Jpeg versus raw also depends on the camera.

Digital Camera Raw versus Jpeg Conversion Losses
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
timeOday
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
Scott W wrote:
> 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?

>
>
> I have done this a number of time and often the jpeg is simply missing
> the needed information that is in the raw file.
>
> Here are a few of my test shots
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/raw_vs_jpeg
>
> This are from both DSLRs and the Sony F828, both show much more range
> when shooting in raw.
>
> Scott
>


Good info. Have you found any advantage for shots which are correctly
exposed in the first place? (Note I'm not knocking your test shots
here, I realize you purposely overexposed them for the test, and the
ability to recover from mistakes is a valuable advantage of RAW.)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
timeOday wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
> > timeOday wrote:

>
> Good info. Have you found any advantage for shots which are correctly
> exposed in the first place? (Note I'm not knocking your test shots
> here, I realize you purposely overexposed them for the test, and the
> ability to recover from mistakes is a valuable advantage of RAW.)


It depends on what you are after. I generally do not try to over
expose unless I know there is detail in very deep shadows I want to
bring out.

When I was shooting in jpeg mode I did a lot of checking histograms,
this is fine if you are shooting landscapes and have a lot of time to
get the shot but if you are shooting more dynamic subjects and don't
have time to keep checking the histogram it is really nice to know you
have some headroom to pull in what would otherwise be blown highlights.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-01-2006
A little off-topic, except for Fuji owners..

ASAAR wrote:
> A big drawback is the poor
> support for Fuji's .RAF files. As far as I've been able to tell,
> Fuji's supplied software offers little more than the ability to
> convert RAF files to TIFF.

I trust you have found this:
http://www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconVa...919/s7raw.html

And then, to have a chance of using it properly, this set of tutorials:
http://www.mattspinelli.com/rawediting.html

S7Raw is *very* impressive and seemingly comprehensive software, and
looks to be well-behaved from my limited use of it (haven't had the
s9500 for very long).

> So instead of dealing with 2.5mb JPG
> files, one captures 11mb RAF files that will be converted to 30mb
> TIFF files.

On the s9500, the raw-generated 16-bit Tiffs are 103Mb, so I don't know
what you are complaining about.. (O;

I only use raw for special occasions...

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
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.


A lot.

> Certainly some informations
> is lost in the conversion to jpeg, the question is how much visual
> difference it makes.


It depends.

Most people seem to fail to grasp the main advantage of RAW, which is for
post processing. If you don't post process then you won't see any real
difference. Computer monitors are only 8 bit per channel anyway, so you
can't actually see any difference between 8 and 16 bit.

It's when you do a lot of post processing that the advantages become clear.
You can make big changes to a RAW file that would ruin a jpeg. Some people
point out the advantage of being able to claw back some highlight detail if
you overexpose. I always make a point of not overexposing, so I find the
opposite to be more useful, i.e brightening dark shadows. Dark shadows in a
jpeg look awful when brightened a lot, there's very little detail and colour
there, but RAW contains a surprising amount.

Another big advantage with RAW is when you make big adjustments to
brightness and contrast in the sky. With jpeg a common problem is banding,
but that doesn't happen with RAW, unless you apply an insane amount of
adjustment. I'm quite fond of using contrast masking in certain types of
shots, to even out light levels. With older versions of Photoshop it was
only possible to use layers in 8 bit mode and this technique often caused
banding, but not any more. Boosting contrast in the sky (e.g. for more
dramatic clouds) also benefits from RAW.

> 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.


I've done this comparison many times. Often I'll mess about with a jpeg just
because it's quicker, but then I end up having to do it all over again
starting with the RAW file, because the result from the jpeg was so awful.

I've posted some comparisons here previously, but I can't remember what I
did with them offhand.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
timeOday wrote:

> Good info. Have you found any advantage for shots which are correctly
> exposed in the first place?


Regularly. It's not really a question of exposure, it's a question of
dynamic range. Back in my Velvia days I used to either avoid high contrast
subjects, use a graduated filter, or expose and compose appropriately to get
a silhouette or whatever. But since getting used to the high dynamic range
of RAW I now find myself seeking out the very high contrast subjects that I
used to avoid in the past.

My technique is to expose for the highlights (i.e. to fine tune the exposure
so that the highlights are on the far right of the histogram, but without
clipping), then brighten the shadows later in processing (if they need to be
brightened - I don't brighten them just for the sake of it).

Yesterday I was shooting a white lighthouse in bright sunlight with a dark
cave underneath, and many foreground rocks in shadow. Even with RAW I
couldn't capture the full dynamic range so I took multiple exposures and
blended them using Merge to HDR. There was no such thing as a "correct"
exposure for that scene. When I exposed for the lighthouse the rest of the
shot was badly underexposed. When I exposed for the scene as a whole it
resulted in blown out highlights and the rocks in shadow and the cave were
still too dark.

Taking multiple exposures and using layer masking or HDR is best for shots
with an extreme dynamic range, but if the dynamic range is high, but not
extreme, a single RAW shot may suffice. If the dynamic range is normal, a
jpeg may be be okay, provided you get the exposure right and don't do any
post processing, but personally I never shoot in jpeg.

If nothing else, the ability to alter the white balance later can sometimes
be a big advantage. Also, with Canon's "picture modes", you can easily
apply different modes to different pics when converting the RAW files in
DPP, which is a quick and easy way of selecting a different look for each
pic later, if you don't want to do any real post processing. Far better than
setting picture modes in the field, shooting jpeg and being stuck with your
original choice.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Saunders
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2006
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?

>>
>> 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.


Quite, and the software that comes with the camera will convert the RAW
files.

> Do you think the average consumer of a P&S camera who wants to print
> 4x6 glossies wants to post-process every image?


No, but if they screw up the exposure or white balance on an important shot,
I'm sure they'd appreciate the ability to recover it to a certain extent,
even if they had to ask their local photo expert to do it for them.

> Those who want raw file formats can find cameras that provide them.


Not if manufacturers stop providing it.

> The idea that every camera should output some raw format is silly.


I agree, there's not much need for RAW format in a cheap point and shoot. I
think what's being talked about here is RAW support being dropped from the
high-end "prosumer" point and shoots. Canon always used to offer this in
their G and S series, but now they've dropped it. I think this is a bad
decision.

Of course most serious photographers will choose a DSLR rather than a
compact now that prices have dropped to reasonable levels, but does every
serious photographer want to lug a DSLR around everywhere he goes?
Personally I'd like to have a decent "pocket" camera that I could take
everywhere, for those unexpected opportunity shots, but without RAW, forget
it.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk


 
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